Dayton Daily News

Special ops’ intel request blocked

Troops: Firm’s software is better than government’s.

- By Ken Dilanian

— The military WASHINGTON has been trying to force special operations troops heading to war zones to use flawed government software for intelligen­ce analysis instead of a commercial alternativ­e they say they need, according to government records and interviews.

Over the last four months, six Army special operations units about to be deployed into Afghanista­n, Iraq and other hostile environmen­ts have requested software made by Palantir, a Silicon Valley company that has synthesize­d data for the CIA, the Navy SEALs and the country’s largest banks, among other government and private entities.

But just two of the requests have been approved, in both cases by the Army after members of Congress intervened with senior military leaders. Four other requests made through U.S. Army Special Operations Command in Fort Bragg, N.C., and Tampa, Fla.based Special Operations Command have not been granted. The Army says its policy is to grant all requests for Palantir, while special operations officials say they are working through the requests on a case-by-case basis.

Email messages and other military records show that Army and special operations command bureaucrat­s have been pressing troops to use an in-house system built and maintained by traditiona­l defense contractor­s. The Distribute­d Common Ground System, or DCGS, has consistent­ly failed independen­t tests and earned the ire of soldiers in the field for its poor performanc­e.

Special operations units have used Palantir since 2009 to store and analyze intelligen­ce ranging from informatio­n on cultural trends to roadside bomb data, but it has always been seen by top Pentagon officials as an interim solution until the in-house system is fielded. Those who have used the system say DCGS has yet to deliver on its promise of seamlessly integratin­g intelligen­ce.

Pentagon officials say that DCGS, despite its flaws, has broader capabiliti­es than Palantir, and that in some cases it complement­s Palantir.

Intelligen­ce officers say they use Palantir to analyze and map a variety of intelligen­ce from hundreds of databases. Palantir costs millions, compared to the billions the military has been pouring into DCGS.

Special operations officials, in a statement, said Palantir had been “extremely successful” in Iraq and Afghanista­n and they are working to expand access to Palantir for units deployed in the fight against the Islamic State group. But records and interviews show a history of internal pressure against making and approving such requests.

One veteran special operations intel analyst, who is on his seventh deployment in 12 years, said his recent request for Palantir for a unit heading to Iraq had met with “pushback” both from his own headquarte­rs and from bureaucrat­s who favor DCGS’ analytical component at the Pentagon, special operations command headquarte­rs in Tampa, and Army special operations at Fort Bragg. Another special operations officer also used the term “heavy pushback” in an email about his request for Palantir.

Like most active-duty Army personnel interviewe­d for this story, they declined to be quoted by name because they feared speaking out could put their careers at risk.

In their statement, special operations officials said their questions about Palantir requests should not be interprete­d as resistance.

The failings of the Army’s version of DCGS have received significan­t public attention in recent years. The version tailored to special operations troops has even less capability, special operations command acknowledg­es in its records. Another version being offered to special operations troops working in remote areas, called DCGS-Lite, has received mediocre reviews from intelligen­ce analysts, Army records show.

Intelligen­ce officers say Palantir is easier to use, more stable and more capable than DCGS, which sometimes doesn’t work at all.

The Pentagon system is difficult to master, the veteran intelligen­ce analyst said, while it takes him about 30 minutes to train a new analyst on Palantir.

Another officer wrote in an email that with Palantir, his analysts were able to easily mix open-source intelligen­ce gleaned from social media or Web searches with classified reporting. DCGS makes that much harder, he said.

In February, an intelligen­ce officer for the 5th Special Forces Group wrote in an email, “We still want Palantir because we think it is the best tool to meet the needs of our mission,” which includes operations against the Islamic State group in Iraq and training rebels in Syria.

The only reason the unit is using DCGS, the officer wrote, is because it came with much-needed laptops. “We do not plan to use any of the DCGS apps or tools for our mission,” the officer wrote. The person who provided the email asked that the author not be identified to spare him or her from retaliatio­n.

All the commercial interests in the dispute have political clout. Palantir employs a bevy of lobbyists to press its case in Washington, as do the defense companies behind DCGS, such as Lockheed Martin, Raytheon and Booz Allen Hamilton, which have longstandi­ng relationsh­ips with Pentagon buyers.

In addition to the profession­al lobbying, some members of Congress have been contacted by special operation officers who complained that they were being denied the tools they need.

 ??  ??
 ?? ARMY / AP ?? This is a page from a brochure about the Distribute­d Common Ground System. Records show the military has been trying to force the use of DCGS, an unpopular government-built intelligen­ce system, on special operations units.
ARMY / AP This is a page from a brochure about the Distribute­d Common Ground System. Records show the military has been trying to force the use of DCGS, an unpopular government-built intelligen­ce system, on special operations units.

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from United States