What does OPSEC mean?

[George Wallace]

Have some of you wondered what OPSEC means?

Well, here is an example:

U.S. Unit Secretly in Pakistan Lends Ally Support
NY Times, Feb. 22
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/23/world/asia/23terror.html?_r=1&ref=todayspaper

BARA, Pakistan — More than 70 United States military advisers and technical specialists are secretly working in Pakistan to help its armed forces battle Al Qaeda and the Taliban in the country’s lawless tribal areas, American military officials said.

The Americans are mostly Army Special Forces soldiers who are training Pakistani Army and paramilitary troops, providing them with intelligence and advising on combat tactics, the officials said. They do not conduct combat operations, the officials added...

U.S. training Pakistani forces to fight Taliban
AP, Oct. 25, 2008
http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2008-10-24-pakistan-training_N.htm

ISLAMABAD, Pakistan (AP) — U.S. special forces have begun teaching a Pakistani paramilitary unit how to fight the Taliban and al-Qaeda, hoping to strengthen a key front-line force as violence surges on both sides of the border with Afghanistan.

The sensitive mission puts rare American boots on the ground in a key theater in the war against extremist groups, but it risks fanning anti-U.S. sentiment among Pakistani Muslims already angry over suspected CIA missile attacks on militants in the same frontier region...

I guess they aren't secret anymore.

 

[MarkOttawa]

George Wallace: How about a little credit, eh  :rage:?
http://forums.milnet.ca/forums/threads/83699/post-814465.html#msg814465

Mark
Ottawa

 

[dapaterson]

It's an OPSEC breach to reveal a source  >

 

[MarkOttawa]

Oooops  :-[!  For future  :-X.

Mark
Ottawa

 

[Zap]

Thats jokes hahah

 

[George Wallace]

Thats jokes hahah

???


English?

 

[tomahawk6]

If you are a Senator or the NYT OPSEC doesnt apply. :

 

[PanaEng]

There may be several reasons why that particular info was divulged: political (see, we are doing something to help Pak), preemptive (crap! that reporter got some info, we better clarify our support), no value (taliban already knows) or incompetence/ignorance (sadly the most common).
A lot of things that seem like juicy little tidbits may already have gone through a rigorous TRA review and decided to be released to keep the media hounds happy for a day or two.

cheers,
Frank

 

[Bzzliteyr]

redirection...

It's to cover the 5 brand new brigades we have sitting on the border...just waiting to march in...

Oops, I have said too much!! These are NOT the droids you're looking for....

/sweeps hand in Jedi mind trick fashion

 

[Starlight31]

Ummm,

Other People Sometimes Eavesdrop on Conversations??  To serve as a reminder, to ensure that people who have "Need to Know", know the information, and that Other people (Bad guys) are always trying to find the information out to have a tactical/information advantage.. Atleast that is what was explained to me, when I worked for NORAD!!

 

[PanaEng]

redirection...

It's to cover the 5 brand new brigades we have sitting on the border...just waiting to march in...

Oops, I have said too much!! These are NOT the droids you're looking for....

/sweeps hand in Jedi mind trick fashion

right, forgot that one.

My MIB flashlight erased all memory of the reference you are making ;-)

 

[Armymedic]

The NYT or G&M divulging strategically sensitive info is a breach of OPSEC.

Repeating what is posted in the NYT or G&M on this or any other website is not.

 

[ICFY95]

The NYT or G&M divulging strategically sensitive info is a breach of OPSEC.

Repeating what is posted in the NYT or G&M on this or any other website is not.

Telling a reporter of the NYT or G&M (or any other person not bound by the Official Secrets Act, and who does not have the 'need-to-know')  strategically sensitive info is a breach of OPSEC;

The acts of the NYT or G&M in publishing these leaks is "Reporting". 
The media may not always act responsibly with leaked info, but it is the CF and governments' job to protect sensitive info - not private enterprise media outlets.

 

[George Wallace]

The NYT or G&M divulging strategically sensitive info is a breach of OPSEC.

Repeating what is posted in the NYT or G&M on this or any other website is not.

Right!

Two Wrongs make a Right.

 

[Armymedic]

Telling a reporter of the NYT or G&M (or any other person not bound by the Official Secrets Act, and who does not have the 'need-to-know')  strategically sensitive info is a breach of OPSEC;

Right!

Two Wrongs make a Right.

Actually, that would be 3 wrongs....but really, who's counting? The first person should not have breached OPSEC. Once its breached by one...

 

[MarkOttawa]

Actually the point is that the NY Times did not breach any real secrecty, it was in effect only updating what had been reported four months before:
http://forums.milnet.ca/forums/threads/84224/post-814483.html#msg814483

Headlines are not truth--a real failing of the Globe and Mail:
http://toyoufromfailinghands.blogspot.com/2009/01/taliban-ciaims-i-prefer-original-ap.html
http://toyoufromfailinghands.blogspot.com/2008/02/how-many-troops-are-needed-at-kandahar.html

Mark
Ottawa