'Chaosistan': Stanley McChrystal Mistakenly Reveals Secret CIA Report

newsweek.com:

In his widely reported London speech earlier this month, Gen. Stanley McChrystal, the U.S. commander in Afghanistan, described how people constantly offer him ideas for fixing that country's problems. One of the more unusual recommendations, he suggested, came from a paper that advocated using a "plan called 'Chaosistan.' " McChrystal said it advised letting Afghanistan become a "Somalia-like haven of chaos that we simply manage from outside," but there was no further explanation of its origins.

Two U.S. intelligence officials, who asked for anonymity when discussing a sensitive matter, say that the reference almost certainly comes from a recently published, and secret, CIA analysis titled "Chaosistan."

Read the whole story: newsweek.com

Comments

[prayforroy]

OE's explanation of levels of classification is a smokescreen.

Within any classified documentation there exists a mixture of classified and unclassified material. OE is hoping to portray the release of certain materials from a classified document as unclas, thus rendereing it ok and harmless.

There are several problems with OE's disingenuousness:

1. Do we know McChrystal's revelations were unclas? OE wants everyone to believe this.
2. One of the first elements of protection of classified material is a need to know. This means that just because material can be released (either because its unclas or to an audience that has the appropriate security clearance)--does not mean it should be.

[OdinsEye]

"Within any classified documentation there exists a mixture of classified and unclassified material."

Which is exactly what I said. Thanks for agreeing.

"OE is hoping to portray the release of certain materials from a classified document as unclas, thus rendereing it ok and harmless."

If those items are marked as unclas, this is true.

"1. Do we know McChrystal's revelations were unclas? OE wants everyone to believe this."

No, what I clearly said is that we do not know.

"2. One of the first elements of protection of classified material is a need to know. This means that just because material can be released (either because its unclas or to an audience that has the appropriate security clearance)--does not mean it should be."

If it is unclas and not SBU, then need to know is not a factor.


Back to the drawing board for you.

[OdinsEye]

So what does all the information I posted below mean?

It means that:

1) Relying on the press's definition of secret is a problem.

2) Just because infomation may have come from a classified document does not necessarily mean that the information is classified.

[OdinsEye]

Thanks jasjohn128.

[jasjohn128]

You're welcome. Good stuff.

[OdinsEye]

OK, so, having explained about the categories of information, let's look at how a classified document is laid out:

Unclassified Title: This is a name which can be used to openly refer to the report. If the name would itself reveal classified information, then it is usually given an unclas project or program designator.

For example, an unclas title might be "Operating With Indigenous Forces". If the name would reveal information that should be protected, like "Directed Energy Weapon Vulnerabilities of KH-53 Illudium Stealth Satellites", then it would be given a designator like "CORKED BAT".

Inside the document, classified and unclassified information will be presented. While the entire document is marked to the highest classification of the information given, if a page, paragraph, or data itself is unclas, it will contain a mark showing that it is unclas and releasable. Usually this is done with a (U) preceding the unclass info. The classified info will be preceded with a (S) or (TS).

Example:

(S) The fully fueled weight of the KH-53 is 2273 kg.

(TS) The KH-53 is susceptable to being blinded by a 532 nm wavelength laser.

(U) The KH-53 is silver colored.

[OdinsEye]

Actually my sentence should have read "The classified info will be preceded with a (C), (S), or (TS)."

Also, all this info I have given is unclas and can easily be verified via military regulations availible online.

[OdinsEye]

Trying it again


Information - Not sensistive, unclassified
..........­..........­|- Sensitive but unclassified - For Official Use Only (FOUO)
..........­..........­|.........­..........­..........­..........­..........­|- Law Enforcement Sensitive (LES)
..........­..........­|.........­..........­..........­..........­..........­|- Essential Elements of Freindly Information (EEFI)
..........­..........­|.........­..........­..........­..........­..........­|- et al
..........­..........­|
..........­..........­|- Classified - Confidential
..........­..........­..........­..........­..|- Secret
..........­..........­..........­..........­..|- Top Secret - (Normal)
..........­..........­..........­..........­..........­..........­.....|- SCI/SAP - Compartment or program

[OdinsEye]

OK, that worked a little better. If the mods can delete the previous attempt, that would be great.

The above is how the government categorizes information. Note that "secret" is a very specific category.

Now, here is how the press usually categorizes information:

Information - Unclassified
..........­..........­| - Secret

[OdinsEye]

BTW, I have corrected numerous reporters who claimed that something was "secret" when in fact it was not.

[OdinsEye]

Let's see if this formats OK

Information - Not sensistive, unclassified
|- Sensitive but unclassified - For Official Use Only (FOUO)
| |- Law Enforcement Sensitive (LES)
| |- Essential Elements of Freindly Information (EEFI)
| |- et al
|
|- Classified - Confidential
|- Secret
|- Top Secret - (Normal)
|- SCI/SAP - Compartment or program

[OdinsEye]

Anyone who has dealt with classified documents knowns that there is usually an unclassified title and that there will be sections of the document which are unlcassified. Without seeing the document, it is unclear if what the General mentioned is actually classified or not.

Furthermore, the press routinely calls things "secret" which are not. For the press, "secret" means anything from FOUO and other sensitive but unclassified information, all the way to top secret SCI information. For the government, "secret" is a specific category of classified information. So again, without seeing the document, it is unclear if the information the General mentioned is actually classified or not.

[blueskybigstar]

I wonder how many CIA shills are on this site trying to argue in some way that this is okay. I could not believe what I was reading. This is e v i l to the tenth power.

[shivasquest]

Sounds good where do we sign up!!
Let them kill each other and we can spend all that money we save on protecting ourselves.

[OdinsEye]

The U.S. Postal Service has recently announced its recommended mailing dates for delivery by Christmas to our U.S. military troops serving overseas at APO/FPO addresses.

Holiday mail for our U.S. troops stationed in Iraq and Afghanistan should be sent by Dec. 4 for arrival by Christmas. Holiday mail going to other military overseas APO/FPO locations should be sent by Dec. 11. Except for military mail going to Iraq and Afghanistan (APO/FPO AE ZIP 093), Express Mail can also be used to mail packages to other overseas military locations until Dec. 18 for delivery by Christmas.

2009 OVERSEAS MILITARY HOLIDAY MAILING DEADLINES

Military Mail Addressed To Express Mail® Military Service (EMMS)1/ First-Class Mail® Letters/Cards Priority Mail® Parcel Airlift Mail (PAL) 2/ Space Available Mail (SAM) 3/ Parcel Post®

APO/FPO AE ZIPs 090-092 Dec 18/Dec 11/Dec 11/Dec 4/Nov 28/Nov 13

APO/FPO AE ZIP 093 N/A /Dec 4/Dec 4/Dec 1/Nov 21/Nov 13

APO/FPO AE ZIPs 094-098 Dec 18/Dec 11/Dec 11/Dec 4/Nov 28/Nov 13

APO/FPO AA ZIPs 340 Dec 18/Dec 11/Dec 11/Dec 4/Nov 28/Nov 13

APO/FPO AP ZIPs 962-966 Dec 18/Dec 11/Dec 11/Dec 4/Nov 28/Nov 13

[OdinsEye]

The Postal Service continues to show support to those serving in the armed forces by offering free Military Care Kits, designed specifically for military families sending packages overseas. The mailing kits can be ordered by phone by calling 1-800-610-8734 and asking for the Military Care Kit. Each kit includes two "America Supports You" large Priority Mail Flat-Rate boxes, four medium-sized Priority Mail Flat-Rate boxes, six Priority Mail labels, one roll of Priority Mail tape and six customs forms with envelopes.

[jasjohn128]

Ummm, what's the big deal here? If CIA's analysts wrote the report, they did so because it's what they come to work for.

And where's the harm in McChrystal referencing its content? For all we know, this option was meant to be leaked at this time... but anybody with any sense would know the idea of leaving and letting the place go to hell has always been an option for us.

Would anybody rather we have a Politburo of generals and bureacrats who never open their mouths about anything? Not me, let 'em talk, because to me this is called "government going about its daily business". It's the government we elected, led by a president the majority of us voted for, and what they're stuck with is trying to fix the mess we inherited from the last guy and AFAIK they're doing the best they can with it.

so why all the whining?

[amazingbeavis]

General, put a sock in it and go back to your real job: commanding our troops.

[foxisms]

This is new?
This is our plan throughout the Middle East.
Create chaos, then declare that we have the moral obligation to restore order...our way.
All that's missing from this formula is the famous shampoo bottle instruction of "rinse and repeat"...on the next adjacent country.

[ExxonMcBushCo]

"...advised letting Afghanistan become a "Somalia-like haven of chaos that we simply manage from outside,"

Is this a JOKE?? And if so, does it mean we can leave now?

[ReedYoung]

Ah, he really didn't reveal the CIA's report, except for its name. Newsweek's sources leaked more secret information than McChrystal did. His simple use of the term "Chaosistan" is easy enough to understand in the context he provides. It didn't call for more explanation. It was a good speech.
"When I am asked what approach we should take in Afghanistan, I say ‘humility’."
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2009/10/01/gen_mcchrystals_address_on_afghanistan_98537.html

[mick7191]

Fire this guy, NOW!