Communication panel emphasizes security concerns

August 20, 2008
By Henry Kenyon

The U.S. Army's major communications elements are facing different issues as they try to achieve ever-changing goals amid budgetary, cultural and technological challenges.

Brig. Gen. Susan Lawrence, USA, commanding general, NETCOM/9th Signal Command, emphasized the importance of information security-and how that is not given enough attention. "We are not doing well securing our NIPRNET-it's a sieve," she told attendees at a special panel discussion today. The Army is doing well securing its SIPRNET, but it is not robust enough. The warfighter must understand the security threat, she declared.

And, this problem is going to get worse as data proliferates. Gen. Lawrence warned that, with data expected to double in the next few years, the Army must learn to manage that data smartly and efficiently. The problem is not in the pipes, but in the data flowing through them.

Training signal professionals is becoming more complex each year, and Brig. Gen. Jeffrey W. Foley, USA, commanding general of the U.S. Army Signal Center and Fort Gordon, said that his command's campaign plan is "intricately tied" to other Army information campaign plans. He said that Fort Gordon "is in relentless pursuit of world-class training."

The Communications-Electronics Command (CECOM) Life Cycle Management Command is trying to prepare to move its entire operation concurrent with combat operations overseas. Its commanding general, Maj. Gen. Dennis L, Via, USA, said that the closing of Fort Monmouth provides the command with the ability to rebuild the organization. He predicted process improvements, enhanced integration and more co-located organizations at the new facility being built at Aberdeen Proving Ground.

Enjoyed this article? SUBSCRIBE NOW to keep the content flowing.

Share Your Thoughts:

What I see is Maj. Gen. Dennis L, Via, USA following orders. Someone at a higher level says move and the lower escelon says how fast. This is the way the Army works and things get done. But, in a democracy the PEOPLE who pay your salaries should give the orders. Especially at a Fort where the military presents is so minimal. Why would any civilian want to uproot his family and move to a state that is Totally unprepared to accept them. BRAC is a bad thing because they change the lives of some many people and have no plans inplace or how any of there decrees will be carried out. "JUST DO IT" it's the law. But when their rulings go against the LAW they degreed, government and military leaders just "Follow Orders". I think that a total Package should be in place before any decree is set into motion. Just to run head long into a financial and human pit of dispair is dumb. No Commercial Corporation would just say we are moving to a new location with out a specific PLAN in place to make that happen effiecently. To let contracts before all legal intanglements are settled is irresponsible. You're spending OUR money on something that has a possibility of not happening. Not a Smart Move. Being one of the affected Civillians at Fort Monmouth and a TAX payer. I see this move as a BAD decision which will hurt all of AMERICA. The BRAC commision was wereing a Blind Fold when they made this decision. It might be the right thing for the Army to do, but it is not planned up to Army standards thus all of us will suffer. But, the soldier will feel it more.

Share Your Thoughts: