• Embed Doc
  • Copy Link
  • Readcast
  • Collections
  • CommentGo Back
Download
 
WITHDRAWAL NOTICE
RG:
148 Exposition, Anniversary, and Memorial CommissionsSERIES: Team
3,9/11
Commission
NND
PROJECT NUMBER: 52100 FOIA CASE NUMBER: 31107
WITHDRAWAL
DATE: 11/18/2008
BOX:
00003 FOLDER: 0003 TAB: 1 DOC ID: 31205829
COPIES:
1
PAGES:
2
The item identified below has been withdrawn from this
file:
FOLDER
TITLE:
Hurley's
Predator File
DOCUMENT
DATE: 04/02/2004 DOCUMENT TYPE: E-Mail Printout/(Profs Notes)
FROM:
Albion
TO:
Zelikow/Front
Office
SUBJECT:
Op-edonPredator
and...
This document has been withdrawn for the following
reason(s):
9/11 Closed by Statute
WITHDRAWAL NOTICE
 
Mike Hurley
From:
Sent:
To:Cc:
Subject:
Philip
ZelikowFriday, April
02,
2004 6:55
PM
Front
Office
Team 2;
Team
3Op-edon
Predator
and Maher
Alexis
--
I'm
not so sanguine that this account can be reconciled with the testimony of Jumper andGration.
But
Rosenwasseris not a
primary
sourceforthis information.Myoriginal questionto yousought to learn the identities of these
primary
sources so that we could talk with them
directly,
rather than relying on
Rosenwasser's
account of their views -- which do seeminconsistent with those of the program manager.
On
another subject,
I'd
like to press the point of
arranging
an interview with John Maher,whocan shed light on this and
many
other subjects.
I've
reviewed the CIAIGinterviewmaterial. We heard him on a couple of topics. Maher apparently has a
remarkable memory
on
other subjects too. He is a Tier B witness, and we need to schedule him soon.Stephanie, will you get Dan L.'s help to assist Alexis and Bonnie in getting this set up?
Philip
Original
Message
From:Alexis AlbionSent: Friday, April
02,
2004 6:46
PMTo:
Philip Zelikow; Chris
Kojm;
Dan Marcus
Cc:
Team
2;
Team
3
Subject:
RE:
Op-ed on Predator
Philip,
Chris and
Dan:
I just met with
Gordon's
acquaintance, Jon Rosenwasser, who is writing his dissertation on
the
military's development of UAVs. Jon's
research
has of necessity been open sources,includingthe trade press. He has also interviewed a number of those people involved indevelopmentof thearmedUAVincluding,forexample, contract support.Jon's findings are not
necessarily
incompatible with our own, but he does add some texture
to
the Air Force side of the story. As we know, AF testing was going on through thespringof2001.At thesame
time,
the AirCombat Commandwasdeveloping formal doctrinedocuments, which included a formal concept of operations for Predator that incorporatednew missions, including that of the armed hunter-killer and use as forward air controller.
A
draft was completed at about the same time as tests ended, at the beginning of
June—but
the
final version was not agreed upon, and signed by Gen. Jumper, until the beginning ofAugust.During this 2 month period, Jon sees the armed UAV as having been technologically ready tofly.This
is the
opinion coming
out of Big
Safari,
the
acquisition office
the AF
used
for
special mission aircraft. But the CONOPS was held up from June to August because ofdoctrinal disagreement between the ACC and the USAF's Aeronautical
System
Command. The
ASC's
perspective was that Predator should be reserved for recon purposes. According toJon, BigSafari operatorsdid notneedaformal CONOPS documentto flyarmed Predator
effectively
once the tests were completed in the spring.I think what we have here is a story that is not incompatible with what we've
already
heard. In fact, it reflects quite nicely the sort of institutional tensions that we've
seen
within
the CIA
toward
this
UAV
project.
At the
working
level
of Big
Safari,
the
operators
felt
they were ready to go in the summer of 2001. Perhaps there
were
someremaining technical issues
(as
Jumper
told
us).
But it is Big
Safari's
job to
make rapidreaction changes
to
programs
to
meet immediate user needs
—
that'
s why it has
specialacquisition techniques at its disposal. From theoperators'point of view, it was: just
 
tell
us
what
you
want,
andwe'll
make
it
happen. Jumper was, understandably, morecautious,
but he had
been pushing
the
program from
the get-go--he was an
enabler
in
thisstory.Where
we see
resistance
is at the mid-management,
corporate
level.
Within
the
Aeronautical System Command there may well have been cultural resistance to adapting arecon
asset for
combatmissions--to
adjustingto a new paradigm.Thereseems tohave
been
a
similar resistance
at the DDO
level within CIA.
Is it
worth pursuing
the Big
Safari part
of
this story? Jumper
may
have been putting
a
bit
of his own
spin
on the
technical difficulties going
on
during
the
summer
of
2001,accentuating
the
positive
and
playing down some
of the
institutional problems. Gration
only
spoke
of
logistical issues that needed
to be
settled,
not technical. The
texture
that
Jon's research adds
to
this story
may
give
a
little more weight
to the
question:
could the
Predator have flown
a
couple
of
months earlier
if, at the
policy level, there
had
been
the
urgency
and the
willingness
to
take risks during
the
summer
of
2001?
I'll
be
reading through some
of the
materials
Jon
gave
me
this weekend.
Let me
know
ifyou
want
to do
anything more with
this.--Alexis
of 00

Leave a Comment

You must be to leave a comment.
Submit
Characters: ...
You must be to leave a comment.
Submit
Characters: ...