From: Robert Makowsky <rmakowsky@y...>
Date: Mon, 3 Feb 2003 19:52:38 -0800 (PST)
Subject: Unsubing for deployment
Folks, I am in short final for deployment and am completely out of time for reading the list. Will pop up when and if I can but expect to be off the net for the next 180 days or so. Take Care,
From: Doug Evans <devans@n...>
Date: Tue, 4 Feb 2003 07:29:00 -0600
Subject: Re: Unsubing for deployment
I can't be there with you. No atheists in the foxholes, you know. Just don't take me literal; no foxholes in the water. My thoughts and best wishes can, and will be. The_Beast
From: Alan and Carmel Brain <aebrain@w...>
Date: Wed, 5 Feb 2003 02:15:40 +1100
Subject: Re: Unsubing for deployment
[quoted original message omitted]
From: John Atkinson <johnmatkinson@y...>
Date: Wed, 5 Feb 2003 18:02:46 -0800 (PST)
Subject: Re: Unsubing for deployment
> --- Robert Makowsky <rmakowsky@yahoo.com> wrote: Doing the port security thing, right? See you when I go to pick up my track--they all got loaded this week at Corpus Christi.
From: Michael Brown <mwbrown@s...>
Date: Wed, 5 Feb 2003 18:20:39 -0800
Subject: RE: Unsubing for deployment
Opsec? Michael Brown [quoted original message omitted]
From: Ryan Gill <rmgill@m...>
Date: Wed, 5 Feb 2003 22:06:45 -0500
Subject: RE: Unsubing for deployment
> At 6:20 PM -0800 2/5/03, Michael Brown wrote: Aside from the usual port security, I pretty much think that the Iraqi's know we're coming to get them. There's probably been armor and land forces loading at most major ports for the past months.
From: Glenn M Wilson <triphibious@j...>
Date: Wed, 05 Feb 2003 19:52:41 PST
Subject: Re: Unsubing for deployment
On Wed, 5 Feb 2003 18:20:39 -0800 Michael Brown <mwbrown@sonic.net>
writes:
> Opsec?
Optional security?
Omnibus Security??
Actually I know it means Operational Security (or do I?) but after the debacle
in Grenada for our agency {insert "You don't have a 'need to know' jokes]
OpSec is always evaluated as a sliding scale. How critical is the loss of
operational efficiency from revealing too little versus the impact on the
operation from revealing too much.
Gracias,
From: Glenn M Wilson <triphibious@j...>
Date: Wed, 05 Feb 2003 19:56:13 PST
Subject: Re: Unsubing for deployment
On Wed, 5 Feb 2003 22:06:45 -0500 Ryan Gill <rmgill@mindspring.com> writes: > At 6:20 PM -0800 2/5/03, Michael Brown wrote: More importantly unloading at ports they can observe even easier... > --
From: John Atkinson <johnmatkinson@y...>
Date: Wed, 5 Feb 2003 19:59:58 -0800 (PST)
Subject: RE: Unsubing for deployment
> --- Michael Brown <mwbrown@sonic.net> wrote: > Opsec? It's open source, man. Big front page article in the Corpus Christi newspaper, DoD press release about Task Force Ironhorse, everything. I can't say where we're going, but it's been known for some time that the 3rd ID is in Kuwait, and that the US just promised Turkey $4 Billion to accept 30K troops for offensive actions... Hell, there's exactally one pass from Anatolia into Iraq and that's obvious to anyone who reads a map. OPSEC is all well and good, but enough stuff is open source documentation that some of the worries are a little silly. For instance: We got told not to mention our commander's name to the press, as this was OPSEC violation. My question as to when they are taking down the batallion website http://www.hood.army.mil/4id_1stbde/ENG299FRAME.HTM which contains our BN CDR and CSM biographies was considered to be "smartass".
From: Brian Bilderback <bbilderback@h...>
Date: Thu, 6 Feb 2003 08:32:46 -0800 (PST)
Subject: RE: Unsubing for deployment
> --- John Atkinson <johnmatkinson@yahoo.com> wrote: You? Smartass? No......