3 September 2013 Defense Spies on Syria Chemical Attack and Budget A sends an email thread between Eugene Furst, a civilian at the Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA), and A J MacDonald, a former "Chief of Staff of the DIOCC at DIA". One message mentions the Syrian chemical weapons attack: "By the way, saw your latest success, my congratulations. Good job.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/syrian-activists-accuse-government-

of-deadly-chemical-attack-near-damascus/2013/08/21/aea157e6-0a50-11e3-89fe

-abb4a5067014_story.html Other messages discuss Congressional budget justification for military intelligence. From: "Furst, Eugene P CIV (US)" <eugene.p.furst.civ@mail.mil> To: "AJMacDonald" <ajmacdonald83@yahoo.com> Sent: Thursday, August 22, 2013 9:04 PM Subject: RE: Follow-up, 20130820 (UNCLASSIFIED) Classification: UNCLASSIFIED Caveats: NONE Good luck for you, see you soon Regards, -Gene > -----Original Message----- > From: AJMacDonald [mailto:ajmacdonald83@yahoo.com] > Sent: Thursday, August 22, 2013 2:31 PM > To: Furst, Eugene P CIV (US) > Subject: Re: Follow-up, 20130820 > As you see I'm far from this now, but I know our guys did their best. > I enjoyed catching-up with you. Hope to see you soon again. > Sincerely, > Jamie > On Aug 22, 2013, at 2:14 PM, "Furst, Eugene P CIV (US)" > <eugene.p.furst.civ@mail.mil> wrote: >> You're exactly right. We have to work with both theater on the requirement >> and the organization that owns the contract to ensure we don't have too few >> or too many contractors. >> CITP - Rock Island Contract >> CIAT - DIA Contract >> By the way, saw your latest success, my congratulations. Good job. >> http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/syrian-activists-accuse-government-

of-deadly-chemical-attack-near-damascus/2013/08/21/aea157e6-0a50-11e3-89fe

-abb4a5067014_story.html >> Regards, >> -Gene >> -----Original Message----- >> From: AJMacDonald [mailto:ajmacdonald83@yahoo.com] >> Sent: Thursday, August 22, 2013 1:00 PM >> To: Furst, Eugene P CIV (US) >> Subject: Re: Follow-up, 20130820 >> Gene; CIAT and CITP contracts are MIP funded. I recall the issue that often >> surfaced was how the drawdown affected demand necessitating our assessment >> of where we had folks, the quantity of analysts, and costs associate with >> their employment. My recollection of this is correct is it not? Please >> advise. Thank you. Jamie On Aug 21, 2013, at 4:19 PM, "Furst, Eugene P CIV >> (US)" <eugene.p.furst.civ@mail.mil> wrote: >>> Jamie, >>> >>> Next time you come in, I'll grab Katrina in DAMI-RI to help out if needed. >>> Your comment below is correct. It's just important to remember that >>> the POM captures our "request". It isn't approved until Congress puts >>> its stamp of approval on it. Pretty sure you understood that, we're >>> just at the point where we're covering minor nuances... >>> >>> Regards, >>> -Gene >>> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: AJMacDonald [mailto:ajmacdonald83@yahoo.com] >>> Sent: Tuesday, August 20, 2013 5:13 PM >>> To: Furst, Eugene P CIV (US) >>> Subject: Re: Follow-up, 20130820 >>> >>> Thanks, Gene; ROGER all on the OCO piece - at DIA and with the ISR TF >>> OCO was always stated; the fun was in determining what color OCO we >>> would be allocated. End use always mattered in these cases. POM lock >>> precedes the >>> CJB: In that case the CJB captures how we were allocating MIP dollars >>> to support activities within the confines of the approved POM. We >>> might need a coffee! Jamie >>> >>> >>> On Aug 20, 2013, at 4:59 PM, "Furst, Eugene P CIV (US)" >>> <eugene.p.furst.civ@mail.mil> wrote: >>> >>>> Jamie, >>>> >>>> One quick caveat... within the MIP and the NIP there is base and OCO. >>>> Most, if not all JUONS coming out of theater were addressed using OCO >>> dollars. >>>> Some of this OCO was MIP and some was NIP. Within DA G-2 almost all >>>> of our OCO throughout the years was MIP. Not sure how much MIP/NIP >>>> OCO DIA utilized. Just bringing this up based on your comment " >>>> albeit the MIP might have more akin to OCO painted the color of MIP". >>>> >>>> You're correct regarding not having the linguist contract presented >>>> during Congressional MIP/NIP Day... this was funded using non-MIP >>>> Army OCO >>> dollars. >>>> Stable Shadow was actually part of MIP/NIP Day... it was just never >>>> an issue. >>>> >>>> Following MIP/NIP day, DAMI-RI would begin to build the Army's MIP >>>> section of the CJB. The funding and manpower data within the CJB was >>>> based upon data provided by the dollars requested/approved within the >>>> POM (once we had a "POM lock", DAMI-RI was able to plug the numbers >>>> into >>> the CJB). >>>> >>>> Everything else is spot-on. >>>> >>>> I can also run this past Katrina in DAMI-RI for review... I'm pretty >>>> familiar with the processes, but I'm certainly no expert. >>>> >>>> Please don't hesitate if there's anything else. >>>> >>>> Regards, >>>> -Gene >>>> >>>> -----Original Message----- >>>> From: AJMacDonald [mailto:ajmacdonald83@yahoo.com] >>>> Sent: Tuesday, August 20, 2013 4:43 PM >>>> To: Furst, Eugene P CIV (US) >>>> Cc: genefurst@hotmail.com >>>> Subject: Follow-up, 20130820 >>>> >>>> Gene: >>>> >>>> Thank you for making time to see me last week; I enjoyed catching-up >>>> with you. Additionally, I learned a great deal and you enabled me to >>>> put a few things back into perspective. >>>> >>>> When I was the Chief of Staff of the DIOCC at DIA I was appointed to >>>> lead the Agency's Intelligence, Surveillance and Reconnaissance (ISR) >>>> Task Force Tiger Team. The purpose of this Tiger Team was to merge >>>> the ongoing and competing efforts of the agency's five disparate >>>> directorates to garner funding from the ISR Task Force to resource >>>> their stove piped support requirements to the fights in Iraq and >>>> Afghanistan. They were doing this under the auspices of the JUONS >>>> process. We got our act together and tightened up things within the >>>> agency. I always believed that although we were working through the >>>> ISR Task Force we were actually leveraging available MIP and NIP >>>> dollars - albeit the MIP might have more akin to OCO painted the >>>> color of MIP. The NIP piece was always something LTG Zahner, and >>>> later LTG Kozial, would work out with the DNI. Do you believe I have >> this right? >>>> >>>> The NIP MIP day is clear now as well. Essentially OP served as the >>>> intelligence operations authority and advocate for Army intelligence >>>> equities (e.g., Prophet, Guardrail, DCGS-A, ARL, EMRS, PTDS and PGSS) >>>> during the annual meetings with the Congressional Professional Staff >>> Members (PSM). >>>> Our endstate was to ensure that all Military Intelligence Program " >>>> intelligence capability areas" entered into the Congressional >>>> Justification Book (CJB), specifically any changes in resource >>>> allocation, were understood by the PSMs prior to final submission of >>>> the requirements to Congress for approval. I am not certain we had >>>> our linguist contract or Stable Shadow $s included in this mix. >>>> >>>> However, before all of this kicked off we had to meet with the SMEs >>>> and action officers to review the submissions and provide counsel or >>>> guidance on the completion of the individual submissions to ensure we >>>> "dotted all of the i's" and "crossed all of the t's". Once this was >>>> complete we would review the proposed submissions with the G-2 for >>>> approval, guidance and or course changes. We'd conduct another >>>> internal review before providing read-aheads to the PSMs. Once in >>>> the book and good to go this would be aligned with the POM - right? >>>> >>>> Please let me know if I have this right or missed something. >>>> >>>> Again, thank you for your time and patience. >>>> >>>> Sincerely, >>>> >>>> Jamie >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> Classification: UNCLASSIFIED Caveats: NONE