Pentagon leaker’s violent rhetoric raises fresh questions on top secret vetting

Speaking as someone who just retired from being a Command Security Manager with about 1600 people under management:

The process of getting or renewing a clearance is arduous in the extreme if you fall within the things they say can be a risk, but if it’s outside of those (social media, etc.) it’s generally overlooked because our investigators and adjudicators are overworked and can be penalized if they take too long for things that aren’t strictly required.

In my case my spouse is foreign, and I helped someone be recruited into the Australian Military. Both of those were red flags that required multiple interviews over a year despite my 20 years of history and the fact that they never would have known of one issue if not self reported.

Yet in the parking lot there were no less than 20 “3 Percenter” stickers, multiple vehicles with a variety of “Jan 6th supporter” stickers, etc. that have all been identified as risk factors I was required to report. Not a single individual even had a case opened.

I have no good answers except that the system is moribund, bureaucratic, and has the wrong incentives internally (they still require polygraphs, which don’t work). I left at least partially because of frustration with being unable to actually enact change, even at my level.

This is just the human alignment problem - how can we be sure any given human is aligned to organizational goals?

American Security Theater goes all the way to the top, and pretty much always has. If I recall, the Manhattan Project had 4 independent Soviet spies inside the Top Secret tent before the end of 1944 - without the USSR having to actually recruit an insider. Joseph Stalin knew about the US's A-Bomb long before Harry Truman did.

Aren't soldiers supposed to have at least some violent tendencies? Can't really fight a war with folks who aren't interested in killing other people.