The Wire - March 26, 2025

//The Wire//2300Z March 26, 2025//
//ROUTINE//
//BLUF: STRATEGIC AMERICAN BOMBERS STAGE AT DIEGO GARCIA. FALLOUT FROM GROUP CHAT SCANDAL CONTINUES.//

 -----BEGIN TEARLINE-----

-International Events-

Indian Ocean: Aviation watchers have noted a significant buildup of military aircraft at Diego Garcia. Several B2 bombers have forward deployed to the infamous island, along with almost a dozen KC-135R Stratotankers and other transport aircraft.

AC: This morning, a Notice-to-Airmen (NOTAM) was issued for Diego Garcia announcing ramp parking spot closures for the runway, indicating preparations to stage large numbers of military aircraft. This NOTAM is active until May 1, 2025.

Lithuania: Four American service members were found deceased after a training accident this morning. Initial reporting indicates that an M88 recovery vehicle drove/overturned into a lake during a routine training exercise. The soldiers were assigned to 1st Brigade, 3ID.

-HomeFront-

Washington D.C. - Fallout from the Atlantic scandal continues in a variety of means. Various liberal politicians have called for various resignations due to this scandal, while conservatives have stated that no resignations will occur. As the initial release of screenshots did not achieve the desired effect, The Atlantic released more screenshots of group chat messages.

AC: This morning, the activist group American Oversight filed a lawsuit against SECDEF Hegseth for the leak, and the judge assigned to this case has been announced as D.C. District Court Judge James Boasberg, the same judge who is currently at the center of hot controversy for out-of-jurisdiction rulings.

-----END TEARLINE-----

Analyst Comments: The events at Diego Garcia are a major indication and warning of an impending large-scale military conflict. Since these aircraft were not entirely covert in their movements, various intelligence services around the world know that this logistical staging is underway. What it's for, is anyone's guess. This could be for an escalation of the conflict in Yemen, or it could be staging for a large scale war with Iran. The use of Diego Garcia as a staging zone implies that the traditional staging sites (Bahrain, Qatar, Kuwait, etc) probably do not want to be diplomatically involved in what is about to take place. The remote location of Diego Garcia (which is also not located in an Islamic nation) provides the added benefit of being out of range of most of Iran's weapons, and thus a vastly more secure site for the staging of strategic bombers. In short, if the United States were to seek a war with Iran, this is exactly the type of forward-deployment that would take place.

Of course, despite the very clear and obvious military staging, a single phone call can result in all of these aircraft heading home without firing a shot. From the voyage of the Great White Fleet, to flying B-52's low and slow over various countries over the years, American history is full of examples of American power projection via the movement of very big weapons.
However, using the information we have at the moment, the forward-deployment of national-level strategic assets indicates staging for a military campaign.

Regarding the group chat scandal, now that we have a closer look at more screenshots provided by The Atlantic, a lot more information of questionable classification level has come to light. Even though the newly-posted screenshots are not the smoking-gun The Atlantic claims, if this information was not a deliberate plant, it would indeed have been a serious violation of Operational Security (OPSEC). Really the only communication that was a serious breach of OPSEC came from the SECDEF, who announced that the targeting missions against the Houthis in Yemen were a "GO", and detailed the number of strikes and estimated Time-on-Target. However, when determining the classification level of information, the source itself would dictate this. For instance, the SECDEF did not create this information himself, this was paraphrased from a slide deck or a briefing he was sent through proper channels. If an investigation were to be conducted, the classification of the information in that document would be the true source for whether or not Hegseth's comments were classified in any way. But therein lies the problem, he very likely paraphrased, and didn't copy directly from a classified intelligence product. It is this paraphrasing that gets into muddy waters really quickly, and highlights long-standing issues in government.

When it comes to the higher levels of government organization, OPSEC is a nightmare under the best of conditions; regardless of party affiliation, anytime a politician gets their hands on any classified information one can rest assured that it will be held under the most lax security conditions possible. This does not excuse the behavior, but it does explain it. Similar story with the use of the Signal app in the first place; historically, this has very obviously not been an authorized form of communication. However it's been used for many years unofficially by staffers all over Washington (along with WhatsApp, before the security concerns prompted the general shift to Signal a few years ago). This morning DNI Tulsi Gabbard somewhat perplexingly confirmed that the Signal app is pre-installed on government-issued communications devices. If this is true, this would suggest a very new approach to the handling of official communications. Smartphones with access to classified information systems have existed for many years (such as the DMCC-S phones), but are highly compartmentalized and controlled, and do not usually have third party apps or app stores installed. However, if the DNI's testimony is to be believed, and the use of Signal itself was somehow authorized, the scandal then shifts to how an unauthorized person obtained access (since this clearly confirms that these communications were not compartmentalized in accordance with long-standing regulations).

More generally, the use of Signal is mostly a byproduct of fast-paced comms being needed between high-ranking officials that are also convenient to use, even if they aren't as secure or official. This is also complicated by the fact that almost all politicians do not understand the concept of what's called Aggregation in the world of intelligence work. In short, a single detail can be unclassified...but if you get enough unclassified information together in the same report, this can add up to being a classified report. As Hegseth stated in response to the leak "No names. No targets. No locations. No units. No routes. No sources. No methods." were stated in the group chat. However, all of this data could have been easily discerned from other sources, in conjunction with what was provided. Notably, Mr. Hegseth left out the Time-on-Target information, which is almost certainly classified SECRET or higher, based on CENTCOM's own Classification Guide.

If this group chat is indeed genuine, ignorance of the concept of Aggregation was probably the best explanation for what happened. Various officials "sanitizing" their remarks thinking that they are unclassified, but when put into the context of the larger conversation, their remarks should have been made by other means. This happens all the time, and is why the age-old spy tradecraft tactic of nationstates monitoring American Congressional hearings is still probably a wealth of information...all it takes is a Congressman getting a bit carried away and suddenly sensitive information is being alluded to, implied, or in some cases, stated openly. This has been the culture of Washington for a long time, but this is something that is really only accepted at the higher levels of organization. Once again, it doesn't make it right, but this is the reality of the way that classified information is handled by politicians; if any junior soldier had posted attack timeline details in a group chat, they would have been punished severely for this OPSEC breach, and their future career destroyed. If it were a low-ranking service member, the question of "is this classified?" would default to an answer of "yes, at bare minimum SECRET". When a politician is involved however, the answer defaults to a slap-on-the-wrist, at most. This is simply the reality of how things work.

The official White House response has also shifted to denial, with the Press Secretary calling the event a "hoax". However, this statement is in opposition to the statements by other officials, such as the Vice President and SECDEF themselves. Both have not denied that the group chat was real, and both have spoken about the incident in terms of accepting that the chat is real, but also denying that anything damning was said (which is very obviously not true if a targeting timeline was posted).

One possibility that must be considered is that these messages (or even the entire group chat itself) could have been run primarily by low-level staffers instead of the public figures themselves. In other words, it might not have actually been the SECDEF himself communicating the probably classified information, but a staffer instead. Historically speaking, it wouldn't be the first time that a staffer got their boss in trouble. However in this specific case, this is a hard argument to make. It's hard to believe that a low-level staffer would be posting targeting timetables in this manner. The sheepish responses by those implicated in the scandal also indicates that they were the ones behind the messages, especially since many words have been spoken on this scandal...none of which have been a flat-out denial of the identities of those involved.

At this point, what the exact truth is will be impossible to verify with a high level of confidence. The whole affair could be fabricated from the ground up by the Atlantic, though this is unlikely based on the statements by those who were in the group chat. The group chat is almost certainly real, and the messages were probably sent by those as alleged. If the more controversial information was indeed taken from a classified briefing product, paraphrased, and posted in the group chat, this paraphrasing does not change the original classification of the intelligence product.

The real question that remains is whether or not this was a deliberate deception attempt, or a deliberate leak of some kind. Whatever the truth is, it's unlikely to matter much in the long run, as this whole scandal has already turned into a political issue rather than the objective investigation and learning opportunity it should be. Also, the Secretary of Defense is an Original Classification Authority (OCA) per long standing mandate, so even if Hegseth (and others) did disclose classified information, he has the authority to retroactively declassify that information himself, at will.

Analyst: S2A1
Research: https://publish.obsidian.md/s2underground
//END REPORT//