The implementation of arms control agreements by the Air Force is detailed in a newly updated directive.

The directive addresses Air Force obligations under New START, US-IAEA Safeguard Agreements, the Chemical Weapons Convention, and the Biological Weapons Convention.

See Implementation of, and Compliance with, Treaties Involving Weapons of Mass Destruction, Air Force Instruction 16-608, September 7, 2018.

Air Force officials are directed to make certain that even their most tightly secured special access programs are in compliance with international obligations. But they are also required to protect information about such programs from “unnecessary or inadvertent” exposure during verification activities.

The Congressional Research Service once played a prominent role in supporting oversight by congressional committees. Although that support has diminished sharply in recent years, it could conceivably be restored in a new Congress, writes former CRS analyst Kevin R. Kosar in a new paper.

In the past, CRS “closely assisted Congress in a myriad of major oversight efforts, including the Watergate investigation, the implementation of the Freedom of Information Act, and the Iran-Contra affair.”

But over time, Kosar writes, “CRS’ role in oversight declined due to various factors, most of which were out of its control. Congress changed. Congressional committees, particularly in the House of Representatives, lost capacity, and hyper-partisanism turned much oversight into political point-scoring rather than an exercise in governing that required expert assistance.”

See “The Atrophying of the Congressional Research Service’s Role in Supporting Committee Oversight” by Kevin R. Kosar, Wayne Law Review, vol. 64:149, 2018.

“CRS does not have to passively accept this fate,” said Kosar by email. His paper suggested various steps CRS could take to foster greater appreciation among committee leaders for the independent expertise CRS could provide.

CRS’s “raison d’être is to educate Congress, and it can engage its oversight and appropriations committees in a dialogue about the value of analysis and in-depth research. It can raise the issue of more extended oversight engagements and explain why they are valuable to Congress.”

“It is good for Congress, good for CRS staff, and good for the public to have nonpartisan experts more frequently and more deeply engaged in oversight,” he wrote.

Meanwhile, new and updated publications from CRS include the following.

Defense Primer: Lowest Price Technically Acceptable Contracts, CRS In Focus, September 4, 2018

Federal Role in U.S. Campaigns and Elections: An Overview, September 4, 2018

Securities Regulation and Initial Coin Offerings: A Legal Primer, updated August 31, 2018

The “Flores Settlement” and Alien Families Apprehended at the U.S. Border: Frequently Asked Questions, updated August 28, 2018

Turkey: Background and U.S. Relations, updated August 31, 2018

Cuba: U.S. Policy in the 115th Congress, updated September 1, 2018

U.N. Report Recommends Burmese Military Leaders Be Investigated and Prosecuted for Possible Genocide, CRS In Focus, September 4, 2018

India: Religious Freedom Issues, updated August 30, 2018

The Made in China 2025 Initiative: Economic Implications for the United States, CRS In Focus, updated August 29, 2018

Questioning Judicial Nominees: Legal Limitations and Practice, updated August 30, 2018

U.S. Army operations increasingly depend on intelligence to help confront adversaries who are themselves highly competent, the Army said this week in a newly updated publication on military intelligence.

Future operations “will occur in complex operational environments against capable peer threats, who most likely will start from positions of relative advantage. U.S. forces will require effective intelligence to prevail during these operations.” See Intelligence, Army Doctrine Publication 2-0, September 4, 2018.

The quality of U.S. military intelligence is not something that can be taken for granted, the Army document said.

“Despite a thorough understanding of intelligence fundamentals and a proficient staff, an effective intelligence effort is not assured. Large-scale combat operations are characterized by complexity, chaos, fear, violence, fatigue, and uncertainty. The fluid and chaotic nature of large-scale combat operations causes the greatest degree of fog, friction, and stress on the intelligence warfighting function,” the documentsaid.

“Intelligence is never perfect, information collection is never easy, and a single collection capability is never persistent and accurate enough to provide all of the answers.”

The Army document provides a conceptual framework for integrating intelligence into Army operations. It updates a prior version from 2012 which did not admit the existence of “peer” adversaries and did not mention the word “cyberspace.”

Some other recent U.S. military doctrine publications include the following.

Department of Defense Dictionary of Military and Associated Terms, updated August 2018

Foreign Internal Defense, Joint Publication 3-22, August 17, 2018

Integrated DoD Intelligence Priorities, Directive-Type Memorandum (DTM) 15-004, September 3, 2015, Incorporating Change 2, Effective September 4, 2018

Aircraft and ICBM Nuclear Operations, Air Force Instruction 13-520, 22 August 2018

Implementation of, and Compliance with, Arms Control Agreements, SecNav Instruction 5710.23D, August 28, 2018

“Since September 11, 2001, the Department of Defense (DoD) has obligated $1,500.8 billion for war-related costs.”

That’s the headline from the latest report to Congress on the post-9/11 costs of war, according to the Pentagon’s own reckoning. See Cost of War Update as of March 31, 2018 (FY 2018, Quarter 2).

Independent estimates of military spending that use a broader definition of the term yield a considerably higher total.

The new DoD report provides a detailed retrospective account of post-9/11 military spending, broken down by theater (Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria), by fiscal year, and by military service. A copy was obtained by Secrecy News.

The fraction of war-related funds that were appropriated to DoD in the post-9/11 period for classified purposes totaled $88 billion, the report said.

The 76-page DoD report itself exemplifies a certain financial profligacy, with a price tag that is orders of magnitude higher than one might have supposed. “The cost to the Department of Defense to prepare and assemble this report is approximately $209,000 for FY 2018,” the document states.

A US Air Force program to acquire “light attack” aircraft is introduced in a new publication from the Congressional Research Service.

“The OA-X light attack aircraft is a small, two-seat turboprop airplane designed for operation in relatively permissive environments.” It would give the Air Force “an ability to free up more sophisticated and expensive assets for other tasks.” See Air Force OA-X Light Attack Aircraft Program, CRS In Focus, August 23, 2018.

Other new and updated reports from the Congressional Research Service include the following.

Judge Brett M. Kavanaugh: His Jurisprudence and Potential Impact on the Supreme Court, August 21, 2018

Supreme Court Nomination: CRS Products, CRS Legal Sidebar, updated August 24, 2018

Calling Balls and Strikes: Ethics and Supreme Court Justices, CRS Legal Sidebar, August 20, 2018

Judicial Fact-Finding and Criminal Sentencing: Current Practice and Potential Change, CRS Legal Sidebar, August 24, 2018

CFIUS Reform: Foreign Investment National Security Reviews, CRS In Focus, August 22, 2018

Turkey’s Currency Crisis, CRS In Focus, August 27, 2018

MS-13 in the United States and Federal Law Enforcement Efforts, August 20, 2018

Al Qaeda and Islamic State Affiliates in Afghanistan, CRS In Focus, August 23, 2018

Hong Kong: Recent Developments and U.S. Relations, CRS In Focus, August 23, 2018

Trade Remedies: Section 201 of the Trade Act of 1974, CRS In Focus, August 22, 2018

U.S. Trade Debates: Select Disputes and Actions, CRS In Focus, August 28, 2018

Records, Papers, Decisions: Kavanaugh Records and the Presidential Records Act, CRS Insight, August 27, 2018

The Department of Defense issued a directive this month based on new authority granted by Congress last year to engage in “low-visibility, irregular warfare” operations.

In the FY2018 defense authorization act (PL 115-91, sect. 1202) Congress specifically authorized the Secretary of Defense “to provide support to foreign forces, irregular forces, groups, or individuals engaged in supporting or facilitating ongoing irregular warfare operations by U.S. Special Operations Forces (SOF).”

The new authority was needed, Congress said, in order to fill a perceived gap in the US military’s ability to fight in conflicts that are below the threshold of war.

“Adversarial nations are becoming more aggressive in challenging U.S. interests and partnerships and destabilizing regional order through the use of asymmetric means that often fall below the threshold of traditional armed conflict, often referred to as the ‘grey zone’,” according to the Senate Armed Services Committee report (115-125) on the 2018 defense bill (section 1201).

“The committee notes that the ability of U.S. SOF [special operations forces] to conduct low-visibility, irregular warfare operations in politically sensitive environments make them uniquely suited to counter the malign activities of our adversaries in this domain.”

“However, the committee is concerned that the Secretary of Defense lacks sufficient authority to provide support for irregular warfare operations by U.S. SOF to counter this growing threat and therefore believes that granting this authority will provide the Secretary with the necessary options and flexibility to achieve U.S. military objectives,” the Senate Armed Services Committee wrote last year.

The amount of money that was authorized for this purpose — $10 million per year for three years — is minuscule by conventional U.S. military standards, but it could still be meaningful in the context of irregular warfare.

To begin implementing the new authority, Deputy Secretary of Defense Patrick Shanahan this month issued Directive-type Memorandum 18-005 that defines the policies and procedures for employing the funding authorized by Congress. See Authority for Support of Special Operations for Irregular Warfare (IW), DTM-18-005, August 3, 2018.

The Congressional Research Service says that, as a constitutional matter, it will be up to Congress to determine whether and how to reorganize the management of US national security assets in space, and whether to establish a new “space force,” as the Trump Administration has proposed.

“The constitutional framework appears to contemplate that the role of establishing, organizing, regulating, and providing resources for the Armed Forces belongs to Congress, while the President is in charge of commanding the forces Congress has established using the funds Congress has provided,” CRS said in a new publication. See Toward the Creation of a U.S. “Space Force”, CRS In Focus, August 16, 2018.

Other new and updated reports from the Congressional Research Service include the following.

Hazing in the Armed Forces, CRS In Focus, August 9, 2018

Substance Abuse Prevention, Treatment, and Research Efforts in the Military, CRS In Focus, August 17, 2018

Election Security: Issues in the 2018 Midterm Elections, CRS Insight, August 16, 2018

Supreme Court Appointment Process: Consideration by the Senate Judiciary Committee, updated August 14, 2018

IRS Will No Longer Require Disclosure of Certain Nonprofit Donor Information, CRS Legal Sidebar, August 14, 2018

Can the President Pardon Contempt of Court? Probably Yes, CRS Legal Sidebar, August 10, 2018

Overview of U.S.-South Korea Agricultural Trade, August 8, 2018

Proposed U.S.-EU Trade Negotiations: Hitting Pause on a Trade War?, CRS Insight, August 9, 2018

Carbon Capture and Sequestration (CCS) in the United States, updated August 9, 2018

Proliferation Security Initiative (PSI), updated August 9, 2018

Strange Occurrences Highlight Insider Threat to Aviation Security, CRS Insight, August 14, 2018

In an apparent departure from “generally accepted accounting principles,” federal agencies will be permitted to publish financial statements that are altered so as to protect information on classified spending from disclosure.

The new policy was developed by the government’s Federal Accounting Standards Advisory Board (FASAB) in response to concerns raised by the Department of Defense and others that a rigorous audit of agency financial statements could lead to unauthorized disclosure of classified information.

In order to prevent disclosure of classified information in a public financial statement, FASAB said that agencies may amend or obscure certain spending information. “An entity may modify information required by other [accounting] standards if the effect of the modification does not change the net results of operations or net position.”

Agencies may also shift accounts around in a potentially misleading way. “A component reporting entity is allowed to be excluded from one reporting entity and consolidated into another reporting entity. The effect of the modifications may change the net results of operations and/or net position.” See Statement of Federal Financial Accounting Standards 56, FASAB, July 5, 2018 (final draft for sponsor review).

In response to an earlier draft of the new standard that was issued last December, most government agencies endorsed the move to permit modifying public financial statements.

“The protection of classified information and national security takes precedence over financial statements,” declared the Central Intelligence Agency in its comments (submitted discreetly under the guise of an “other government agency”).

“It is in the best interest of national security to allow for modification to the presentation of balances and reporting entity in the GPFFR [the publicly available General Purpose Federal Financial Report],” CIA wrote.

But in a sharply dissenting view, the Pentagon’s Office of Inspector General said the new approach was improper, unwise and unnecessary.

It “jeopardizes the financial statements’ usefulness and provides financial managers with an arbitrary method of reporting accounting information,” the DoD OIG said.

“We do not agree that incorporating summary-level dollar amounts in the overall statements will necessarily result in the release of classified information.”

“This proposed guidance is a major shift in Federal accounting guidance and, in our view, the potential impact is so expansive that it represents another comprehensive basis of accounting.”

“The Board should clarify whether this proposed standard, or subsequent Interpretations, could permit entities to record misstated amounts in the financial statements to mislead readers with the stated purpose of protecting classified information. We believe that no accounting guidance should allow this type of accounting entry.”

“We do not believe that… the Board’s proposed guidance would effectively protect classified information, comply with GAAP [generally accepted accounting principles], or serve the public interest,” the DoD OIG wrote.

The Kearney & Company accounting firm also objected, saying that it would be better to classify certain financial statements or redact classified spending than to misrepresent published information.

“Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (GAAP) should not be modified to limit reporting of classified activities. Rather, GAAP reporting should remain the same as other Federal entities and redacted for public release or remain classified.”

If a published account is modified “so material activity is no longer accurately presented to the reader of financial statements, its usefulness to public users is limited and subject to misinterpretation.”

“This approach limits the value, usefulness, and benefits of financial statements as currently defined by GAAP. Financial statements of classified entities should remain classified or redacted like other classified documents before release to the public.”

“The integrity of current GAAP as it applies to all Federal entities should be retained,” Kearney said in its comments.

But the FASAB ultimately rejected those views.

“The Board determined that options other than those permitted in this Statement may not always adequately resolve national security concerns,” according to the final draft of the policy, which the Board provided to Secrecy News.

“Without this Statement, there is a risk that reporting entities may need to classify their entire financial statements to comply with existing accounting standards, which would likely result in the need to classify a large portion of the government-wide financial statements.”

In practice, the Board suggested, “Modifications may not be needed to prevent the disclosure of certain classified information. Therefore, this Statement permits, rather than requires, modifications on a case-by-case basis.”

The new accounting standard is expected to be approved by the FASAB sponsors — namely the Secretary of Treasury, the Comptroller General, and the Director of the Office of Management and Budget — by the end of a 90 day review period in October.

Last month, the FASAB issued a separate classified “Interpretation” of the new standard that addressed the policy’s implementation in detail. The contents of that document are not publicly known.

The topic of accounting for classified spending has been a challenging one for the Board, said Assistant Director Monica R. Valentine on Monday. “This is the first time we’ve had to deal with this sort of issue.”

The substantial progress that was achieved in recent years in producing the State Department’s official Foreign Relations of the United States (FRUS) series was reversed in several respects last year, according to a new annual report from the Department’s Historical Advisory Committee.

The FRUS series is required by statute to publish a “thorough, accurate, and reliable” documentary record of United States foreign relations no later than 30 years after the events that they document.

To a large extent, FRUS is dependent on — and also helps to motivate — declassification of national security and foreign policy records. Such declassification in turn depends on the cooperation of other agencies who are called upon to review selected documents.

But “The pace of the reviews of FRUS volumes submitted to the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) and Department of Defense (DoD) and the declassification of documents was disappointing” in 2017, the new annual report said.

The Department of Defense “was unconscionably tardy and inattentive. It completed only one out of eleven volumes submitted for review throughout the entire year.”

Because most of the historically significant documents provided to DoD were not reviewed and cleared for release in any form, the FRUS volumes that were planned to contain them cannot be published any time soon.

Likewise, “Although in 2017 CIA did not behave nearly as irresponsibly as DoD, it performed below the expectations produced over the several preceding years.”

On the other hand, the Committee found reason to praise the State Department, the National Archives, and the National Security Council. Another bright spot in 2017 was the publication of the long-delayed FRUS supplement on events surrounding the 1953 coup in Iran.

The annual report concluded with several legislative proposals and policy recommendations that the Advisory Committee believes would promote an improved review and publication process.

But it is unclear whether the State Department itself will be receptive to any such improvements. The Department has not been overly friendly to its own History Office (HO), the Historical Advisory Committee (HAC) noted.

“The unexpected and unprecedented decision of the State Department’s leadership in December to reject HO’s request to renew three HAC members unsettled both the committee and the office,” the annual report said.

A dozen classified programs that involved research on human subjects were underway last year at the Department of Energy.

Human subjects research refers broadly to the collection of scientific data from human subjects. This could involve physical procedures that are performed on the subjects, or simply interviews and other forms of interaction with them.

Little information is publicly available about the latest DOE programs, most of which have opaque, non-descriptive names such as Tristan, Idaho Bailiff and Moose Drool. But a list of the classified programs was released this week under the Freedom of Information Act.

Human subjects research erupted into national controversy 25 years ago with reporting by Eileen Welsome of the Albuquerque Tribune on human radiation experiments that had been conducted by the Atomic Energy Commission, many of which were performed without the consent of the subjects. A presidential advisory committee was convened to document the record and to recommend appropriate policy responses.

In 2016, the Department of Energy issued updated guidelines on human subjects research, which included a requirement to produce a listing of all classified projects involving human subjects. It is that listing that has now been released.

“Research using human subjects provides important medical and scientific benefits to individuals and to society. The need for this research does not, however, outweigh the need to protect individual rights and interests,” according to the 2016 DOE guidance on protection of human subjects in classified research.

An extravagantly horrific example of fictional human subject research was imagined by Lindsay Anderson in his 1973 film O Lucky Man! which captured the zeitgeist for a moment.

New reports from the Congressional Research Service this week include the following.

Advising the President: Rules Governing Access and Accountability of Presidential Advisors, CRS Legal Sidebar, August 6, 2018

The European Deterrence Initiative: A Budgetary Overview, CRS In Focus, August 8, 2018

Iran’s Threats, the Strait of Hormuz, and Oil Markets: In Brief, August 6, 2018

Nord Stream 2: A Geopolitical Lightning Rod, CRS In Focus, August 7, 2018

Proposals to Impose Sanctions on Russian Sovereign Debt, CRS Insight, August 6, 2018

Buprenorphine and the Opioid Crisis: A Primer for Congress, August 3, 2018

Regulation of Cell-Cultured Meat, CRS In Focus, August 9, 2018

Description of Proposed Changes to Implementation of the Endangered Species Act, CRS In Focus, August 8, 2018

Abortion, Justice Kennedy, and Judge Kavanaugh, CRS Legal Sidebar, August 8, 2018

The Trump Administration has moved aggressively to impose tariffs and other restrictions on foreign imports, “but it is unclear what specific outcomes the Administration is seeking,” according to the Congressional Research Service.

“Increasing U.S. tariffs or imposing other import restrictions through these laws potentially opens the United States to complaints that it is violating its WTO and free trade agreement (FTA) commitments,” CRS said. Meanwhile, retaliation by other countries “may be amplifying the potential negative effects of the U.S. tariff measures.”

A new CRS publication provides “a timeline of key events related to each U.S. trade action, as well as the range of potential trade volumes affected by the U.S. tariffs and U.S. trading partners’ retaliations.” See Escalating Tariffs: Timeline and Potential Impact, CRS Insight, July 31, 2018.

Other new and timely publications from the Congressional Research Service include the following.

The World Trade Organization (WTO): U.S. Participation at Risk?, CRS Insight, July 31, 2018

U.S.-China Trade Issues, CRS In Focus, August 2, 2018

Taiwan: Select Political and Security Issues, CRS In Focus, July 31, 2018

Mexico’s Immigration Control Efforts, CRS In Focus, August 1, 2018

Family Separation at the Border and the Ms. L. Litigation, CRS Legal Sidebar, July 31, 2018

Pipeline Safety: Overdue Statutory Mandates, CRS Insight, July 27, 2018

Wildfire Statistics, CRS In Focus, August 2, 2018

Artificial Intelligence (AI) and Education, CRS In Focus, August 1, 2018

Iran’s Ballistic Missile and Space Launch Programs, CRS In Focus, August 1, 2018

North Korea: U.S. Relations, Nuclear Diplomacy, and Internal Situation, July 27, 2018

North Korea’s Nuclear and Ballistic Missile Programs, CRS In Focus, August 2, 2018