Pego el maliling:
X-Sender: "Furst, Eugene P CIV (US)" <eugene.p.furst.civ@mail.mil>
X-Receiver: AJMacDonald <ajmacdonald83@yahoo.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
From: "Furst, Eugene P CIV (US)" <eugene.p.furst.civ@mail.mil>
To: AJMacDonald <ajmacdonald83@yahoo.com>
Reply-To: "Furst, Eugene P CIV (US)" <eugene.p.furst.civ@mail.mil>
Date: 22 Aug 2013 21:04:55
Subject: RE: amow-up, 20130820 (UNCLASSIFIED)
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary=--boundary_0_0af8e52e-533e-49e3-9fe1-1e67280711d4
----boundary_0_0af8e52e-533e-49e3-9fe1-1e67280711d4
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Classification: UNCLASSIFIED=0ACaveats: NONE=0A=0AGood luck for you, see you soon=
Regards,
-Gene
> -----Original Message-----
> From: AJMacDonald [mailto:ajmacdonald83@yahoo.com]=20
> Sent: Thursday, August 22, 2013 2:31 PM
> To: Furst, Eugene P CIV (US)
> Subject: Re: amow-up, 20130820
> As you see I'm far from this now, but I know our guys did their best.
> I enjoyed catching-up with you. Hope to see you soon again.
> Sincerely,
> Jamie=20
> On Aug 22, 2013, at 2:14 PM, "Furst, Eugene P CIV (US)"
> <eugene.p.furst.civ@mail.mil> wrote:
>> You're exactly right. We have to work with both theater on the requirem=
ent
>> and the organization that owns the contract to ensure we don't have too =
few
>> or too many contractors.
>> CITP - Rock Island Contract
>> CIAT - DIA Contract
>> By the way, saw your latest success, my congratulations. Good job.
>>
http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/syrian-activists-accuse-government-o=
f-deadly-chemical-attack-near-damascus/2013/08/21/aea157e6-0a50-11e3-89fe-a=
bb4a5067014_story.html
>> Regards,
>> -Gene
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: AJMacDonald [mailto:ajmacdonald83@yahoo.com]=20
>> Sent: Thursday, August 22, 2013 1:00 PM
>> To: Furst, Eugene P CIV (US)
>> Subject: Re: amow-up, 20130820
>> Gene; CIAT and CITP contracts are MIP funded. I recall the issue that o=
ften
>> surfaced was how the drawdown affected demand necessitating our assessme=
nt
>> of where we had folks, the quantity of analysts, and costs associate with
>> their employment. My recollection of this is correct is it not? Please
>> advise. Thank you. Jamie On Aug 21, 2013, at 4:19 PM, "Furst, Eugene P=
CIV
>> (US)" <eugene.p.furst.civ@mail.mil> wrote:
>>> Jamie,
>>>=20
>>> Next time you come in, I'll grab Katrina in DAMI-RI to help out if need=
ed.
>>> Your comment below is correct. It's just important to remember that=20
>>> the POM captures our "request". It isn't approved until Congress puts=
=20
>>> its stamp of approval on it. Pretty sure you understood that, we're=20
>>> just at the point where we're covering minor nuances...
>>>=20
>>> Regards,
>>> -Gene
>>>=20
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: AJMacDonald [mailto:ajmacdonald83@yahoo.com]
>>> Sent: Tuesday, August 20, 2013 5:13 PM
>>> To: Furst, Eugene P CIV (US)
>>> Subject: Re: amow-up, 20130820
>>>=20
>>> Thanks, Gene; ROGER all on the OCO piece - at DIA and with the ISR TF=
=20
>>> OCO was always stated; the fun was in determining what color OCO we=20
>>> would be allocated. End use always mattered in these cases. POM lock=
=20
>>> precedes the
>>> CJB: In that case the CJB captures how we were allocating MIP dollars=
=20
>>> to support activities within the confines of the approved POM. We=20
>>> might need a coffee! Jamie
>>>=20
>>>=20
>>> On Aug 20, 2013, at 4:59 PM, "Furst, Eugene P CIV (US)"
>>> <eugene.p.furst.civ@mail.mil> wrote:
>>>=20
>>>> Jamie,
>>>>=20
>>>> One quick caveat... within the MIP and the NIP there is base and OCO. =
=20
>>>> Most, if not all JUONS coming out of theater were addressed using OCO
>>> dollars.
>>>> Some of this OCO was MIP and some was NIP. Within DA G-2 almost all=
=20
>>>> of our OCO throughout the years was MIP. Not sure how much MIP/NIP=20
>>>> OCO DIA utilized. Just bringing this up based on your comment "
>>>> albeit the MIP might have more akin to OCO painted the color of MIP".
>>>>=20
>>>> You're correct regarding not having the linguist contract presented=20
>>>> during Congressional MIP/NIP Day... this was funded using non-MIP=20
>>>> Army OCO
>>> dollars.
>>>> Stable Shadow was actually part of MIP/NIP Day... it was just never=20
>>>> an issue.
>>>>=20
>>>> amowing MIP/NIP day, DAMI-RI would begin to build the Army's MIP=20
>>>> section of the CJB. The funding and manpower data within the CJB was=
=20
>>>> based upon data provided by the dollars requested/approved within the=
=20
>>>> POM (once we had a "POM lock", DAMI-RI was able to plug the numbers=20
>>>> into
>>> the CJB).
>>>>=20
>>>> Everything else is spot-on.
>>>>=20
>>>> I can also run this past Katrina in DAMI-RI for review... I'm pretty=
=20
>>>> familiar with the processes, but I'm certainly no expert.
>>>>=20
>>>> Please don't hesitate if there's anything else.
>>>>=20
>>>> Regards,
>>>> -Gene
>>>>=20
>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>> From: AJMacDonald [mailto:ajmacdonald83@yahoo.com]
>>>> Sent: Tuesday, August 20, 2013 4:43 PM
>>>> To: Furst, Eugene P CIV (US)
>>>> Cc:
genefurst@hotmail.com
>>>> Subject: amow-up, 20130820
>>>>=20
>>>> Gene:
>>>>=20
>>>> Thank you for making time to see me last week; I enjoyed catching-up=
=20
>>>> with you. Additionally, I learned a great deal and you enabled me to=
=20
>>>> put a few things back into perspective.
>>>>=20
>>>> When I was the Chief of Staff of the DIOCC at DIA I was appointed to=
=20
>>>> lead the Agency's Intelligence, Surveillance and Reconnaissance (ISR)=
=20
>>>> Task Force Tiger Team. The purpose of this Tiger Team was to merge=20
>>>> the ongoing and competing efforts of the agency's five disparate=20
>>>> directorates to garner funding from the ISR Task Force to resource=20
>>>> their stove piped support requirements to the fights in Iraq and=20
>>>> Afghanistan. They were doing this under the auspices of the JUONS=20
>>>> process. We got our act together and tightened up things within the=
=20
>>>> agency. I always believed that although we were working through the=
=20
>>>> ISR Task Force we were actually leveraging available MIP and NIP=20
>>>> dollars - albeit the MIP might have more akin to OCO painted the=20
>>>> color of MIP. The NIP piece was always something LTG Zahner, and=20
>>>> later LTG Kozial, would work out with the DNI. Do you believe I have
>> this right?
>>>>=20
>>>> The NIP MIP day is clear now as well. Essentially OP served as the=20
>>>> intelligence operations authority and advocate for Army intelligence=
=20
>>>> equities (e.g., Prophet, Guardrail, DCGS-A, ARL, EMRS, PTDS and PGSS)=
=20
>>>> during the annual meetings with the Congressional Professional Staff
>>> Members (PSM).
>>>> Our endstate was to ensure that all Military Intelligence Program "
>>>> intelligence capability areas" entered into the Congressional=20
>>>> Justification Book (CJB), specifically any changes in resource=20
>>>> allocation, were understood by the PSMs prior to final submission of=
=20
>>>> the requirements to Congress for approval. I am not certain we had=20
>>>> our linguist contract or Stable Shadow $s included in this mix.
>>>>=20
>>>> However, before all of this kicked off we had to meet with the SMEs=20
>>>> and action officers to review the submissions and provide counsel or=
=20
>>>> guidance on the completion of the individual submissions to ensure we=
=20
>>>> "dotted all of the i's" and "crossed all of the t's". Once this was=
=20
>>>> complete we would review the proposed submissions with the G-2 for=20
>>>> approval, guidance and or course changes. We'd conduct another=20
>>>> internal review before providing read-aheads to the PSMs. Once in=20
>>>> the book and good to go this would be aligned with the POM - right?
>>>>=20
>>>> Please let me know if I have this right or missed something.
>>>>=20
>>>> Again, thank you for your time and patience.
>>>>=20
>>>> Sincerely,
>>>>=20
>>>> Jamie
: