National Guard Y2K Report To The U.S. Senate (Nov. 1998) -- Preparing for Y2K-Related Problems in the U.S.

Just exploring our National Guard web-sites, and found an interesting Y2K article. Obviously, Im not done surfing yet. -- Diane

Key Quote: The year 2000 challenges present an emergency scenario unlike any other in our nation's history.

Capital Focus: "Preparing for Y2K-Related Problems in the U.S."

http://www.ngaus.org/ngmag/cap1198.htm

Capital Focus by Major General Edward J. Philbin (ret.)

November 1998

Preparing for Y2K-Related Problems in the U.S.

The following is Maj. Gen. Edward J. Philbin's testimony Oct. 2 to the Senate Special Committee on the Year 2000 Technology Problem

I am present to offer opinions on the problems that may arise as a result of non-compliant computers and computer dependent systems that are unable to transition through midnight, 31 December, 1999, and the role the National Guard could and probably will play in managing emergencies arising from those problems. My testimony generally reflects the opinions of the association and its members, who are the commissioned and warrant officers of the Army and Air National Guard. It should not be construed as representing the official positions of the Department of Defense or of the National Guard Bureau.

It is increasingly evident that an appreciable part of the nation's infrastructure could be adversely affected in some way by what is commonly referred to as the Y2K problem. In general, the National Guard has the capacity to provide military support to civilian authorities (MSCA) and can contribute a myriad of human and equipment resources to restore essential operations disrupted by Y2K generated incidents.

Considering the possibilities of a large-scale disruption of governmental, commercial and other routine daily activities, it is certain that the National Guard will be among the first organizations activated to assist in the revitalization of the nation's computer dependent infrastructure. As with hurricanes, floods and other incidents requiring a quick reaction by a well-trained and equipped on-site team, no other organization will be able to respond in support of police, fire fighting and other civilian emergency responders to major crisis situations that may be caused by Y2K disruptions as well as the National Guard. The National Guard's practiced interaction with state and local organizations and its connectivity to the national command authority provide a unique emergency-response capability not found in any other federal or state organization.

The immediate need is to determine what responsibilities the Guard will be expected to assume in the management of the Y2K-related problems that many analysts have forecast which have the potential to trigger the destabilization of societal functions. The National Guard needs to be prepared to assist in maintaining or reestablishing essential stability in the civil sector.

I suggest that the Department of Defense must develop a clear concept of how the National Guard will be required to respond to the spectrum of problems that could be created by a Y2K disruption. The DOD, through the chief of the National Guard Bureau, must now coordinate with the adjutants general and the governors to determine the likely locality specific scenarios that may arise in a Y2K situation.

The DOD should also assist the governors and state emergency response coordinators to ensure that the National Guard itself will not be impaired by the effects of a Y2K incident at a time when it will be most needed.

I suspect that, to date, this has not been a priority effort on the part of the DOD, even though to properly prepare for possible Y2K disruptions, the Office of the Secretary of Defense must be cognizant of the importance of the National Guard being made fully capable of responding to any such technical breakdown.

We must be certain that the National Guard will not itself be a victim of any Y2K disruption. All National Guard units in 3,200 locations throughout the nation must possess computer dependent equipment that is Y2K compliant. Responding to the consequences of a Y2K disruption will be futile if the National Guard's operations are plagued by the very consequences the Guard is attempting to manage. It is critical that the Y2K response requirements of the National Guard be fully funded to ensure that it is able to respond quickly and effectively to the needs of the community. I respectfully request, Mr. Chairman, that this committee urge the Senate to provide full funding for Y2K compliance upgrading of National Guard equipment as one of the highest priorities for such funding since the Guard will be among the first responders to a Y2K incident together with police, firefighters and other civilian emergency response personnel.

The critical first step in ensuring that the National Guard will be fully prepared for a possible Y2K calamity is the collection and sharing of information. When I was commander of the New Jersey Air National Guard, the state adjutant general for the first time requested all of his commanders to conduct a survey to identify all of the Army and Air Guard resources that could be made available in response to a state emergency. My survey of the New Jersey Air National Guard identified a surprisingly long list of both mundane and sophisticated equipment , which could be useful in responding to a state emergency. I strongly recommend that such a survey of the available resources of both the Army and Air National Guard of each state and territory be conducted prior to midnight on 31 December 1999. Equally important, we must determine how the Guard will interact with the Federal Emergency Management Agency and the DOD in response to Y2K induced emergencies. Command and control of multiple agencies must result in mutual support rather than multiple collisions in addressing emergency situations.

Therefore, a comprehensive study should be conducted on the potential roles of and the interaction between FEMA, DOD and the National Guard of the various states and territories in response to Y2K induced problems. I applaud the recent inclusion of the National Guard in the president's Y2K subcommittee on emergency response chaired by FEMA and believe that the subcommittee, with the DOD, NGB and the adjutants general, must develop a cohesive strategy that prepares this country for any event of mass effect leading up to and after midnight, 31 December 1999. Mr. Chairman, let me stress the need for the adjutants general to play an important role in the development of this strategy. In most cases, it will be the adjutants general who will integrate the planning efforts for their respective states, with those to be developed by the national command authority.

As you are aware, the Quadrennial Defense Review highlighted the role of the National Guard in homeland defense of the United States. While the Guard stands ready to meet the needs of the citizenry during any Y2K incident, it is important that in preparing for that eventuality, the National Guard's ability to respond to its Total Force mission of rapidly expanding our Army and Air Force in response to a national threat not be denigrated. Funding for current combat readiness resourcing should not be used to enhance the Guard's ability to respond to a Y2K event. As an example, it is becoming increasingly evident that the current structure of the active-duty Army cannot execute the two major theater wars strategy without the assistance of the Army National Guard combat divisions and brigades. This increased dependency on the National Guard requires increased "not decreased" combat readiness resourcing to enable the Guard to accomplish its historic combat mission. Mere reallocation of current funding to Y2K missions will have a negative effect upon the National Guard's ability to recruit, train and keep our soldiers and airmen combat ready to respond at a moment's notice to a national threat.

The year 2000 challenges present an emergency scenario unlike any other in our nation's history. Our technological society has grown extremely dependent upon the continuity of computer-driven systems and networks and as a consequence, the nation's vulnerability has increased appreciably. Any significant disruption of our computer dependent infrastructure could result in a significant societal disruption. However, with the cooperative interaction of federal and state governments, the military, the private sector, and with serious advance preparation, the impact of such an event on the American people can be significantly reduced, if not totally eliminated.

Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, I would like to thank you for the opportunity to offer the opinion of the National Guard Association of the United States on the readiness of the National Guard to deal with potential Y2K emergencies. As we have for over three and a-half centuries, the National Guard of the United States, Army and Air, stands ready to protect the nation against military threats and local disasters.

Check out the ...

National Guard Association of the United States, The Voice of Americas 500,000 citizen soldiers web-site:

http://www.ngaus.org/

National Guard Magazine:

http://www.ngaus.org/ngmag/ngmag.htm

And ...

Other web-site articles of interest, for starters:

Cohen Names New National Guard Bureau Vice Chief

(Jan. 12, 1999) - Secretary of Defense William S. Cohen today announced the selection of Army National Guard Maj. Gen. Raymond F. Rees to the position of National Guard Bureau vice chief.

http://www.ngaus.org/news/rees11299.htm

Different article ...

Chief of Staff: Army to Use Its 'Citizen Soldiers' More Frequently

By Elke Hutto

This story originally ran in the Oct. 27, 1998 issue of the Killeen (Texas) Daily Herald. It is posted here with permission.

Just how employers will react to a trend toward increasing the use of Reserve and National Guard soldiers by the regular Army is unknown, but the issue is of concern to the Army's top-ranking man. ...

http://www.ngaus.org/news/killeenstory1098.htm

The Official National Guard web-site (technically the National Guard Bureau):

http://www.ngb.dtic.mil/

Their recently posted Y2K information:

http://www.ngb.dtic.mil/y2k/impact.htm

How many ways can all us us posting on the Yourdon forum spell big doins leads and clues going on behind-the-scenes!

Diane

-- Diane J. Squire (sacredspaces@yahoo.com), January 13, 1999

Answers

Diane, BIG PLANS BEHIND SCREEN. Thanks! Keep going.

xxxxxxxx xxxxxxxx xxxxxxxx

-- Leska (allaha@earthlink.net), January 13, 1999.

"military support to civilian authorities (MSCA)..."

Something tells me that's soon gonna be a household word...

-- a (a@a.a), January 13, 1999.

A few quick questions for all you military historians...

1) How does the 10th Amendment effect the Military and more specifically the National Guard?

The Constitution of the United States of America

http://www.law.cornell.edu/ constitution/constitution.table.html#amendments

Amendment X

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.

2) Are there any good newsmedia articles that explain how the Military and Armed Forces are set up and how they all interact? Specifically looking for explanations that the general public might understand. (Me too).

3) Since Ive been doing a tour of duty on the government web-sites (and, dont laugh, watching the JAG show on TV last night), I notice they are all rather fond of alphabetizing everything! Is there a list somewhere that translates all the alphabet names for everything?

Thanks, Diane

-- Diane J. Squire (sacredspaces@yahoo.com), January 13, 1999.

Great stuff as usual Dianne! Like the GIs and DGIs, there are those who know but are not telling and those who want to know but can't find out. By the way, the way IPO action is these days, you should incorporate as a search engine and go public. LOL

-- Mike Lang (webflier@erols.com), January 13, 1999.

Thanks Diane. Sounds like the Guard was taking this more seriously than FEMA. As I remember FEMA first responded to y2k with a "we'll cross that bridge when we come to it" attitude. Keep up the great work!

-- Bill (bill@microsoft.com), January 13, 1999.

Hasn't FEMA always been a fix on failure outfit? Wait for the earthquake or the hurricane to happen, then do what you can.

It's time for FEMA to think new thoughts.

Y2K is the first "emergency" that has a schedule to meet, and won't be late.

-- Tom Carey (tomcarey@mindspring.com), January 13, 1999.

Hi Diane,

I'll have a go at your questions here:

1) How does the 10th Amendment effect the Military and more specifically the National Guard?

The Constitution of the United States of America

http://www.law.cornell.edu/ constitution/constitution.table.html#amendments Amendment X

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.

Good question! without getting into tons of detail: The National Guard units at least technically belong to the Executive Branch of their home state unless and until ordered to active federal duty by the president. When that happens they are said to have been 'federalized', and at that point they legally become a part of the Active Reserve, falling under the Uniform Code of Military Justice (found in Title 10 of the United States Code). The reason I say that this bit about state control is technically true is that the president can get away with federalizing the National Guard WITHOUT the consent of the state government - during desegregation in the south there were instances where Guard units were federalized and then ordered to remain in their armories, thus preventing them from being used to interfere with US marshalls monitoring desegregation...and no that one didn't make it into your highschool history book either, but it's true - try talking to a vet of the Alabama or Georgia NG who was around in the 1963-65 time frame.

2) Are there any good newsmedia articles that explain how the Military and Armed Forces are set up and how they all interact? Specifically looking for explanations that the general public might understand. (Me too).

short answer: not really. There are tons of things out there that explain how they are *supposed* to be setup and interact, but almost none that actually describe what happens in real life. I'd suggest checking out a couple of the DOD websites just to get a feel for how they *wish* things worked, next go to the amazon.com site and do a search on the author James F. Dunnigan - IMHO he is one of the best authors around when it comes to unclassified analysis of military stuff and he is also far and away *the* most understandable to those who have so far avoided the DOD acronym and jargon disease... Also, go read about three years worth of the magazines AIR WEEK AND SPACE TECHNOLOGY, and JANES DEFENSE WEEKLY, to get a better feel for how things actually function in the real world. It'll also give you a bit more of a realpolitik feel for which governments are actually friendly/hostile toward each other, when you start seeing who is contracting what with companies from which countries...

I wish there was an easier way to get a feel for all of this, that's my best, honest answer.

3) Since Ive been doing a tour of duty on the government web-sites (and, dont laugh, watching the JAG show on TV last night), I notice they are all rather fond of alphabetizing everything! Is there a list somewhere that translates all the alphabet names for everything?

yes, as a matter of fact the DOD actually publishes a book of official acronyms, but since I've been out of the system a while I dont know what the official publication number is. The easiest way to find this out would probably be to simply call your local recruiting center, and ask them for the official name, number and date of the publication...then contact the Government Printing Office and get them to send you a copy.

just my 2 cents' worth, Arlin

-- Arlin H. Adams (ahadams@ix.netcom.com), January 13, 1999.

I know one acronym given to us by the military that describes y2k perfectly...

S.N.A.F.U!

Situation Normal, All F***ed Up

talk about a prophesy.

Mike =====================================================================

-- Michael Taylor (mtdesign3@aol.com), January 14, 1999.

Leska, the very first report here is the article from the magazine mentioned in the minutes. You had asked me to see if I could find out what the NG considered a good Y2K article. They were just referring to this report.

-- Gayla Dunbar (privacy@please.com), January 14, 1999.

Thanks Arlin!

In the interests of linking the Alphabet Agencies puzzle pieces together, see also the Yourdon Forum Thread...

LINKS: Know Your FEMA (Federal Emergency Management Agency)

http://www.greenspun.com/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl?msg_id= 000NRV

-- Diane J. Squire (sacredspaces@yahoo.com), January 14, 1999.

a la Mike Taylor, an acronym the describes Y2K even MORE perfectly:

F U B A R (F***ed Up Beyond All Recognition)

-- Hardliner (searcher@internet.com), January 14, 1999.

Y2K & Terrorism??

Part way down this older thread there is a very disturbing post about intended terrorism activities, circa 2000. Im not at all surprised that the National Guard will be called up or that the new Y2K FEMA czar is from the Dod and an expert in terrorism.

Silicon Valley In A Time Capsule

http://www.greenspun.com/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl?msg_id= 000Dsr

It starts off...

Robert,

Here is a post from someone who attended the Expo that was referenced in your post. Lane (the poster) is a hydro electric dam operator for Seattle Power & Light and a volunteer fire chief. I believe he is a credible reporter (I put one of his posts regarding power generation reliability on another thread here). He can be reached at the EMail address shown.

I think you will agree that his information is cause for some level of concern.

*********************************************** Date: August 11, 1998 11:43 PM Author: Lane Dexter (madison_6@hotmail.com) Subject: Luddites infiltrated the Expo

I went to "Preparedness Expo '98" last Saturday. ...

(Gayla, you were wondering, on another forum).

Diane

-- Diane J. Squire (sacredspaces@yahoo.com), January 14, 1999.

Mike;

>>I know one acronym given to us by the military that describes y2k perfectly... S.N.A.F.U!

Situation Normal, All F***ed Up

talk about a prophesy.<<

Another rather appropriate one OMGIF

Oh My God I'm F **ked

S.O.B.

-- sweetolebob (La) (buffgun@hotmail.com), January 14, 1999.

S.O.B.,

click-click

-- Hardliner (searcher@internet.com), January 14, 1999.

Speech illustrating how the National Guard is being used in U.S. terrorism response, by 2000.

http://raweb.osd.mil/publications/speeches/saicwmdc.htm

Remarks by Hon. Charles L. Cragin, Acting Assistant Secretary of Defense (Reserve Affairs)

SAIC WMD Conference (Weapons Of Mass Destruction), 3 December 1998, Warrenton, VA

...last May President Clinton announced the establishment of ten rapid assessment and initial detection (RAID) teams, which will be located in each of the ten federal regions.

The RAID teams will be on-call to deploy rapidly, assist local first responders in determining the precise nature of an attack, provide medical and technical advice, and assist with the identification and arrival of other state and federal response assets. Each RAID team will consist of twenty-two highly skilled, full-time National Guard personnel who will act as the tip of our national military response spear. The members of these teams are now being hired and will begin extensive and rigorous training, with the teams to be fully operational by 2000. State-of-the-art, off-the-shelf equipment will be procured and assembled for each team.

... Our goal as we move into the 21st century is to have in place an effective, integrated and flexible response mechanism, able to respond to a wide range of unconventional threats against our homeland.

The Guard and Reserve now stand at the center of these efforts. Their purpose will be to protect our citizens, save lives, and help manage the awful aftermath of some of mankind's most insidious and deadly weapons. But, as you all well know, the world of domestic preparedness and response is highly dynamic. No single agency acting alone can address the problem in its entirety. That's why we are in the process of deepening our interagency ties and developing a coordinated approach. We at the Department of Defense realize that this approach is necessary if we are to avoid confusion, both within the federal government and in terms of our ability to communicate effectively with the first responder community. And we are working hard to understand the concerns of state and local authorities regarding the federal role in the process.

...At the heart of this notion is an effort to develop a capability at the state level to support state and local communities. We are developing and fielding a model to help firefighters and law enforcement and emergency medical personnel to identify the equipment and procedures they need. And for those who can't afford those capabilities, for those cities and locales not ranked within the nations largest cities, we are developing a capability to help fill in the gaps.

... Extensive training will include teaching and course work provided by the Army Chemical School, the Defense Nuclear Weapons School, the Army Medical Department, the Environmental Protection Agency, the National Fire Academy, the US Army Medical Research Institute for Infectious Diseases, FEMA, and the Department of Justice's Center for Domestic Preparedness.

Other Reserve Affairs (Office of the Secretary of Defense)-- Publications Speeches:

http:// raweb.osd.mil/publications/index.htm

Links to State National Guard Homepages:

http:// www.ngaus.org/about/gardlink.htm

Heres an additional National Guard Magazine article talking about Total Force. Sounds like a little distrust may be causing some problems ...

Total Force Integration -- A Progress Report on Cohen's Memorandum, One Year Later, November 1998

http:// www.ngaus.org/ngmag/main1198.htm

Excerpts ...

... The Army, too, for its part has started including the Guard into future plans. The memorandum of agreement was signed by active and Guard leadership at the annual Association of the United States Army conference last month in Washington, D.C. The timing of the announcement demonstrates a possible treaty and a willingness between the components to move forward, officials say.

The new initiative also officially recognizes the unique, dual-status of the Guard. Realizing the Guard actually serves two different entitiestheir respective states as well as the federal government Army leadership has now taken steps to overcome the unique hurdle.

[WHAT does that mean guys?]

... According to the memo, "the desired end state is two fully deployable integrated warfighting divisions." But it does not give an expected end date.

... Another step toward Total Army integration in the Army has been the infusion of active duty commanders into Army Guard units.

Different article about personal integrity:

http://www.ngaus.org/ ngmag/cap1098.htm

Capital Focus by Major General Edward J. Philbin (ret.), October 1998

The Domain of Obedience to the Unenforceable

... In truth, when the issues are critically important, real integrity prevents escaping your responsibility to the institution and the mission by quitting or disengaging, and leaves only one alternative which requires courage.

We've all known officers who kept their heads down and their mouths shut no matter what was going on. Even worse were the "yes-men" of the "General, you are a genius" and 3I couldn't agree more" school of career advancement.

Quite simply, they were craven cowards, who feared the anger of superiors and who were afraid of jeopardizing their next decoration, assignment, or promotion. "Careerists" we call them now. And they are acidly and accurately described in books such as "The Right Stuff" and "The Wild Blue."

Personally, I loathed them, especially if they successfully climbed the career ladder -- and some did. But, I am certain that regardless of how high they climb that ladder, the careerists know that no one respects them. I suspect they never really respect themselves, because in addition to the ribbons and rank badges, they wear an invisible, but discernible and ineradicable "white feather" of cowardice. And where moral courage is lacking, any other virtues exist only by accident. We've also known "good guys,2 who fought for what they believed was right; openly, vigorously, within channels, and in the face of serious opposition. That takes real courage. But it takes even more courage to act ethically when the "right" argument loses, and the "wrong" one wins.

... I'm sure some cynics think that what I am proposing is a formula for professional suicide. I have greater faith in our civilian and military institutions, if not in the universal nobility of mankind, than to believe that. But, it's not a high road to fun, fame and fortune either because an officer who lives by this code will undoubtedly be viewed, by some at least, as a loner, a maverick, an egomaniac, disloyal, stubborn, obstructionist, argumentative, combative, bullheaded, or all of the above, as have I on various occasions.

... Yet it's absolutely worth it, because you retain your self- respect, while doing your best for the institution and the nation, and in the end, when the uniforms, medals, badges and braid are all in mothballs, and the lights are getting dim, all that remains that is not all smoke and mirrors, is the knowledge that you have done your honest best without cutting any ethical corners, and without dishonoring your uniform or yourself. That is the only enduring reward. The careerists forget that when your last breath is drawn, you will be utterly alone with yourself, and about to face all of those military giants, who have been whispering to you from the archives and books in the War College libraries. I'm just not brave enough to want to face those guys in the hereafter with a lot of lame explanations and excuses for my conduct.

John Fletcher Moulton, a British judge, a century ago called this "the domain of obedience to the unenforceable" which covers "all cases of doing right where there is no one to make you do it but yourself." It is still a valuable definition of ethics and to those dedicated to an ethical code, this "domain of obedience to the unenforceable" is more rigidly binding than any law ever drafted by a legislature.

[Sounds a lot like Hardliner]

Yes, this is the kind I person I would trust to inform the citizenry of upcoming Y2K problems. Not the DoD careerists. -- Diane

-- Diane J. Squire (sacredspaces@yahoo.com), January 14, 1999.