Nuclear Weapons

Pentagon Relaxes Censorship of Afghan War Memoir

01.24.13 | 3 min read | Text by Steven Aftergood

When U.S. Army Lt. Col. Anthony Shaffer wrote a memoir of his service as an intelligence officer in Afghanistan called “Operation Dark Heart” in 2010, the Department of Defense intervened to block publication, asserting that the manuscript contained classified information.  An initial print run of the book was destroyed, and the work was republished with hundreds of passages redacted.  However, a limited number of uncensored review copies and early sales editions have remained in circulation.

Now the Pentagon has decided that many of the claimed redactions are no longer necessary, and may be disclosed in future editions of the book.

“The U.S. Government has completed its security review of the manuscript, including the 433 passages that were redacted from the Thomas Dunne Books/St. Martin’s Press edition of September 2010,” wrote Mark M. Langerman, Chief of the DoD Office of Security Review, in a January 18, 2013 letter.  “The Government determined that information contained in 198 of the redacted passages has been properly declassified in accordance with Executive Order 13526. The other redacted passages, however, were found to contain classified information” and may not be disclosed.

The current status of each of the original redactions was presented in a chart accompanying Mr. Langerman’s letter.  Those who purchased the censored book can now find out what is behind at least some of the blacked-out sections.

Thus, a formerly classified reference on page 2 to “[deleted], the hub for U.S. operations in country” is now acknowledged to refer to “Bagram Air Base.”

Interestingly, the government does not admit that it overclassified any of this information, or classified it unnecessarily. On the contrary, officials filed sworn declarations in May 2011 indicating that the information was properly classified.  But that was 20 months ago, and times change.

“It is not at all unusual that, as circumstances change, the classification status of information changes,” government attorneys wrote yesterday in a pending lawsuit brought by author Shaffer.  They insisted that the information had now been declassified, not that it was originally misclassified, and they denied any implication of bad faith.

Of equal or greater interest is what remains classified, even today.  The use of the word “Fort” to refer to “NSA headquarters at Fort Meade, Md” on page xvi and elsewhere in the book is still classified, perhaps because the role of signals intelligence in Mr. Shaffer’s account is suppressed.  So is the author’s adopted cover name, “Christopher Stryker.”  A side-by-side comparison of several pages from the book in censored and uncensored form is posted here.

The author, or readers of the book, may agree with the redactions or disagree with them, the government says, but that doesn’t matter! Their perspectives are simply irrelevant to the classification process.

“There is no need to establish procedures by which the plaintiff or his ‘experts’ may submit their opinions regarding the classified information because any declaration or submission disputing the substance of the Government’s classification experts’ proper determinations is due no weight,” the government attorneys wrote in yesterday’s filing.

“Courts have repeatedly, and necessarily, rejected the views of plaintiffs on the question of whether a particular disclosure may harm national security.”

“Instead, the only relevant information that the plaintiff can provide is citations to specific instances in which the Government has officially released the information at issue.” The views of outside experts (or “experts”) don’t count.

In other words, the classification process is a pure expression of executive branch authority. It is not an empirical process or a substantive matter that outsiders can meaningfully participate in or try to rebut.

But to the extent that it is beyond debate or challenge, one may say that the classification process has no intrinsic claim to respect from anyone who has not already signed a non-disclosure agreement.


See all publications
Nuclear Weapons
Nuclear Notebook: Russian Nuclear Weapons, 2023

The FAS Nuclear Notebook is one of the most widely sourced reference materials worldwide for reliable information about the status of nuclear weapons, and has been published in the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists since 1987.. The Nuclear Notebook is researched and written by the staff of the Federation of American Scientists’ Nuclear Information Project: Director Hans […]

05.08.23 | 1 min read
read more
Nuclear Weapons
Video Indicates that Lida Air Base Might Get Russian “Nuclear Sharing” Mission in Belarus

On 14 April 2023, the Belarusian Ministry of Defence released a short video of a Su-25 pilot explaining his new role in delivering “special [nuclear] munitions” following his training in Russia. The features seen in the video, as well as several other open-source clues, suggest that Lida Air Base––located only 40 kilometers from the Lithuanian border and the […]

04.19.23 | 7 min read
read more
Nuclear Weapons
Was There a U.S. Nuclear Weapons Accident At a Dutch Air Base? [no, it was training, see update below]

A photo in a Los Alamos National Laboratory (LANL) student briefing from 2022 shows four people inspecting what appears to be a damaged B61 nuclear bomb.

04.03.23 | 7 min read
read more
Nuclear Weapons
STRATCOM Says China Has More ICBM Launchers Than The United States – We Have Questions

In early-February 2023, the Wall Street Journal reported that U.S. Strategic Command (STRATCOM) had informed Congress that China now has more launchers for Intercontinental Ballistic Missiles (ICBMs) than the United States. The report is the latest in a serious of revelations over the past four years about China’s growing nuclear weapons arsenal and the deepening […]

02.10.23 | 6 min read
read more