Mail:: INBOX: RE: CDR, SOCOM Page 1 of 2

58.57MB / 476.84MB (12.28%)

Date: Fri, 1 Aug 2003 10:43:00 -0400
From: "" <sbrinkley@9-11 commission.gov>4P
To: Miles Kara <mkara@9-11commission.gov>4P
Cc: "" <bjenkins@9-11commission.gov>^
Subject: RE: CDR, SOCOM

News update: Looks like change of command will take place in early September;
details to be announced.

Sam

Quoting Miles Kara <mkara@9-llcommission.gov>:

> Bonnie, didn't know that change took place. I'm copying Sam Brinkley. He
> not only knows everything about SOCOM past and present, but can tell you
> about the future, as well.
>
> Miles
>
> Original Message
> From: bjenkins@9-llcommission.gov [mailto:bjenkins@9-llcommission.gov]
> Sent: Thursday, July 31, 2003 9 : 2 0 AM
> To: Miles Kara
> Subject: CDR, SOCOM
>
> Miles,
>
> Thanks,
>
> Also, do you anything about General Brown who recently replaced General
> Holland
> as Commander, SOCOM? When this the change of command take place. What is
> Brown's first name? I cannot find much on the internet.
>
> Thanks,
> BJ
>
> Quoting Miles Kara <mkara@9-llcommission.gov>:
>
> > Bonnie, I'm sure you know this, but the key guy is the number two, Bob
> > Pecha, for substance. Pat Duecy, the number one, is a long-time DIA
> > employee and is good on the policy side. Jodi Shouse (sp?) was the
> JITF-CT
> > rep to CTC in summer 2001, as I recall. Jeff Builta was JITF-CT number
> one
> > analyst on. al Qa' ida.

> Original Message

> F rom: bj enki n s@ 9 -11commi s s i on.gov [ma i11o:bj enkins @ 9-11commi s s i on.gov]
> Sent: Thursday, July 31, 2003 8:45 AM
> To: mkara@9 11commission.gov; dhyde@9-llcommission.gov;
> ksheid@9-llcommission.gov
> Cc: rnhurley@9-llcommission.gov; dmarcus@9-llcommission.gov
> Subject: DoD Briefing Request

http://kinesis.swishmail.com/webmail/imp/message.php?actionID=148&mailbox=INBOX&bo... 8/1/03
Mail :: INBOX: RE: CDR, SOCOM Page 1 of 2

58.56MB / 476.84MB (12.28%)

Date: Fri, 1 Aug 2003 10:31:48 -0400
From: "" <sbrinkley@9-11commission.gov>4P
To: Miles Kara <mkara@9-11commission.gov>4f
Cc: "" <bjenkins@9-11commission.gov>4|
Subject: RE: CDR, SOCOM

General Doug Brown used to be JSOC Commander; USA; good guy based on my being
in a couple of ITRAP/exercises with him. Confirmed by Senate on July 31st;
change of command not yet set; will advise upon learning.

Sam

Quoting Miles Kara <mkara@9-llcommission.gov>:

> Bonnie, didn't know that change took place. I'm copying Sam Brinkley. He
> not only knows everything about SOCOM past and present, but can tell you
> about the future, as well.
>
> Miles
>
> Original Message
> From: bjenkins@9-llcommission.gov [mailto:bjenkins@9-llcommission.gov]
> Sent: Thursday, July 31, 2003 9 : 2 0 AM
> To: Miles Kara
> Subject: CDR, SOCOM
>
> Miles,

> Thanks,
>
> Also, do you anything about General Brown who recently replaced General
> Holland
> as Commander, SOCOM? When this the change of command take place. What is
> Brown's first name? I cannot find much on the internet.
>
> Thanks,
> BJ
>
> Quoting Miles Kara <mkara@9-llcornmission.gov>:
>
> > Bonnie, I'm sure you know this, but the key guy is the number two, Bob
> > Pec'ha, for substctnce. Pat Duecy, the number one, is a long-time DIA
.> > employee1 and is good on the policy side. Jodi Shouse (sp?) was the
> JITF-CT
> > rep to CTC in summer 2001, as I recall. Jeff Builta was JITF-CT number
> one
> > analyst on al Qa'ida.

Original Message
From: bjenkins@9-llcommission.gov [mailto:bjenkins@9-11commission.gov]
Sent: Thursday, July 31, 2003 8:45 AM
To: mkara@9-11commission.gov; dhyde@9-llcommission.gov;
ksheid@9-11commis s ion.gov
Cc: mhur1ey@9 -11commi s s i on.gov; dmarcus @9-11commiss i on.gov
Subject: DoD Briefing Request

http://kinesis.swishmail.com/webmail/imp/message.php?actionID=148&mailbox=INBOX&bo... 8/1/03
 WITHDRAWAL NOTICE

RG: 148 Exposition, Anniversary, and Memorial Commissions

SERIES: 9/11 Commission, Team 3
NND PROJECT NUMBER: 52100 FOIA CASE NUMBER: 31107

WITHDRAWAL DATE: 12/03/2008

BOX: 00007 FOLDER: 0003 TAB: 1 DOC ID: 31207842

COPIES: 1 PAGES: 4

The item identified below has been withdrawn from this file:

FOLDER TITLE: Background Binder for CENTCOM...

DOCUMENT DATE: 07/10/2003 DOCUMENT TYPE: Memo of Conversation

FROM:

TO:

SUBJECT: John Sigler

This document has been withdrawn for the following reason(s):

Referred

WITHDRAWAL NOTICE
Mail:: INBOX: Some Points I took from our Talk with Philip on Homeland Defense Page 1 of 1

71.79MB /476.84MB (15.05%)

Date: Wed, 13 Aug 2003 15:28:44 -0400
From: "" <mhurley@9-11commission.gov>4|
To: "" <bjenkins@9-11commission.gov>^
Cc: "" <mhurley@9-11commission,gov>4l
Subject: Some Points I took from our Talk with Philip on Homeland Defense
Bonnie:

Here are some points I talk away from the discussion you, Barbara G., and I had
with Philip re division of labor on the homeland defense issue:

We need to examine how the DoD defines homeland defense.

Does DoD have a role in "perimeter defense", defense of our national boundaries?

Posse Comitatus is mainly a Team 3 issue.

Jamie Gorelick's view is that DoD was not doing as much on Homeland Defense as
it could ahve been doing.
--emergency preparedness
--emergency response
--national guard
--what steps dd it take on any of the above?

How did DoD define defending the homeland?

How did DoD define the CT issue?

Was getting DoD to engage on homeland defense issues something that the
executive branch was pushing hard on?

http://kinesis.swishmail.com./webmail/imp/message.php?actionID=148&mailbox=INBOX&... 8/13/03
 :: INBOX: RE: DoD Policy - Gorelick Issue Page 1 of 2

INBOX Compose Folders Options Search Problem? Help Addressbook Tasks Memos Calendar Logout Open Folder '-

44.94MB /476.84MB (9.43%)

INBOX: RE: DoD Policy - Gorelick Issue Move i copylJhis_messjageto__ jf|
(2 of 623) C
Delete I Reply I Reply to All I Forward I Redirect I Blacklist I Message Source I Resume I Save as I Print Back to INBOX ^ ^
Date: Fri, 11 Jul 2003 10:43:19-0400
From: Miles Kara <mkara@9-11commission.gov>^
To: 'Dana Hyde' <dhyde@9-11commission.gov>4P,"" <pzelikow@9-11commission.gov>4P
Cc <mhurley@9-11commission.gov>4F,"" <bjenkins@9-11commission.gov>#,"" <dmarcus@9-
11commission.gov>4|, 'Chris Kojm' <ckojm@9-11commission.gov><ff
Subject: RE: DoD Policy - Gorelick Issue

(|| 2 unnamed text/html 7.32 KB @

Philip, my perspective parallel's Dana's.

Jamie has had this issue at the forefront from the git go. As I recall she early on said that she wanted us to go
to "35,000 feet" and take a look at why the Department of Defense did not defend the nation from attack. We
had a brief posse comitatus discussion at that time, as I recall. Moreover, recall our "bookend" conversation re
the NORAD (and USG) posture toward the Russian (nee Soviet) strategic aviation exercise that was ongoing.
That "bookend" now has a bit more substance to it. General Eberhart has acknowledged that NORAD was
focused outward. RBV and General McKinley engaged in their "vestigal" discussion during the second hearing.
And, we now know from the raw radar files that shortly after Otis scrambled on 9/11 they also continued with
routine scheduled training. As many as 8 additional Otis fighters were airborne around 9am on 9/11 and
maneuvered southerly to what appear to be classic defensive orbits over water. Further, we now know that all
US exercises (Global Guardian and Vigilant Guardian) were cancelled at mid-morning, and that the Russians
scaled back their exercise and discussed that with US authorities as high as Condi Rice.

I mention all of this "cold war" juxtaposed material in part because that subject came up during the course of the
most recent hearing and it has been a thesis I've pursued since discovering more than a year ago the contents
of the CJCS morning briefing on 9/11.

Miles

—Original Message—
From: Dana Hyde [mailto:dhyde@9-llcommission.gov]
Sent: Friday, July 11, 2003 8:58 AM
To: pzelikow@9-llcommission.gov
Cc: mhurley@9-llcommission.gov; bjenkins@9-llcommission.gov; 'Miles Kara'; dmarcus@9-
llcommission.gov

http://kinesis.swishmail.com/webmail/imp/message.php?index=671 7/11/03
 INBOX: RE: DoD Policy - Gorelick Issue Page 2 of 2

Subject: DoD Policy - Gorelick Issue

Phillip-

During Team 8's presentation last week (after you had left for the press conference), Jamie raised the
issue of whether our work will cover the extent to which DoD was postured - pre 9/11 -- to protect the
country from a terrorist attack. The context for this was I was discussing that we had requested OSD,
JCS and SO/LIC documents related to NORAD's mission, pre 9/11. Jamie said that she wanted to look
more broadly than that, and expressed (as I believe she has done on other occasions) her desire to
"tee-up" the issue of why DoD and its assets were not more directed at protecting the homeland. (She
may also want to examine the creation of Northern Command - but this was less clear to me.) Anyway,
Mike Hurley was not in the room at the time so I told her that I would get with him and you and make
sure this issue is being covered. I assume this would be something that falls under Team 3, but let's
talk about it when you return and figure out a way to get back to Jamie on it. Thanks - Dana

Delete I Reply I Reply to All I Forward I Redirect I Blacklist I Message Source I Resume I Save as I Print Back to INBOX
Move I Copy |Thiis message to |
||

http://kinesis.swishmail.com/webmail/imp/message.php ?index=671 7/11/03

 rF Sent Items: Re: DoD Policy - Gorelick Issue Page 1 of 2

INBOX Compose Folders Options Search Problem? Help Addressbook Tasks Memos Calendar Logout Open Folder

44.94MB/476.84MB (9.43%)
Sent Items: Re: DoD Policy - Gorelick Issue Move i copy|Jh!?LFessal? to_ JJJ
(Iof48)
Delete I Reply I Reply to All I Forward I Redirect I Blacklist I Message Source I Resume I Save as I Back to Sent Items *3
Print ^
Date: Fri, 11 Jul 2003 10:34:37 -0400
From: "" <bjenkins@9-11commission.gov>4P
To: Dana Hyde <dhyde@9-11commission.gov>^
Cc: "" <mhurley@9-11commission.gov>4f,"" <mkara@9-11commission.gov>^,"" <ckojm@9-11commission.gov>4P
Subject: Re: DoD Policy - Gorelick Issue
Dana,

Thanks for the email.

FYI: Mike mentioned this issue briefly to Chris on Wednesday. Chris noted there
is some background on this issue and that it may in fact fall within your
portfolio. I am not aware of the background information referred to. Mike is
out today but does want to meet early next week as well.

Best,
BJ

Quoting Dana Hyde <dhydei9-llcommission.gov>:

> Phillip -

> During Team 8's presentation last week (after you had left for the press
> conference) , Jamie raised the issue of whether our work will cover the
> extent to which DoD was postured - pre 9/11 -- to protect the country from a
> terrorist attack. The context for this was I was discussing that we had
> requested OSD, JCS and SO/LIC documents related to NORAD's mission, pre
> 9/11. Jamie said that she wanted to look more broadly than that, and
> expressed (as I believe she has done on other occasions) her desire to
> "tee-up" the issue of why DoD and its assets were not more directed at
> protecting the homeland. (She may also want to examine the creation of
> Northern Command - but this was less clear to me.) Anyway, Mike Hurley was
> not in the room at the time so I told her that I would get with him and you
> and make sure this issue is being covered. I assume this would be
> something that falls under Team 3, but let's talk about it when you return
> and figure out a way to get back to Jamie on it. Thanks - Dana

Delete I Reply I Reply to All I Forward I Redirect I Blacklist I Message Source I Resume I Save as I Back to Sent Items
Print

http://kinesis.swishmail.com/webmail/imp/message.php?index=48 7/11/03
 .A :: INBOX: DoD Policy - Gorelick Issue Page 1 of 1

44.93MB / 476.84MB (9.42%)

Date: Fri, 11 Jul 2003 09:58:11 -0400
From: Dana Hyde <dhyde@9-11commission.gov>^
To: "" <pzelikow@9-11commission.gov>^
Cc: "" <mhurley@9-11commission.gov>4P,"" <bjenkins@9-11commission.gov>4P, 'Miles Kara' <mkara@9-
11commission.gov>4J,"" <dmarcus@9-11commission.gov>4P
Subject: DoD Policy - Gorelick Issue

^ 2 unnamed text/html 2.54 KB ||)

Phillip -

During Team 8's presentation last week (after you had left for the press conference), Jamie raised the issue of
whether our work will cover the extent to which DoD was postured - pre 9/11 - to protect the country from a
terrorist attack. The context for this was I was discussing that we had requested OSD, JCS and SO/LIC
documents related to NORAD's mission, pre 9/11. Jamie said that she wanted to look more broadly than that,
and expressed (as I believe she has done on other occasions) her desire to "tee-up" the issue of why DoD and
its assets were not more directed at protecting the homeland. (She may also want to examine the creation of
Northern Command - but this was less clear to me.) Anyway, Mike Hurley was not in the room at the time so I
told her that I would get with him and you and make sure this issue is being covered. I assume this would be
something that falls under Team 3, but let's talk about it when you return and figure out a way to get back to
Jamie on it. Thanks - Dana

http://kinesis.swishmail.com/webmail/imp/message.php?actionID=148&inailbox=INBOX&b... 7/11/03
 A :: INBOX: Jamie Gorelick's Question Page 1 of 1

44.93MB / 476.84MB (9.42%)

Date: Wed, 9 Jul 2003 18:23:06-0400
From: "" <mhurley@9-11commission.gov>4P
To: "" <bjenkins@9-11commission.gov>^
Cc: "" <mhurley@9-11commission.gov><ff
Subject: Jamie Gorelick's Question
Bonnie:

I talked with Chris Kojm just a few minutes ago about Jamie Gorelick's question
regarding our doc request to DoD. According to Chris, there's some background
on this. He thinks the issue Jamie is interested in falls more within Team 8's
portfolio.

I reminded him I would be out of the office on Thursday and Friday and we
agreed to hold off asking Jamie to frame out the issue until my return and
we've all had a chance to get Philip's take on this.

So, let's you and I talk to Philip on Monday afernoon.

Thanks,

Mike

http://kinesis.swishmail.com/webmail/imp/message.php?actionID=148&mailbox=INBOX&b... 7/11/03