hayden's love of the private: part deux

in february 2004 a published interview with lieutenant general michael v. hayden, then director, national security agency (Military Information Technology Online Archives, Feb 09, vol. 8, no. 1) quickly drilled down to hayden's true loves (and, it appears, the reason the present administration refuse to jettison him, no matter how many of "hayden's heroes" run afoul or amok): "our larger strategy to partner with industry to provide solutions." this interest in partnering with industry means, of course, an interest in outsourcing military intelligence--thus TRAILBLAZER, thus NSA Domestic Technology Transfer Program, thus CIFA. all of which is fine, in itself: why not save a penny by an off-the-shelf software solution, rather than paying the CIA to develop it afresh? but, when you add that this counter intelligence field activity is largely focused on private companies that purchase former "assets" (to use the spook term), since they have the requisite clearances, and that most of these private companies are in no-bid contracts (can't very well advertise to the world what we are looking for in terms of hardware, software, and peopleware, can we?), and that these private companies are busy lobbying pentagon, white house, and capitol hill to make sure they get a portion of these (a large portion) monies, then, yes, we have a problem. and, when you add that much of this intel. and activity is suspiciously off-the-radar in terms of public oversight, then, yes, we have a major problem. and add to that this much of this activity is in iraq and afghanistan, where there is no oversight, then it is a full-blown problem (i assume americans will voice loudly their objection to domestic spying [or is it counter-spying?]).

walter pincus, of the washington post might have been slightly sullied by association with the plamegate affair. but he deserves a medal for repeatedly pointing out the outsourcing intel. problem (IRAQ: Increase in Contracting Intelligence Jobs Raises Concerns, March 20th, 2006). how much of a problem is all this? here is just a little, almost silly boondoggle, all based on partnering with industry to do intel. work. it is, perhaps not all that important; it is just that we only know about it, any of it, because of hookergate and top-gun cunningham.

• Perhaps the most spectacular boondoggle achieved by Cunningham went through CIFA (Counterintelligence Field Activity), a Defense intelligence agency established ... to "coordinate policy and oversee the counterintelligence activities of units within the military services and Pentagon agencies." But here's the good part: 70% of its budget is contracted out.
• Right after CIFA was established, Cunningham helped his friend Mitchell Wade's company MZM land a $6.3 million contract with CIFA through an earmark. The earmark set aside the money for CIFA, and Cunningham made sure that MZM got the contract....
• Here's what your taxpayer dollars bought:
• The resultant program saw more than $6 million spent for a mass data storage system supposedly for CIFA that, according to the prosecutorial document, included almost $5.4 million in profit for MZM and a subcontractor. "Adding insult to injury," the prosecutors wrote, "the final system sold to the government was never installed (as it was incompatible with CIFA's network system) and remains in storage in Arlington, Va." (The Daily Muck, By Paul Kiel)

so perhaps it is all not much of a problem after all. i once worked in educational computing in boston in the early 80s. a tech specialist and time-and-motion man (or whatever they call them) came down from new hampshire (home then of the free-from-taxes right) to help us (and prepare a report on the staff's work). he was all agog about reagan's star wars. now star wars never did anything except spend most of our tax dollars. this stuff, too, promises more to make a few subcontractors rich than anything else. but i still think there is a problem.