A letter to the editor by Rhino Times reader Alan Burke

Loose lips may sink ships, but that doesn’t mean it’s classified…or a military plan

The controversy surrounding Mike Waltz’s use of “Signal” highlights confusion between two similar yet distinct concepts: Operational Security (OPSEC) and Classified Information.

 Operational Security is a piece of information that, by itself, is not classified.  However, if compiled with other separate information from other sources, it may total into classified information.  Even if it doesn’t sum into sensitive, secret, or top secret information, it could still benefit a persistent enemy.

 As a historical example, North Vietnamese agents successfully pieced together innocuous non-classified information with devastating results.  They scoured military trash and surveyed local business traffic to detail troop movements.

As a current example, service members discussing deployments with family members is an OPSEC threat. When a family member posts information to social media, adversaries could scour other posts to determine how many troops will enter an area and when.  This is why Congress was concerned about TikTok being owned by China’s central communist party.  Caring family members frequently commit OPSEC violations.  Each post, when combined with those of other family members, reveals troop movement and timing.

OPSEC is a tradeoff.  We should realistically minimize OPSEC risks.  However, flexible, timely information is vital at every military level.  Restricting information by classifying these pieces would be both impossible and detrimental.  Information would be so restricted that nothing could get done.  For example, the military must contract with civilian companies to transport people and equipment.  The contract, cargo/passenger manifests, itineraries, individual tickets, and gate signs are all OPSEC threats.  Classifying these pieces of information would prevent the military from working with civilian companies.  It would be extremely unethical to tell thousands of military families they cannot know where and for how long their loved ones are deployed.  Overclassification of information reduces government transparency and accountability.

If true and complete, the published “Signal” exchange falls under OPSEC, not Classified Information.  The phrase “OPSEC” was even used in the published texts.  These are not classified military plans.  Access should be limited but not prevented.  Senior-level administrators need to be able to exchange this information to operate successfully.

The left has a pattern of misusing the terms “military plans” and “classified” to exaggerate situations.  Remember when Trump was accused of storing “military plans” in his basement.  Military plans are too large to fit in the alleged boxes.

Alan Burke