The Insider

By John Liang
November 18, 2011 at 8:59 PM

House Armed Services readiness subcommittee Chairman Randy Forbes (R-VA) isn't happy with the response he received from the Pentagon regarding the national-security implications of a proposed joint venture between GE and Chinese company AVIC.

In an Oct. 17 letter to Defense Secretary Leon Panetta, Forbes worried that technology developed for the F-22A and F-35 fighter aircraft could help China develop its own military aviation programs if the proposed joint venture took place. Further:

While I understand the Defense Technology Security Administration (DTSA) and the Bureay of Industry and Security (BIS) have conducted an informal licensing review of the military-origin technology involved in this joint venture, I also understand there has not been a National Security Review of this transaction with the PRC by DTSA and the other appropriate agencies of the federal government. Such a review would focus closely on the enforcement and compliance regime proposed by the joint venture. I urge you to immediately direct such a review to be conducted.

In an Oct. 31 response, Deputy Defense Secretary for Policy Michele Fluornoy wrote that there wasn't much the Pentagon could do:

Under the Export Administration Act, DoD has no statutory authority to administer, enforce or mandate any aspects of the law that govern the export of dual-use commodities. The Export Administration Regulations (EAR), administered by the Department of Commerce (DoC), require DoC to consult with the Departments of Energy, State, and Defense regarding the export of those commodities that are controlled for national security reasons. DoD, through the Defense Technology Security Administration (DTSA), reviews only those applications referred to it by DoC.

But that wasn't enough for Forbes. In a letter sent today to Panetta, Forbes writes:

I understand that neither GE nor the Department of Commerce have asserted the necessity for an export control license for the joint venture between GE and AVIC and that the Department of Defense may not have independent authority to pose a binding objection or block the transaction. However, this does not abrogate the Department of Defense from advising Congress, U.S. defense contractors, and the general public of the potential national security hazards of such technology transfers.

By John Liang
November 17, 2011 at 10:58 PM

House Armed Services strategic forces subcommittee Chairman Michael Turner (R-OH) and four other committee Republicans are calling for a "domestic hedge" against ballistic missile threats.

In a Nov. 17, 2011, letter to Defense Secretary Leon Panetta, the lawmakers write:

In 2009, the Administration announced that it would reduce the development of the homeland missile defense system by severely limiting the purchase of ground-based interceptors (GBI) for deployment in the United States and by cancelling the deployment of the Third Site system in the Czech Republic and Poland.  As you know, the only missile defense capability to project the homeland currently in place is the ground-based midcourse defense system (GMD) in Alaska and California, which this Administration and the previous Congress cut by over $1.65 billion.  At the time, this decision was explained on the basis of "new intelligence" that justified de-prioritizing national missile defense in favor of defense against regional missile threats.

With regard to the intelligence, we believe this decision was in error at the time and that new information reaffirms that error.  We further believe it is now critically important that the Administration immediately reprioritize the defense of the homeland.  And we believe your predecessor, Secretary Gates, was of the same view when he announced prior to his departure from office that, "with the continued development of long-range missiles and potentially a road-mobile intercontinental ballistic missile and their continued development of nuclear weapons, North Korea is in the process of becoming a direct threat to the United States."

Almost from the day of the announcement of the Administration’s new architecture for missile defense, the House Armed Services Committee has been pressing the Administration for a "hedging strategy" to be assembled and implemented for the defense of the homeland.    And Administration witnesses have repeatedly promised such a strategy.  For example, Dr. Jim Miller, the Principal Deputy Under Secretary of Defense for Policy, told the Strategic Forces Subcommittee in his March 2, 2011 testimony that, "the Department is in the process of finalizing and refining its hedge strategy." Less than a month later, Dr. Brad Roberts, Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Nuclear and Missile Defense Policy, testified that, "[t]he Administration is considering additional steps to strengthen the U.S. hedge posture . . . we are evaluating the deployment timelines associated with fielding additional capabilities."

Despite these commitments, and despite passage by the House of section 233 of the FY12 National Defense Authorization Act, the Congress has received no "hedging strategy" from the Department of Defense.  Further, we are hearing from the Department of Defense that the Administration has no plans to restore the buy of GBI interceptors planned by the previous Administration, and may only be prepared to buy new missiles solely for testing purposes.  What's more, we are informed that the Administration may be preparing to walk away from its commitment to develop the SM-3 IIB missile, perhaps by downgrading it to a mere technology risk reduction program.  It would be a double blow to the defense of the homeland if the Administration now walks away from the IIB missile without restoring programs for missile defense of the United States.

Such decisions, which will further compromise the national missile defense of the United States, may be a result of the Administration's decision to build a missile defense system in Europe, with little application for the defense of the United States, as a contribution to NATO; in other words, to build a missile defense shield for Europe at enormous cost to the United States.  Continued short-changing of the missile defense budget may force Congress to make a choice if the missile defense of the homeland continues to be deprioritized by the Administration.

In view of the briefing the subcommittee received this week, we do not believe the United States can afford further delay in the release of the hedging strategy by the Department of Defense.  We urge you to take steps to ensure it is completed and briefed to the Congress before the end of the year.  We further urge you to ensure that when the FY13 budget for the Department of Defense is submitted to the Congress next February, it restores funding to homeland missile defense programs to counter the rising long-range ballistic missile threat to the United States.  The defense of the United States must be the top priority for the Department of Defense.

By Jen Judson
November 17, 2011 at 6:54 PM

The Medium Extended Air Defense System completed its first flight test at White Sands Missile Range in New Mexico today, meeting all test objectives, according to Lockheed Martin spokeswoman Cheryl Amerine.

Lockheed Martin, MEADS' maker, intended to validate the hardware design of the MEADS battle manager, lightweight launcher and the Patriot Advanced Capability-3 Missile Segment Enhancement (MSE) missile. The company also hoped to demonstrate the 360-degree capability of the system, Marty Coyne, Lockheed Martin's MEADS business development director, told Inside the Army today.

Before the test, Coyne explained how it would proceed. A launch command would be sent from the MEADS battle manager to the lightweight launcher positioned several kilometers away, Coyne said. An MSE missile would be launched out of the system at a 70-degree angle and would then “literally bend over its back,” Coyne said, to hit a simulated target directly behind the launcher.

Although simulated tests have been performed, Coyne said, this was the first time MEADS launched an MSE missile.

The data collected from the test will be leveraged for future simulations, “and it will help us reduce risk for our follow-on flight test,” Coyne said.

The next test, scheduled for the fourth quarter of 2012, will involve an intercept attempt. It will also introduce MEADS' 360-degree fire control radar tracking system.

The program underwent a critical design review 15 months ago, Coyne said. However, the trinational program remains on very thin ice after the Pentagon decided to terminate U.S. involvement in the effort after the current phase ends.

“MEADS provides more capability at a lower cost to protect our soldiers against a growing air and missile threat. The MEADS lightweight launcher is one of the most advanced mobile launchers in existence today and was designed to be easily adaptable to a variety of vehicles,” NATO MEADS Management Agency General Manager Gregory Kee said in Lockheed Martin statement today.

By Christopher J. Castelli
November 17, 2011 at 3:29 PM

The White House announced this morning that United Technologies subsidiary Sikorsky has been selected by Brunei’s defense ministry to supply 12 Black Hawk S-70i helicopters for the Royal Brunei Armed Forces Support Helicopter Project. The deal is valued at $325 million, with $200 million in U.S. export content supporting an estimated 1,100 U.S jobs, the White House said in a statement.

“The deal also contains options for a second phase that will double the project's size, value, and job creation,” the statement says. “This is one of the largest defense procurements in Brunei's history." Brunei and the Connecticut-based contractor will work to finalize the terms and conditions of the deal.

The announcement, issued during President Obama’s visit to the Asia-Pacific region, also includes export deals for commercial jets and engines worth billions of dollars. Boeing will sell 737s to Indonesia's Lion Air and 777s to Singapore Airlines. And General Electric will sell engines to Garuda Airlines of Indonesia.

By Jason Sherman
November 17, 2011 at 2:44 PM

The Army launched and successfully guided an innovative hypersonic vehicle to its intended target in the Pacific today in a test flight intended to demonstrate technologies necessary for a Conventional Prompt Global Strike capability, the Pentagon said in a statement.

Army Space and Missile Command/Army Forces Strategic Command conducted the maiden flight of the Advanced Hypersonic Weapon earlier this morning, according to the Defense Department, which called the prototype “a first-of-its-kind glide vehicle, designed to fly within the earth's atmosphere at hypersonic speed and long range.”

The vehicle was launched from the Pacific Missile Range Facility, Kauai, Hawaii to the Reagan Test Site, U.S. Army Kwajalein Atoll.

According to DOD:

The objective of the test is to collect data on hypersonic boost-glide technologies and test range performance for long-range atmospheric flight. Mission emphasis is aerodynamics; navigation, guidance, and control; and thermal protection technologies.

A three-stage booster system launched the AHW glide vehicle and successfully deployed it on the desired flight trajectory. The vehicle flew a non-ballistic glide trajectory at hypersonic speed to the planned impact location at the Reagan Test Site. Space, air, sea, and ground platforms collected vehicle performance data during all phases of flight. The data collected will be used by the Department of Defense to model and develop future hypersonic boost-glide capabilities.

The AHW program is managed and executed by the U.S. Army Space and Missile Defense Command/Army Forces Strategic Command program office in Huntsville, Ala. The booster system and glide vehicle were developed by Sandia National Laboratories, Albuquerque, N.M. and the thermal protection system by the U.S. Army Aviation and Missile Research Development and Engineering Center, Huntsville, Ala.

The Department of Defense is using AHW to develop and demonstrate technologies for Conventional Prompt Global Strike (CPGS). As part of the CPGS effort, the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency conducted boost-glide flight tests in April 2010 and August 2011, results from which were used in planning the AHW flight test.

By John Liang
November 16, 2011 at 9:48 PM

One lawmaker is using China's increased military buildup as a pretext for not cutting any more funds to the Defense Department. Citing the latest "U.S.-China Economic and Security Review Commission Report To Congress," Rep. Randy Forbes (R-VA) says in a statement:

"This year's U.S.-China Commission report to Congress further confirms that China is strategically positioning itself to militarily and economically challenge U.S. influence and capabilities in the Asia Pacific.  China remains steadfast in its commitment to build up the Chinese military, increasing its defense budget to bolster regional dominance and intimidate its neighbors.  In addition, the report makes it abundantly clear that China is actively seeking to exploit the United States' military vulnerabilities as the U.S. government fails to stop the theft and voluntary forfeiture of American technology to Chinese state-owned companies.

"And while China is building aircraft carriers, stealing American technology, and actively seeking 'space supremacy,' Congress is busy dismantling the United States military with arbitrary budget cuts that could total a trillion dollars, diminishing its Navy to World War I levels, and effectively forfeiting U.S. leadership in space.  Those eager to gut the defense budget ought to think twice before ceding U.S. regional influence in the Pacific to an authoritarian nation that violates basic human rights, flagrantly disregards the very notion of intellectual property, and routinely disregards the sovereignty of other nations," said Forbes.

By Jason Sherman
November 15, 2011 at 10:42 PM

The Senate Armed Services Committee today revised its fiscal year 2012 defense authorization bill, wringing $21 billion from an earlier version the panel passed on June 16, according to committee statement. The spending reductions were imposed to bring the committee's version of the National Defense Authorization Act for FY-12 in line with discretionary spending limits set in August as part of the Budget Control Act of 2011.

The highly unusual second mark-up of the authorization bill was agreed to unanimously, according to the statement, which does not identify which programs were cut from the previous version of the bill. From the committee release:

The new bill would also clarify a number of provisions addressing detainee matters in an effort to address concerns raised by the Administration and others.  As requested by the Administration, the new bill would clarify that the section providing detention authority does not expand the existing authority to detain under the Authorization for Use of Military Force Force and make Guantanamo-related restrictions one-year requirements instead of permanent restrictions.

The new bill would also modify a provision requiring military custody of al Qaeda members who attack the United States (subject to a national security waiver) to clarify the President’s authority to decide who makes determinations of coverage, how they are made, and when they are made.  As modified, the provision makes it clear that these determinations will not interfere with any ongoing law enforcement operations or interrogations.  Under the modified provision, the Executive Branch has the flexibility to keep a covered detainee in civilian custody pursuant to a national security determination, or to transfer a military detainee for trial in the civilian courts. The Administration agreed to have military custody apply to al Qaeda members captured outside the United States (subject to a national security waiver) but disagrees with the committee decision not to preclude the application of the provision inside the United States.

By John Liang
November 15, 2011 at 7:53 PM

While at least one Wall Street analysis firm doesn't think Congress and the Obama administration will end up with the maximum 23 percent cut to defense programs by next week's deadline, more cuts could still come in future years. According to a research note just published by Credit Suisse analysts:

We view maximum sequestration as unlikely, but recognize that time is running out & political agendas within the committee remain divided. We think that a deal is still possible, and could extend the recent relative outperformance in the stocks. However, we see limited longer-term sector upside due to continued incremental negative news flow and potential for further declines in consensus estimates. Regardless of what is decided this year, we think fiscal reality will require further cuts later, leading to a "boiling frog" scenario for where cuts are $1T+ over a longer period . . .

The note was published in the wake of a letter sent this week by Defense Secretary Leon Panetta to lawmakers -- the Pentagon's most detailed response yet to the question of what would happen to the Defense Department budget should "sequestration" result from a congressional supercommittee's inability to meet the terms of a budget-cutting agreement with the president. As InsideDefense.com reported yesterday:

Panetta said the Joint Strike Fighter program would receive minimal life extensions and upgrades, saving DOD $80 billion, while the Air Force's nascent bomber program would be shelved until the mid-2020s, saving $18 billion. LCS, along with its associated mission modules, would be cut, saving the Pentagon $22 billion.

Under maximum sequestration, Panetta wrote, the reduction in defense spending could soar up to 23 percent beginning in FY-13, with the exact percentage dependent on whether President Obama chooses to exercise his authority to exempt military personnel from cuts.

"A cut of this magnitude would be devastation in itself, but it gets worse," Panetta wrote. "Under current law, that 23 percent reduction would have to be applied equally to each major investment and construction program. Such a large cut, applied in this indiscriminate manner, would render most of our ship and construction projects unexecutable -- you cannot buy three quarters of a ship or a building -- and seriously damage other modernization efforts."

Panetta wrote the Nov. 14 letter in response to questions he received from McCain and Graham on Nov. 3. The two lawmakers asked Panetta to describe the specific options and types of actions DOD would be required to take should a sequester result from the supercommittee's inability to reach an agreement by Nov. 23. McCain and Graham wrote in their letter to Panetta that it was imperative that Congress "be fully informed of the effects of a sequester on our military" -- stating "concrete information" was necessary for Congress to do its job.

By John Liang
November 15, 2011 at 4:31 PM

The Pentagon's second-generation satellite missile warning system -- the Space Based Infrared System -- suffered a six-month development delay, according to the Defense Department's latest Selected Acquisition Reports released yesterday:

SBIRS High is an integrated system of multiple space and ground elements, provides global infrared coverage, satisfying requirements in the following mission areas: Missile Warning, Missile Defense, Technical Intelligence, and Battlespace Awareness.

This quarterly exception SAR was submitted to report a schedule slip in the Mission Control Station Increment 2 Certification from December 2015 to June 2016 caused by the Flight Software System (FSS) recovery. This milestone is being revised to align with the revised ground delivery strategy.

Since the last SAR, the program successfully launched the first SBIRS High satellite (GEO 1) on May 7, 2011, and all activities are on path to bring GEO 1 into formal operations in the fall of 2012.

On Nov. 4, Inside the Air Force reported that service officials had recently defined the data universe for assessing the SBIRS program's audit readiness. Further:

Service officials achieved the milestone on Sept. 15, which is 15 days earlier than originally scheduled, according to Doug Bennett, the associate deputy assistant secretary for financial operations for the service's office of the assistant secretary for financial management and comptroller. Air Force officials defined the scope of the effort on June 23, according to Bennett.

The data universe for the SBIRS program involves the examination of about 59 contracts, according to Bennett. Service officials are now working to create a reconciliation process for those contracts, he said.

"We have had some discussions about the appropriate methodology for asserting that, whether it is the 100 percent reconciliation or sampling," Bennett said during a Nov. 1 interview with Inside the Air Force.

The SBIRS program has become the pilot program for developing an approach to audit readiness, according to Bennett. The program was chosen because it is a major acquisition and a newer program. The first geosynchronous satellite was launched on May 7 from Cape Canaveral Air Force Station, FL, on a United Launch Alliance (ULA) Atlas V rocket. ULA is a joint venture between Lockheed Martin and Boeing, and Lockheed Martin is the prime contractor for SBIRS.

By Amanda Palleschi
November 14, 2011 at 10:04 PM

Rep. Frank Wolf (R-VA) today sent a letter to Defense Secretary Leon Panetta expressing support for a national security review of the recently announced joint venture between General Electric and the Chinese firm AVIC. Wolf's letter follows one sent by House Armed Services Committee member Randy Forbes (R-VA).

Both Wolf and Forbes want a Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS) review of the venture in addition to a national security review.

Wolf calls the joint venture “troubling for a number of reasons.”

“The GE-AVIC joint venture could provide the Chinese with years, if not decades, worth of U.S. avionics technology and will fuel their aeronautics capabilities, potentially at great expense to our national and economic security,” Wolf writes.

Forbes’ Oct. 17 letter to Panetta says the General Electric-AVIC team aims to develop an Integrated Modular Avionics (IMA) hardware and software system for jets to be manufactured in the United States, which would compete with American defense contractors.

“Given its military origin, I am deeply concerned, once in the PRC, it will wind up aiding the military aviation programs of the People’s Liberation Army Air Force (PLAAF), which is even now at work developing its J-20 fifth generation fighter that appears to be intended to threaten U.S. air supremacy in East Asia,” Forbes wrote.

By John Liang
November 14, 2011 at 7:37 PM

Acting Pentagon acquisition chief Frank Kendall issued a memo last week that sets up Defense Department policy "and assigns responsibilities for the DOD Joint Services Weapon and Laser System Safety Review Processes."

The Nov. 9 memo sets out the following DOD policy on laser system reviews:

a. Address safety throughout the acquisition process.

b. Protect DoD personnel from accidental death, injury, or occupational illness.

c. Protect the public from risk of death, injury, illness, or property damage because of DoD activities.

d. Conduct safety reviews for joint weapon and laser systems through the collaborative meetings of the Services' existing safety boards and the Joint Laser Approval Process, respectively.

e. Conduct the Joint Weapon Safety Review Process and the Joint Laser Approval Process for joint weapon and laser systems in conjunction with, not in addition to, the existing Service weapon safety and laser safety review processes. These joint reviews include the Services' existing weapon, fuze, ignition system, software, and laser safety review boards working collaboratively to provide one set of joint weapon or laser safety findings for a joint system.

By John Liang
November 11, 2011 at 4:53 PM

The Defense Policy Board plans to hold its quarterly meeting at the end of this month, according to a Federal Register notice.

During the meeting, the board will swear in its new members, which include Madeleine Albright, former secretary of state; Jamie Gorelick, former deputy attorney general; Jane Harman, former congresswoman (D-CA); retired Gen. James Cartwright, former vice chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff; and retired Adm. Gary Roughead, former chief of naval operations. Defense Secretary Leon Panetta announced their membership on Oct. 4.

According to the Nov. 14 Federal Register notice, published today due to the Veterans Day holiday, the purpose of the meeting is as follows:

To obtain, review and evaluate classified information related to the DPB's mission to advise on: (a) Issues central to strategic DoD planning; (b) policy implications of U.S. force structure and force modernization and on DoD's ability to execute U.S. defense strategy; (c) U.S. regional defense policies; and (d) other research and analysis of topics raised by the Secretary of Defense, the Deputy Secretary or the Under Secretary of Defense for Policy.

As for the meeting's agenda:

Beginning at 8:30 a.m. on November 29 through the end of the meeting on November 30, the DPB will have secret level discussions on national security matters that will deal with U.S., and Allied force structure, potential threats and broad national security issues within the Pacific Rim, the Eastern Mediterranean, NATO, and nuclear deterrence.

By Dan Dupont
November 10, 2011 at 10:45 PM

The Defense Department made a big contract announcement today in the area of foreign language services:

CWU, Inc., Clearwater, Fla. (W911W4-12-D-0008); Buffalo Group, Reston, Va. (W911W4-12-D-0007); Global Executive Management, Hudson, Fla. (W911W4-12-D-0006); Multi Lingual Solutions, Inc., Rockville, Md. (W911W4-12-D-0005); Strategic Intelligence Group, Fairfax, Va. (W911W4-12-D-0004); Strategic Solutions Unlimited, Inc., Fayetteville, N.C. (W911W4-12-D-0003); Szanca Solutions, Inc., Bedford, Pa. (W911W4-12-D-0002); and Valbin Corp., Bethesda, Md. (W911W4-12-D-0001), were awarded a $9,700,000,000 fixed-price and cost-reimbursable-task-order contract between 14 contractors. The award will provide for the procurement of foreign language services in support of the Defense Language Interpretation Translation Enterprise program. Work location will be determined with each task order, with an estimated completion date of Oct. 26, 2016. The bid was solicited through the Internet, with 11 bids received. The U.S. Army Intelligence and Security Command, Fort Belvoir, Va., is the contracting activity.

The announcement comes on the heels of a GAO report and subsequent hearing on language training, as Inside the Army reports this week:

The Army struggles to maintain and update records on language and culture training and has yet to develop a solid plan to sustain language skills among soldiers, according to a Government Accountability Office report issued last week.

The service admitted to these difficulties at a Nov. 3 House Armed Services emerging threats and capabilities subcommittee hearing. "We think the GAO report [is] not untrue in terms of there is work to do, but we believe we have grown substantially," the Army's strategy, plans and policy director, Maj. Gen. Peter Bayer, told lawmakers.

On the irregular warfare spectrum, the Army has to "have increased cultural and language capability, so we initiated a number of programs to do it," Bayer said. Discussing one of the limiting factors for units deployed to theater, Bayer said "when you are gone a year and when you are home a year, to try and create the type of language capacity we are talking about in the general purpose formations is quite challenging."

In examining the practices of both the Army and the Marine Corps, GAO found the Army hasn't "fully captured information within the service-level training and personnel systems on service members who completed training or their corresponding proficiency," due to incomplete data fields leading to inconsistencies, according to a summary of the Oct. 31 report. Additionally, there are "multiple opportunities" for hard-copy forms often used in tracking language proficiency "to be lost or human error in data entry," the report states.

The Army established a task force in January 2011 to improve the system, the report said, and is at "varying stages of completing its work."

Because the Army's tracking system for language and culture training is flawed, the service doesn't have the information it needs to assess the progress of individuals or future operational needs, according to the report.

The report also found the Army has not developed plans to sustain acquired language skills, although the service has made "considerable investments to provide service members with extensive predeployment language training." The Army has invested about $12 million in predeployment Afghan language training since 2009, the report states.

GAO found that much of the follow-on language training was voluntary and that the Army hadn't figured out which service members would get additional training to keep them fresh, nor had it determined how much training they would need.

By Christopher J. Castelli
November 10, 2011 at 5:38 PM

Huntington Ingalls Industries President and Chief Executive Officer Mike Petters said today the shipbuilder is disputing the Navy’s decision to limit progress payments on a multimillion-dollar destroyer contract.

During a conference call on corporate earnings, Petters was asked by Citigroup analyst Jason Gursky about Inside the Pentagon's report today that the Navy will withhold 5 percent of progress payments for the $698 million contract awarded in September for the construction of an Arleigh Burke-class destroyer (DDG-114) at Ingalls shipyard in Mississippi. The Navy's decision follows revelations earlier this year that Ingalls was breaking more than half of the Defense Department's rules for delivering weapons on time and on budget.

"In all of our contracts, we usually end up with several kinds of disputes with our customer over various issues," Petters said. "And this particular one, I think, has to do with earned value management systems." He said the company has "engaged with" the Navy on the subject and "will continue" to do so. Petters said he does not expect the Navy's decision to impact the outlook and cash flows for the business.

By John Liang
November 9, 2011 at 7:54 PM

The Pentagon last week issued an instruction on how to manage reporting "suspicious activities" that take place on military bases.

The new policy "establishes DOD policy, assigns responsibilities, and prescribes procedures for the documentation, storage, and exchange of suspicious activity reports (SAR) through law enforcement channels to improve the protection of DOD personnel, facilities, and forces in transit," according to the Nov. 1 memo, signed by Under Secretary of Defense for Policy Michèle Flournoy.

Flournoy's new policy covers the following:

a. DoD efforts to counter terrorism and terrorist threats shall address protection of DoD personnel, facilities, and activities.

b. The eGuardian system shall serve as the exclusive DoD law enforcement SAR system and shall be employed by DoD LEOs, analysts, and technical contractors assigned, attached, or detailed to law enforcement agencies. The eGuardian system may not be employed by non-DoD LEO personnel as defined in the Glossary.

c. SARs and other force protection threat information guide DoD efforts to:

(1) Identify and address threats to the DoD at the earliest opportunity.

(2) Implement information-driven and risk-based detection, prevention, deterrence, response, and protection efforts immediately.

(3) Identify persons involved in terrorism-related activities and threats to the DoD.

d. To strengthen DoD efforts to fight terrorist threats:

(1) Those responsible for protecting DoD resources must have timely access to properly acquired force protection threat information, particularly information that indicates a potential threat regarding those who want to attack the United States, their plans, capabilities, and activities, and the targets that they intend to attack.

(2) SAR and force protection threat information shall be immediately available to, administered by, and shared among appropriate DoD law enforcement and security personnel in support of DoD missions to the maximum extent permitted by law, regulation, Executive order (E.O.), and DoD issuances for force protection purposes.

(3) This information shall be made available to other DoD personnel to the maximum extent permitted by law, regulation, E.O., and DoD issuances for force protection purposes.

e. Personally identifiable information concerning individuals shall be handled in strict compliance with section 552a of title 5, United States Code (U.S.C.) also known as "The Privacy Act of 1974" (Reference (e)), DoD Directive 5400.11, and DoD 5400.11-R, (References (f) and (g)), other applicable laws, and regulations and policies in accordance with Director of Administration and Management (DA&M) Memorandum (Reference (h)). The collection, use, maintenance, and dissemination of information critical to the success of the DoD efforts to counter terrorist threats must comply with all applicable laws, regulations, and policies regarding the safeguarding of personal freedoms, civil liberties, and information privacy.

f. When proposing, developing, and implementing DoD-proposed legislation or DoD issuances pertaining to suspicious activity reporting that retain or enhance a particular authority, the DoD Component shall balance the need for the authority with the need to protect privacy and civil liberties; provide adequate guidelines and oversight to confine properly its use; and ensure adequate protections and training exist to protect privacy and civil liberties in accordance with applicable law, including Public Law 110-53 (Reference (i)).

The new policy does not cover Pentagon intelligence and counterintelligence component activities, according to the memo.