Team Infidel
Forum Spin Doctor
Colorado Springs Gazette
June 18, 2008
Pg. 1
Command moved last month to Peterson
By Pam Zubeck, The Gazette
Two Colorado lawmakers expressed concern Tuesday about security issues at Peterson Air Force Base, the new home of the nation’s premier air and space defense command that moved last month from Cheyenne Mountain Air Force Station.
Their comments came in response to The Gazette’s report Tuesday that military officials downplayed security concerns identified in a classified vulnerability assessment of Peterson that concluded the North American Aerospace Defense Command’s new command center couldn’t withstand a medium or high threat and had only a 6 percent chance of surviving a low-level threat.
“I continue to be very concerned about the security implications of moving NORAD from Cheyenne Mountain to Peterson AFB,” Rep. Doug Lamborn, R-Colo., said in a statement. “Although the final draft has not yet been completed and released, I have requested a full briefing from the Government Accountability Office (GAO). From the day I took office, I have questioned the added value and security risks related to this already scheduled move.”
Sen. Ken Salazar, D-Colo., also has questions and had a hand in mandating the Pentagon report to Congress in March to outline moving costs and vulnerabilities at Peterson. Congress also mandated the GAO review the Pentagon report.
The GAO report, like the Pentagon’s report, is classified. It’s due to be delivered to Congress on July 3.
In a statement, Salazar’s communications director Matt Lee-Ashley said Salazar has “pressed the Pentagon to answer legitimate questions that have been raised about the cost, operational benefits and security implications of moving day-to-day operations from Cheyenne Mountain Air Station to Peterson AFB.”
While Lee-Ashley said Salazar can’t comment on classified material, he is “working closely” with NORAD and Northern Command, which shares a commander with NORAD, to ensure they address “any shortcomings in security.”
He also noted Salazar has requested funding for 23 acres around the base as a buffer zone to improve protection of people and assets and already obtained funding last year to boost redundancy of data networks at Cheyenne Mountain in case of a failure at Peterson.
He said Salazar will continue his push to “make sure that the Cheyenne Mountain Air Station remains open and fully capable of supporting NORAD/NorthCom’s operations.”
NORAD posted a statement on its Web site Tuesday saying, “The new command center at Peterson AFB significantly enhances our ability to respond to the full spectrum (air, land, maritime, space and cyber) of security threats to North America. In fact, the commands have already implemented and are in the process of implementing appropriate security and protection measures.” The statement didn’t explain the measures.
The Gazette asked NORAD last week to outline what, if any, measures secure the command center, and officials refused to comment.
The statement also called the newspaper’s report, based on a Statement of Facts compiled by the GAO for use in its review of the Pentagon report, “incomplete and inaccurate” because it didn’t report on the GAO’s final analysis.
“The sensationalized accusation that military officials somehow misled Congress is false,” the statement said. “The GAO draft report does not draw this conclusion ...”
The Gazette reported that based on the Statement of Facts given to the Defense Department for comments to be included in the GAO’s final report, military leaders understated security issues.
The Pentagon reported to Congress on March 3 that an independent Systems Effectiveness Assessment of Peterson’s Building 2, where the nation’s homeland security nerve center is located, identified “several physical security problems.”
The assessment said, according to the GAO, that “the existing security system at Peterson AFB supporting Building 2 would fail if attacked by even a low-level threat.”
The Pentagon’s report outlined mitigation measures, but those are either unfunded or in design stages, the Statement of Facts said. The military report didn’t tell lawmakers whether the measures would enable Peterson to achieve Protection Level 1, which signifies “those assets whose loss, theft, destruction, misuse or compromise would result in great harm to the strategic capability of the United States,” the GAO report said.
NORAD is a binational defense agency with Canada that shares its commander with the nation’s homeland security command, Northern Command.
NORAD’s mountain complex was built during the Cold War and sheltered air and space surveillance and missile and air warning operations. The move was instigated in 2006 after former NORAD/NorthCom commander Adm. Timothy Keating identified “unity of effort and command” problems during a 2005 exercise conducted from both Cheyenne Mountain and Peterson.
After a GAO study a year ago found NORAD and NorthCom didn’t analyze operational effects and costs of the move and that a security assessment hadn’t been completed or a protection level designated, Congress ordered the Pentagon report and GAO’s review of it.
The move, which NORAD said cost $41 million, was completed May 28, but Cheyenne Mountain remains an alternate command center that can be functional within an hour.
Building 2 sits above ground just yards from the base’s northern border. The GAO Statement of Facts, quoting the Systems Effectiveness Assessment, said the building lacks “suffcient vehicle standoff ” and “a dedicated response force.” The GAO noted the assessment failed to analyze all security risks, among them acts of terrorism such as the Sept. 11, 2001, airliner attacks, although Colorado Springs Airport is adjacent to the base.
One defense policy expert told The Gazette the airport poses a significant risk, due to the difficulty in identifying hostile aircraft before it’s too late.
June 18, 2008
Pg. 1
Command moved last month to Peterson
By Pam Zubeck, The Gazette
Two Colorado lawmakers expressed concern Tuesday about security issues at Peterson Air Force Base, the new home of the nation’s premier air and space defense command that moved last month from Cheyenne Mountain Air Force Station.
Their comments came in response to The Gazette’s report Tuesday that military officials downplayed security concerns identified in a classified vulnerability assessment of Peterson that concluded the North American Aerospace Defense Command’s new command center couldn’t withstand a medium or high threat and had only a 6 percent chance of surviving a low-level threat.
“I continue to be very concerned about the security implications of moving NORAD from Cheyenne Mountain to Peterson AFB,” Rep. Doug Lamborn, R-Colo., said in a statement. “Although the final draft has not yet been completed and released, I have requested a full briefing from the Government Accountability Office (GAO). From the day I took office, I have questioned the added value and security risks related to this already scheduled move.”
Sen. Ken Salazar, D-Colo., also has questions and had a hand in mandating the Pentagon report to Congress in March to outline moving costs and vulnerabilities at Peterson. Congress also mandated the GAO review the Pentagon report.
The GAO report, like the Pentagon’s report, is classified. It’s due to be delivered to Congress on July 3.
In a statement, Salazar’s communications director Matt Lee-Ashley said Salazar has “pressed the Pentagon to answer legitimate questions that have been raised about the cost, operational benefits and security implications of moving day-to-day operations from Cheyenne Mountain Air Station to Peterson AFB.”
While Lee-Ashley said Salazar can’t comment on classified material, he is “working closely” with NORAD and Northern Command, which shares a commander with NORAD, to ensure they address “any shortcomings in security.”
He also noted Salazar has requested funding for 23 acres around the base as a buffer zone to improve protection of people and assets and already obtained funding last year to boost redundancy of data networks at Cheyenne Mountain in case of a failure at Peterson.
He said Salazar will continue his push to “make sure that the Cheyenne Mountain Air Station remains open and fully capable of supporting NORAD/NorthCom’s operations.”
NORAD posted a statement on its Web site Tuesday saying, “The new command center at Peterson AFB significantly enhances our ability to respond to the full spectrum (air, land, maritime, space and cyber) of security threats to North America. In fact, the commands have already implemented and are in the process of implementing appropriate security and protection measures.” The statement didn’t explain the measures.
The Gazette asked NORAD last week to outline what, if any, measures secure the command center, and officials refused to comment.
The statement also called the newspaper’s report, based on a Statement of Facts compiled by the GAO for use in its review of the Pentagon report, “incomplete and inaccurate” because it didn’t report on the GAO’s final analysis.
“The sensationalized accusation that military officials somehow misled Congress is false,” the statement said. “The GAO draft report does not draw this conclusion ...”
The Gazette reported that based on the Statement of Facts given to the Defense Department for comments to be included in the GAO’s final report, military leaders understated security issues.
The Pentagon reported to Congress on March 3 that an independent Systems Effectiveness Assessment of Peterson’s Building 2, where the nation’s homeland security nerve center is located, identified “several physical security problems.”
The assessment said, according to the GAO, that “the existing security system at Peterson AFB supporting Building 2 would fail if attacked by even a low-level threat.”
The Pentagon’s report outlined mitigation measures, but those are either unfunded or in design stages, the Statement of Facts said. The military report didn’t tell lawmakers whether the measures would enable Peterson to achieve Protection Level 1, which signifies “those assets whose loss, theft, destruction, misuse or compromise would result in great harm to the strategic capability of the United States,” the GAO report said.
NORAD is a binational defense agency with Canada that shares its commander with the nation’s homeland security command, Northern Command.
NORAD’s mountain complex was built during the Cold War and sheltered air and space surveillance and missile and air warning operations. The move was instigated in 2006 after former NORAD/NorthCom commander Adm. Timothy Keating identified “unity of effort and command” problems during a 2005 exercise conducted from both Cheyenne Mountain and Peterson.
After a GAO study a year ago found NORAD and NorthCom didn’t analyze operational effects and costs of the move and that a security assessment hadn’t been completed or a protection level designated, Congress ordered the Pentagon report and GAO’s review of it.
The move, which NORAD said cost $41 million, was completed May 28, but Cheyenne Mountain remains an alternate command center that can be functional within an hour.
Building 2 sits above ground just yards from the base’s northern border. The GAO Statement of Facts, quoting the Systems Effectiveness Assessment, said the building lacks “suffcient vehicle standoff ” and “a dedicated response force.” The GAO noted the assessment failed to analyze all security risks, among them acts of terrorism such as the Sept. 11, 2001, airliner attacks, although Colorado Springs Airport is adjacent to the base.
One defense policy expert told The Gazette the airport poses a significant risk, due to the difficulty in identifying hostile aircraft before it’s too late.