Defense for Dozer

[Guest Blu4]

While I certainly agree that OPSEC is tremendously important, the MilitaryTimes article cited as reference seems to indicate that LtCol Shower did nothing wrong.

Further, take a look at the (very long) reply to the original article here:

Defense for Dozer

You have to scroll down past the original article.

To add one further....we received a 2nd briefing today at work that seems to back up some of the comments in the article. Namely, that the briefing wasn't a multi-agency investigation, as the shield emblems on the front of the brief suggest, and that OSI might have violated a number of their own rules in releasing a brief that publicly identified an active Air Force individual. It also indicated that there are legal looks being taken at this to determine if the original OSI agent that leaked this is accountable for those errors.

Also, does anybody else think it's pretty bad form to drag an active squadron commander through the mud like this, especially if the points in the rebuttal post are true?

I will await my inevitable two-week lockout for starting another thread on this now, but the original was locked. I just think that Big Blue does enough to harass and humiliate its own people, and that, if this post is true, the way nobody is stepping up to defend Dozer or apologize to him publicly is another example of why I'm not sticking around.

Oh yeah, and does anybody see the irony of an OSI internal training document on OPSEC being released into the wild? Thanks, now, if he HAD said something wrong, you've consolidated it all into one briefing, AND highlighted and completely identified the individual. Well done. Perhaps they should investigate how they can't keep control of their own FOUO materials.

Edited March 15, 2008 by Blu4

[Steve Davies]

Blu

I have already PM'd Baseops about this (last week, and again yesterday). Hopefully, he'll take action and remove the offending post.

[M2]

Did you look at the brief? Dozer may not have released any classified info, but he sure as hell was very communicative of information that should not have been released to such a large and anonymous audience as he did on that forum. As a Lt Col, squadron commander and someone involved in such a restricted access program, he should have known better.

Dozer is not PA and should not be determining what needs to be released to the general public. Despite the controversy over whether the briefing should have gone public or not, what he did violates the very basic principles of operational security and he deserves all the "attention" he is getting for it...I have seen people fired for less. I would care less about his reputation than I would about the information he has passed to our adversaries in an attempt to "be cool" on an Internet forum.

I will gladly arrange a visit to the Joint OPSEC Center for anyone who finds themselves in the San Antonio area. It is a part of the organization I now work for. If you want your eyes opened to the amount of information that can be garnered through open sources, these guys will show you; and trust me, once you've seen it you will be sure to take every opportunity to keep your mouth shut in the future!

Cheers! M2

[Wing Sweep]

We received the briefing last week concerning this OPSEC topic and the man sang like a canary! Dudes on that forum were asking him stuff no general/military aviation enthusiast would be asking. Not only would he answer the questions, he would give some background and elaborate. One guy said he needed the info for his mid-term report. Probably University of Beijing!

I'm willing to bet the USAF is pretty confident the "non-classified" info he so generously elaborated on added a lot more pieces to the puzzle that the "University of Beijing" student was looking for. If it wasn't so, do you think we'd be hearing about this?

Blu 4, IMO it isn't bad form to call him out. Drag him through the mud is a matter of perspective. Deifne drag him through the mud. Bottom line is, he's a leader and should know better. He certainly was setting the high standard and example of what NOT to do. When you see the briefing, you'll understand what I mean. Seriously, you will literally shake your cranium in disgust and become very angry!

[Whitman]

In local news, Baseops.net users are down 69%!

[Toro]

Dudes on that forum were asking him stuff no general/military aviation enthusiast would be asking

Obviously you've never been to an airshow in Europe.

[Guest Blu4]

Did you look at the brief?

I have. Many, many, many times. I've been forwarded it over 100 times, actually. Literally.

Did you read the response posted on the MilitaryTimes.com site? If not, might I recommend you take the time.

Dozer is not PA and should not be determining what needs to be released to the general public.

I agree. So does he. There's a little thing in the F-22 program called the "Raptor Talking Points" that includes a list of sound bytes, message pushes, and key thoughts that PA would like anyone who speaks publicly about the Raptor to work into their interviews and discussions. Nearly every single thing Dozer posted came directly from the F-22 Talking Points, or from USAF offical public affairs press releases about the F-22. Now if it's been publicized on AF.mil, and released as part of Public Affairs' campaign to put out good press about the Raptor, I fail to see how they can accuse him of OPSEC violations.

I would care less about his reputation than I would about the information he has passed to our adversaries in an attempt to "be cool" on an Internet forum.

Again, M2, no disrespect, but I think you are reacting without knowing the entire story here. Dozer did not get on the internet and start posting to a forum in an attempt to be cool. You're at Elmendorf, right? Have you met the man? That's so far from his personality even to insinuate it is ridiculous. Find the time, go across the base to the 90th and ask him about it yourself. You'll get a far more informed answer than you will from the internet pundits who feel the need to rail and gnash their teeth about an individual of which they know nothing other than what a very misguided an uninformed brief says.

So, putting aside the fact that he posted information that had been officially released by the Air Force (through official Public Affairs channels, like af.mil), why did Dozer post what he did? Because senior leaders IN THE AIR FORCE that were involved in oversight of the F-22 program tasked him to get out there and be the face of the F-22 program, and put some positive press out there to counter the negative publicity the airplane has received. And yes, they even recomended he get online and blog about the aircraft.

To sum up: the man posted information online, that was publicly released by the Air Force and approved through the F-22 SPO and PA channels, after being "recommended" to do so by senior officers in his chain of command with oversight of the Raptor Program. I continue to see where he violated OPSEC principles.

We received the briefing last week concerning this OPSEC topic and the man sang like a canary

Are you briefed into the F-22 program? Have you seen the Raptor security classification guide? Have you seen the Raptor Talking Points? Because if not, I don't think you are qualified to post a comment like you did there.

The brief makes it sound like he released detailed information about very secure systems and capabilities of the F-22. What he touched on has been released so many times, in so many different versions, it's ridiculous. Yeah, yeah, I know...connect the dots, confirming information, etc. etc. etc. The point is, nothing he posted hadn't already been publicly released. Not only was it unclassified, but it had been run through the F-22 SCG, and vetted by PA, and FORMALLY RELEASED BY THE AIR FORCE.

The way that brief was written and presented was tremendously misleading. Talk about taken out of context. Snippets of posts, summaries of "information" which the briefer knew absolutely NOTHING about (but which sounded very serious, apparently), and totally out of context sentences. Come on. If we're going to operate that way, let me tell you, I can make it sound pretty bad as well. Give me half a day and I can harvest enough data from BaseOps.net to put together a similar brief that will make it sound like this place is an OPSEC sieve. In fact, pick an individual on here, and I can probably piece together enough summations and out of contexts to make that person look at least as bad as Dozer. And if I slap on a few multi-agency badges (whether they actually participated in the investigation or not), it will certainly look very official.

Blu 4, IMO it isn't bad form to call him out. Drag him through the mud is a matter of perspective. Deifne drag him through the mud.

Dragging him through the mud defined would be forwarding e-mails with over 45 individuals in the "TO:" column and over 10 attached forwards including the phrases: "This guy should be strung up by his nuts," "I can't believe this guy hasn't been prosecuted," or "I hope they run his dumb ass out on a rail." Additional comments that have made their way around the blogosphere have gone as far as to call the man a traitor.

What a fantastic way to treat an officer whose done nothing but serve admirably to the rank of LtCol, got selected for squadron command of PACAF's first F-22 squadron, and tried his best to put a positive spin on one of the Air Force's high priority programs.

Again, it wouldn't take much for a similarly constructed brief to fell anyone on this board. "There but for the grace of God" and all that.

Blu 4, IMO it isn't bad form to call him out.

After he's been investigated and cleared twice of any wrongdoing by OSI, who admit they violated their own rules and principles in releasing the brief?

Your call.

[Pitt4401]

I'd just like to know if we would be so vigorously defending the poster of this information if instead it wasn't our lovable O-5 who is a "cool dude" and a "good bro" but say a dedicated crew chief with 4 or 5 stripes on his sleeve.

Just a thought...

[Riddller]

So what, are you trying to start a flame war?

Who cares? It wasn't a "4 or 5" striper. "Oh jeez, would we be having this discussion if Little Orphan Annie released this information?? Just a thought..."

Useless post.

[Pitt4401]

Am I trolling? Yes

Is my point still valid? Yes

I am just wondering with the way the AF loves public executions why hasn't big blue set its sights on this guy?

[Guest hawg030]

My opinion, everyone is blowing this way out of proportion. If OSI wants to investigate information leaked, or not leaked, then that is OSI doing its JOB! Im happy that they are investigating any reports or concerns people may have about this subject. Did OSI maybe slip up in the manner they are conducting this, yes.... But keep reading (ill come back to that).. As for the poster, If he is innocent, and didnt leak out information he shouldnt have, than OSI will vindicate him and he will be on his way. If he was saying stuff he shouldnt have, I think there will be a stop to it...... Either way, us making a big deal about it, and everyone throwing arms up in the air, isnt helping the poster (my point). Im sure he doesnt want any "extra attention" drawn to him or this case right now anyway. Let it be and when the facts are in, they are in. On a good note, I have seen some great display's of OPSEC in the majority of baseops posters, particularly the RC135 guys!!! Cheers to them, and this community. While information is out there and its available to the masses, it doesnt mean we need to make it easier for those who may take advantage of people here that are just trying to help young soon to be officers like me!!

Hawg

Edited March 16, 2008 by hawg030

[Steve Davies]

Did you look at the brief? Dozer may not have released any classified info, but he sure as hell was very communicative of information that should not have been released to such a large and anonymous audience as he did on that forum.

M2

He released information that had *already been cleared for release*. What part of that is so difficult for people to understand?

The Air Force said it was OK for this information to be released, and nearly all of what he said had already been printed in the aerospace press - the readers of which are.. er... large and anonymous.

If your organisation is part of this debacle and you are continuing to brief that he has behaved irresponsibly, then please take the time to speak to the man himself to establish the full range of facts and context.

[Steve Davies]

Blu4 has done a good job of kicking this salacious story in the nuts, but since since some people will miss this, this is a response from a guy in Dozer's squadron:

I'm thoroughly and completely tired of reading the unfair, unwarranted, and completely inaccurate bashing that LtCol Shower is taking over this. "Narcissistic," "Prima Donna," "Chest Thumper," and a myriad of other more colorful descriptions about Dozer have been posted on a multitude of boards, blogs, and circulrated via e-mail. NONE of them are anywhere near the truth. NOTHING in that article was taken objectively. Virtually EVERYTHING in the briefing cited in the AF Times article was taken out of context.

Dozer is one of the most casual, laid back individuals I've ever worked with. I've met far more arrogant fighter pilots who swaggered their way through succesful careers, and there are far more public examples of individuals who were not only thrust into the limelight, but seized it with both hands and spoke as loudly as possible to be heard by as many people as possible. Robin Olds, John Boyd anyone? Dozer, with a flying career that easily speaks for itself, has none of those characteristics. In about five minutes of face to face time with the individual anybody could learn that for themself. I'm quite certain that most people would get a far more positive impression off of a meeting with him than they would with me.

For starters, the background on Dozer's online postings is simple. He had the misfortune of being selected by the USAF against his will to be the initial Heritage pilot and F-22 demonstration pilot. He also had the unfortunate timing to be the most visible representative of an advanced fighter program on the brink of cancellation. The two were certainly an unenviable situation, which, coupled with the extensive travel, constant family separation, and generally unappreciated time and effort would've made me a bitter, angry (angrier?), and incredibly malcontent fighter pilot.

Dozer became none of these things. Instead, he worked very hard to be the best ambassador for the Air Force and the F-22 program that he could. He was TOLD to inform and educate the public, Congress, and other servicemembers about the unique capabilities and undeniable operational necessity of procuring this fighter. He was TOLD to put a positive, recognizable face on the program, and, as a very succesful fighter pilot, champion the Raptor against its opponents.

He also was encouraged by multiple General Officers to get online, promote the airplane, and put some positive press out there to counter the huge swell of negative publicity surrounding the F-22.

Let me re-phrase that last statement. General Officers in the USAF recommended he spend time online, on public bulletin boards, and post positive information and interact with the public about the F-22.

As the article points out, the Office of Special Investigations looked into the bulletin board mentioned in the article. TWICE. Twice, they found nothing that was a violation of classification guidelines or operational security.

All of the posts taken off the board and used in that brief were snippets of the full post, taken totally out of context, and with no background basis for consideration. Nearly 100% of the information posted by Dozer can be found not only in unclassifed sources online, but in USAF press releases about the F-22.

So tell me, please, how a LtCol in the USAF can be guilty of Operational Security violations for reposting information and answering questions on a public bulletin board using information that was released by the United States Air Force itself as part of a formal public affairs campaign on the F-22?

Get real.

What was not part of USAF press releases was released by Lockheed Martin, published with USAF approval/authorization, or released by the DoD. Again, what OPSEC foul is this?

I think the way this briefing was released, labelled, distributed, and now, has been virally forwaded throughout cyberspace is absolutely appalling. What an absolutely disgusting way to treat an individual who has done nothing but try his absolute best to serve his country for almost 20 years.

Anybody who thinks Dozer just went on that board and posted random crap to appear more knowledgeable or appease his own self aggrandizement appetite has a very shallow understanding of the man. Anybody who thinks the OSI did the USAF a favor by publicizing this incident has a very poor understanding of the situation as a whole. In my personal opinion, the whole incident reeks of slander, because it certainly could be perceived as doing irreparable damage to the man's individual character. A quick scan of what some of the online blogs have been posting (with no background information) certainly confirms this.

I also note that while the OSI admits the briefing was only supposed to be for internal consumption, they've made no attempt to publicly apologize to LtCol Shower for the subsequent dragging through the mud he's received. A very nice indicator of how the USAF takes care of its own.

In the end, my guess is that the USAF will simply lose one of its most talented fighter pilots. I know I certainly wouldn't stick around after OSI gave me a reputation like this.

Considering that it takes nearly 20 years to grow an officer with this kind of experience and talent, I think that's probably the biggest tragedy of this entire situation.

Fire away, I'm sure I'll get my own personal e-mail or phone call from OSI for posting this...

[Steve Davies]

Am I trolling? Yes

Then go and post somewhere else. Baseops has been a Troll free site since I registered a few years back, and I think the regular posters here would agree that that is exactly how we want to keep it.

[Hacker]

I'm interested to see if there will be any backlash against the originator of the presentation for essentially dragging an officer's name through the mud.

Pretty sure there's something in the UCMJ about that.

[Guest Jackonicko]

And it has to be said that Dozer has never said anything that Lockheed and the USAF haven't released to journalist folk like me.

I learned nothing new about the F-22 from Dozer's posts.

Anyone paid to know about US military programmes would not have been doing their jobs properly if Dozer's posts had helped them.