Print

Email story

Comment

Email editor

Author cracks codes that keep the public in the dark

William Arkin says government code names often are intended keep bureaucrats safe from the prying eyes of the citizenry.

By BILL ADAIR
Published February 6, 2005

WASHINGTON - To make a point that the government is too secretive, William Arkin has published 600 pages of its secrets.

In his book Code Names: Deciphering U.S. Military Plans, Programs and Operations in the 9/11 World, Arkin reveals more than 3,000 codes ranging from Gray Fox (a clandestine Army intelligence effort) to Busy Lobster (an aerial refueling operation).

Code Names doesn't have a plot, and it's hard to keep track of the characters. Here's a typical passage: "Sea Nymph - Former navy AN/WLQ-4 submarine ELINT program. Sea Nymph was phased out and replaced by Cluster Spectator. See also, Barnacle." A former Army intelligence analyst, Arkin says he wrote the book to show that codes are a veil of secrecy that allows the government to avoid public scrutiny.

"The sad truth is that code names are not just used to confuse and confound the enemy," he writes, "but to build power inside various bureaucracies and keep prying eyes, even congressional ones, from understanding what is really going on."

But the Pentagon and national security experts say Arkin's unusual book may have jeopardized military and intelligence efforts.

"I see no value in exposing a whole bunch of code words, which in some cases might reveal things about programs," says Richard Kerr, a former CIA official. "It could lead to an unraveling of things."

Arkin's book raises a fundamental question about the United States in the information age. How open should we be?

Code names allow people to discuss sensitive missions or secret weapons without revealing critical details. They also provide a convenient shorthand. It's easier to say "Constant Vigil" than "the counter-narcotics operation conducted by Southern Command."

The Germans used code names extensively in World War I (they had a fondness for religious and mythological names, including Archangel and Valkyrie), but the United States didn't use them much until World War II.

As the United States used them more often, a few rules evolved. The names could not refer to living persons, Arkin says, and could not be too triumphal, insulting or vulgar.

Today, many military code names have two words and follow certain patterns. For example, first words that begin with "In" usually refer to operations of Tampa-based Central Command. Sometimes, those words also indicate a location. "Inspired" refers to a Centcom operation in Pakistan, according to Arkin's book.

The second word is often chosen at random. Inspired Gambit was an exercise with the Pakistani army. Inspired Alert was with Pakistan's air force.

The military also uses nicknames that are not based on the standard rules. Often, the names imply strength. Toltec Spear is an Army counterintelligence program. Dragon Hammer was a NATO exercise. Flaming Arrow is a communications network for nuclear weapons.

Arkin's book, which is available at major bookstores and online retailers, says the United States increasingly chooses powerful words to build public support for its missions, such as Operation Iraqi Freedom and Desert Shield.

"The traditional letter-block system is slowly being eroded by the political," he says. "If you look at our day-to-day operations in Afghanistan and Iraq, virtually all are given triumphant names."

A few code names sound lighthearted.

Fig Leaf was an exercise involving continuity of government after a nuclear war. Grandma Beguile was a project involving the Army Foreign Science and Technology Center. An operation of the Air Force Materiel Command was called Have Doughnuts.

Arkin, an analyst for NBC News and a journalist who specializes in defense, says the government is obsessed with secrecy. A case in point: Special Operations Command, a Tampa-based group that oversees the military's special forces.

"Virtually everything about SOCOM is classified," he says. "The toilet-paper consumption is classified."

Another example: the Bush administration's censoring of the congressional report on the 9/11 attacks. On one page, for example, the government redacted everything but the words "The Joint Inquiry also found".

Arkin says the Bush administration has hidden behind secrecy to build support for the Iraq war and other initiatives. Congress has not provided enough scrutiny of the administration, he says.

"Democracy works better, and a brighter and safer future is more likely to be achieved, when the people understand what is being done in their name," he writes.

Arkin decided he would be more successful making his point by defiantly publishing a glossary of secret names rather than a long rant.

"The only way you are going to get a grasp of the totality of government operations is to have a map of it," he says.

Steven Aftergood, the director of the government secrecy project at the Federation of American Scientists, helped Arkin compile the list. He says the book "is not casual reading. In fact, the text as a whole is nearly unreadable." But he calls it "a reminder of just how much we don't know about what our government is doing."

Arkin says he collected the code names from public documents and government sources. He says he was "mindful of my responsibilities as a citizen" and did not publish anything that could compromise a current program or reveal intelligence sources.

The government is not amused.

A Defense Department spokesman declined to comment on the book's accuracy but said, "Any release of classified information would be referred to the Department of Justice to investigate. It is unfortunate that individuals in the media seek to profit on the publication or broadcast of information that may put American lives at risk."

Andy Messing, executive director of the National Defense Council Foundation, a military think tank, says authors should be careful what they publish. "I believe in a free press. But there's a certain amount of secrecy you must have to run operations and counteroperations."

Kerr, the CIA's deputy director from 1989-92, was skeptical of Arkin's claim that he did not reveal sensitive information.

"How does he know? I don't think he's in a position to make a judgment that a particular program is important or unimportant," Kerr says.

Individual elements of Arkin's book might seem innocuous, Kerr says, but they might still be enough to reveal a crucial detail that uncovers a sensitive mission.

Each revelation is "another little thread to follow," he says. "Maybe that thread is then pulled out and you find another connection and pretty soon you have three or four and pretty soon you have a better picture."

Kerr says he agrees with Arkin that some things are unnecessarily kept secret. But for the most part, he thinks the United States is too open with sensitive information.

"We just talk too much."

Washington bureau chief Bill Adair can be reached at adair@sptimes.com or 202 463-0575.

[Last modified February 6, 2005, 00:23:11]