

Currently released so far... 6230 / 251,287
Articles
Browse latest releases
2010/12/01
2010/12/02
2010/12/03
2010/12/04
2010/12/05
2010/12/06
2010/12/07
2010/12/08
2010/12/09
2010/12/10
2010/12/11
2010/12/12
2010/12/13
2010/12/14
2010/12/15
2010/12/16
2010/12/17
2010/12/18
2010/12/19
2010/12/20
2010/12/21
2010/12/22
2010/12/23
2010/12/24
2010/12/25
2010/12/26
2010/12/27
2010/12/28
2010/12/29
2010/12/30
2011/01/01
2011/01/02
2011/01/04
2011/01/05
2011/01/07
2011/01/09
2011/01/10
2011/01/11
2011/01/12
2011/01/13
2011/01/14
2011/01/15
2011/01/16
2011/01/17
2011/01/18
2011/01/19
2011/01/20
2011/01/21
2011/01/22
2011/01/23
2011/01/24
2011/01/25
2011/01/26
2011/01/27
2011/01/28
2011/01/29
2011/01/30
2011/01/31
2011/02/01
2011/02/02
2011/02/03
2011/02/04
2011/02/05
2011/02/06
2011/02/07
2011/02/08
2011/02/09
2011/02/10
2011/02/11
2011/02/12
2011/02/13
2011/02/14
2011/02/15
2011/02/16
2011/02/17
2011/02/18
2011/02/19
2011/02/20
2011/02/21
2011/02/22
2011/02/23
2011/02/24
2011/02/25
2011/02/26
2011/02/27
2011/02/28
2011/03/01
2011/03/02
2011/03/03
2011/03/04
2011/03/05
2011/03/06
2011/03/07
2011/03/08
2011/03/09
2011/03/10
2011/03/11
2011/03/13
2011/03/14
2011/03/15
2011/03/16
2011/03/17
2011/03/18
2011/03/19
2011/03/20
2011/03/21
Browse by creation date
Browse by origin
Embassy Athens
Embassy Asuncion
Embassy Astana
Embassy Asmara
Embassy Ashgabat
Embassy Ankara
Embassy Amman
Embassy Algiers
Embassy Addis Ababa
Embassy Accra
Embassy Abuja
Embassy Abu Dhabi
Embassy Abidjan
Consulate Amsterdam
American Institute Taiwan, Taipei
Embassy Bujumbura
Embassy Buenos Aires
Embassy Budapest
Embassy Bucharest
Embassy Brussels
Embassy Bridgetown
Embassy Bratislava
Embassy Brasilia
Embassy Bogota
Embassy Bishkek
Embassy Bern
Embassy Berlin
Embassy Belgrade
Embassy Beirut
Embassy Beijing
Embassy Banjul
Embassy Bangkok
Embassy Bandar Seri Begawan
Embassy Bamako
Embassy Baku
Embassy Baghdad
Consulate Barcelona
Embassy Copenhagen
Embassy Conakry
Embassy Colombo
Embassy Chisinau
Embassy Caracas
Embassy Canberra
Embassy Cairo
Consulate Curacao
Consulate Ciudad Juarez
Consulate Chennai
Consulate Casablanca
Consulate Cape Town
Embassy Dushanbe
Embassy Dublin
Embassy Doha
Embassy Djibouti
Embassy Dhaka
Embassy Dar Es Salaam
Embassy Damascus
Embassy Dakar
Consulate Dubai
Embassy Kyiv
Embassy Kuwait
Embassy Kuala Lumpur
Embassy Kinshasa
Embassy Kigali
Embassy Khartoum
Embassy Kathmandu
Embassy Kampala
Embassy Kabul
Consulate Kolkata
Embassy Luxembourg
Embassy Luanda
Embassy London
Embassy Ljubljana
Embassy Lisbon
Embassy Lima
Embassy Lilongwe
Embassy La Paz
Consulate Lagos
Mission USNATO
Embassy Muscat
Embassy Moscow
Embassy Montevideo
Embassy Monrovia
Embassy Minsk
Embassy Mexico
Embassy Mbabane
Embassy Maputo
Embassy Manama
Embassy Managua
Embassy Malabo
Embassy Madrid
Consulate Munich
Consulate Mumbai
Consulate Montreal
Consulate Monterrey
Consulate Milan
Embassy Pristina
Embassy Pretoria
Embassy Prague
Embassy Port Au Prince
Embassy Phnom Penh
Embassy Paris
Embassy Paramaribo
Embassy Panama
Consulate Peshawar
REO Basrah
Embassy Rome
Embassy Riyadh
Embassy Riga
Embassy Reykjavik
Embassy Rangoon
Embassy Rabat
Consulate Rio De Janeiro
Consulate Recife
Secretary of State
Embassy Stockholm
Embassy Sofia
Embassy Skopje
Embassy Singapore
Embassy Seoul
Embassy Sarajevo
Embassy Santo Domingo
Embassy Santiago
Embassy Sanaa
Embassy San Salvador
Embassy San Jose
Consulate Strasbourg
Consulate Shenyang
Consulate Shanghai
Consulate Sao Paulo
Embassy Tunis
Embassy Tripoli
Embassy Tokyo
Embassy The Hague
Embassy Tel Aviv
Embassy Tehran
Embassy Tegucigalpa
Embassy Tbilisi
Embassy Tashkent
Embassy Tallinn
Consulate Tijuana
USUN New York
USEU Brussels
US Mission Geneva
US Interests Section Havana
US Delegation, Secretary
UNVIE
Embassy Ulaanbaatar
Browse by tag
ASEC
AF
AE
AR
AORC
AJ
AU
AM
ABLD
AL
AMGT
ASUP
AFIN
APER
ABUD
AVERY
APCS
AEMR
ADCO
APECO
ASIG
AG
AA
AS
AFFAIRS
ASECKFRDCVISKIRFPHUMSMIGEG
AMED
AO
ACOA
AX
AROC
ATFN
ASEAN
AFGHANISTAN
AFU
AER
ALOW
AODE
ATRN
AID
AC
AGMT
CH
CO
CS
CE
CU
CLINTON
CG
CVIS
CMGT
CI
CJAN
CF
COM
CASC
CA
CBW
CM
CDG
CR
COUNTER
CD
CWC
CKGR
CN
CPAS
CJUS
CV
CONS
CT
CY
COUNTERTERRORISM
CIA
CACM
CDB
CAN
COE
COUNTRY
CLEARANCE
CACS
CONDOLEEZZA
CARSON
CL
CIS
CODEL
CTM
CB
ECON
EFIN
EAIR
EUN
EINV
ENRG
EG
ETRD
EPET
ETTC
ELAB
EU
ER
ET
EAGR
ECPS
ECIN
ELTN
EAID
EMIN
EWWT
EFIS
EIND
EC
ES
EN
EI
ENVR
ENGR
ENIV
EUNCH
ENVI
ETRDEINVECINPGOVCS
ELN
EZ
EXTERNAL
EINVECONSENVCSJA
EINT
EUR
ECINECONCS
ENNP
EFINECONCS
EK
ELECTIONS
ECUN
EINVEFIN
ECIP
EINDETRD
EUC
EREL
ECA
ENERG
ENGY
ETRO
EFTA
ECONCS
ECONOMICS
ECONEFIN
EINVETC
EINN
ESA
ETC
ETRDEINVTINTCS
ESENV
ETRDECONWTOCS
IN
IC
IR
IZ
IS
IAEA
IT
ICTY
IO
IA
IWC
ID
ICRC
ILC
INTELSAT
IMO
ISRAELI
IACI
ILO
ITRA
IBRD
IMF
ICJ
ICAO
ITALY
ITALIAN
IRAQI
INTERPOL
IV
IQ
IPR
INRB
ITPHUM
IIP
IL
INR
ITPGOV
IZPREL
IRC
INRA
INRO
IRAJ
IEFIN
IF
KDEM
KCRM
KJUS
KTIA
KWBG
KPAL
KIPR
KTIP
KE
KNNP
KGHG
KICC
KV
KTFN
KU
KCFE
KDRG
KWMN
KSCA
KGIC
KCOR
KFRD
KPKO
KSUM
KPRP
KPAO
KBCT
KIRF
KCFC
KISL
KREC
KSPR
KHIV
KBIO
KMCA
KMPI
KFLU
KSTH
KBTR
KS
KOMC
KOMS
KSEP
KPRV
KFLO
KHLS
KN
KWWMN
KUNR
KLIG
KSTC
KZ
KG
KRAD
KOLY
KTBT
KTDB
KOCI
KAWK
KCIP
KNPP
KWAC
KMDR
KAWC
KIDE
KSAF
KX
KWMNCS
KNEI
KCRS
KVPR
KFRDKIRFCVISCMGTKOCIASECPHUMSMIGEG
KACT
KO
KFSC
KR
KPWR
KMIG
KSEC
KIFR
KDEMAF
KFIN
KGCC
KPIN
KPLS
KIRC
KFRDCVISCMGTCASCKOCIASECPHUMSMIGEG
KGIT
KBTS
KERG
KWMM
KRVC
KNSD
KVIR
KNUP
KTER
KDDG
KHSA
KMRS
KHDP
KTLA
KPAK
KNAR
KREL
KPAI
KTEX
KCOM
KNNPMNUC
KPOA
KRFD
KHUM
KDEV
KNUC
MOPS
MARR
MASS
MNUC
MO
MX
MCAP
ML
MTCRE
MR
MP
MY
MU
MIL
MAR
MC
MRCRE
MTRE
MA
MEPI
MV
MPOS
MD
MZ
MEPP
MOPPS
MAPP
MASC
MT
MERCOSUR
MK
MDC
MI
MAPS
MCC
MASSMNUC
MQADHAFI
MUCN
MTCR
MG
OREP
OVIP
OFDP
ODIP
OPDC
OAS
OTRA
OSCE
OECD
OIIP
OEXC
OPCW
OPIC
OPRC
OVP
OSCI
OTR
OSAC
OIC
OFFICIALS
OIE
PHUM
PREL
PGOV
PREF
PTER
PARM
PBTS
PINR
PINS
PHSA
PK
POL
PM
PINT
PE
PINF
PEL
PA
PARMS
PO
PLN
PROP
PALESTINIAN
PAO
PL
POV
PG
POLITICS
PEPR
PSI
PSOE
PU
POLITICAL
PARTIES
PBIO
PECON
PAK
POGOV
PINL
PKFK
PMIL
PY
PFOR
PHALANAGE
PARTY
PRAM
PMAR
PGOVLO
PUNE
PORG
PHUMPREL
PF
POLINT
PHUS
PGOC
PNR
PGGV
PNAT
PGOVE
PRGOV
PRL
PROV
PTERE
PGOF
PHUMBA
SENV
SY
SZ
SOCI
SO
SR
SNAR
SA
SP
SW
SMIG
SU
SCUL
SC
SAN
SN
SL
SG
SYR
SEVN
SF
SI
STEINBERG
SIPRS
SH
SNARCS
SOFA
SANC
SHUM
SK
ST
TRGY
TU
TBIO
TH
TS
TSPL
TT
TPHY
TSPA
TI
TK
TIP
TERRORISM
TZ
TX
TW
TD
TP
TC
TO
TNGD
TINT
TRSY
TR
TFIN
TURKEY
UK
UNGA
UN
UNHRC
UNMIK
UNO
UZ
UNSC
UP
UG
UNHCR
UNDC
US
UNAUS
USTR
UV
UNEP
UY
UNESCO
USUN
UAE
USEU
UNDP
UNCHS
UNVIE
UNCHC
UE
UNDESCO
USAID
Browse by classification
Community resources
courage is contagious
Viewing cable 05THEHAGUE2855, NETHERLANDS: DASD THOMAS VISIT TO THE HAGUE FOR
If you are new to these pages, please read an introduction on the structure of a cable as well as how to discuss them with others. See also the FAQs
Understanding cables
Every cable message consists of three parts:
- The top box shows each cables unique reference number, when and by whom it originally was sent, and what its initial classification was.
- The middle box contains the header information that is associated with the cable. It includes information about the receiver(s) as well as a general subject.
- The bottom box presents the body of the cable. The opening can contain a more specific subject, references to other cables (browse by origin to find them) or additional comment. This is followed by the main contents of the cable: a summary, a collection of specific topics and a comment section.
Discussing cables
If you find meaningful or important information in a cable, please link directly to its unique reference number. Linking to a specific paragraph in the body of a cable is also possible by copying the appropriate link (to be found at theparagraph symbol). Please mark messages for social networking services like Twitter with the hash tags #cablegate and a hash containing the reference ID e.g. #05THEHAGUE2855.
Reference ID | Created | Released | Classification | Origin |
---|---|---|---|---|
05THEHAGUE2855 | 2005-10-21 06:06 | 2011-01-17 00:12 | SECRET | Embassy The Hague |
This record is a partial extract of the original cable. The full text of the original cable is not available.
S E C R E T SECTION 01 OF 04 THE HAGUE 002855
SIPDIS
E.O. 12958: DECL: 10/20/2015
TAGS: MARR PREL NL
SUBJECT: NETHERLANDS: DASD THOMAS VISIT TO THE HAGUE FOR
QDR CONSULTATIONS
Classified By: Charge D'Affaires Chat Blakeman, reasons 1.4 (b,d)
¶1. (C) Summary. DASD for Resources and Plans James P. Thomas
visited The Hague for consultations with Dutch MOD and MFA
officials October 10 on the Quadrennial Defense Review (QDR).
Thomas provided an overview of the ongoing QDR and sought
Dutch views and comments. He emphasized the importance of
adopting multinational approaches to address security
challenges such as terrorism. He highlighted a common goal
shared by the Netherlands and the United States: maintaining
and growing civil society to address growing trans-national
problems. Finally, he outlined emerging QDR capability
priorities required to achieve the QDR's focus areas.
¶2. (C) Cont. Summary: Dutch interlocutors expressed their
appreciation for the opportunity to consult during the
ongoing QDR deliberations, and reacted favorably to the QDR's
themes and emerging priorities. They inquired how QDR might
affect the Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) program. They also
drew parallels to their own attempts to enhance security
sector reform in Africa, and suggested enhancing ties between
NATO, the UN, the EU and the African Union. End Summary.
¶3. (U) During his consultations in The Hague, DASD Thomas met
with Admiral Nagtegaal (Defense Planning Process), BrigGen
Veltman (International Military Cooperation), and Sebastian
Reyn (Deputy Director, General Policy Directorate, MOD). In
attendance on the USG side were Charge, DATT CAPT Frank
Buerger, ODC Chief COL David Kelly, CAPT Mac Bollman, and
Polmiloff Jason Grubb. At the MFA, DASD Thomas met with
Robert de Groot (Director, Security and Defense Policy
Department), Rob Gabrielse (Deputy Director, Conflict
Prevention and Crisis Response Operations), Hans Sandee
(Deputy Director, Security and Defense Policy), Karen van
Stegeren (Advisor, International Security Policy), and Eric
Strating (Security and Defense Policy). DATT, CAPT Bollman
and Polmiloff attended for the USG.
MOD Meeting -- Importance of Building Partner Capacity
--------------------------------------------- ---------
¶4. (S) After thanking MoD officials for Dutch contributions
to ISAF, NTM-I and Hurricane Katrina relief, and noting the
importance of the Netherlands as a long-standing U.S. Ally,
DASD Thomas opened consultations with MOD officials by
outlining major QDR cross-cutting themes. He explained that
the Pentagon, in concert with other elements of national
power, was emphasizing multinational preventive approaches to
international security, including the maintenance and
expansion of global civil society and peacetime engagement
activities to prevent problems from becoming crises, and
crises from becoming conflicts. Shoring up effective and
legitimate governments and enabling partners is key -- as
part of the QDR, the Department of Defense is exploring
mechanisms to deepen partnerships not only with traditional,
stable allies, but also with vulnerable states in the
developing world. Thomas also noted the importance of the
""indirect approach"" for addressing the challenges posed by
terrorist extremism -- working by, with, and through others
to defeat the threat. He noted that while the QDR emphasizes
the need to develop new capabilities and skill sets
associated with irregular warfare, such as language
capabilities and cultural intelligence, DoD would maintain
its conventional capabilities. Finally, he explained that
achieving unity of effort with other Federal, state and local
agencies for homeland defense and homeland security was also
an important theme in the QDR.
¶5. (S) Admiral Nagtegaal said that the themes raised by
Thomas suggested significant changes in security policy
that extend beyond defense. Thomas agreed that the security
challenges facing the Netherlands and U.S. demand holistic
approaches that harness all instruments of national and
allied power. Just as the Department of Defense has a
unified command plan that assigns ""supported"" and
""supporting"" roles and responsibilities for warfighters, he
suggested the need to explore the development of similar
arrangements across governments. He stressed the need for
dialogue, and pointed to the NATO Defense Planning Committee
generation of force goals as a good example of multinational
force planning. He suggested building upon that process to
address a wider range of security challenges. The nature of
the challenges we face are such, he said, that unilateral
approaches cannot work. We must integrate multinational
considerations more deeply into our national force planning.
QDR Capability Priorities
-------------------------
¶6. (S) DATT repeated a frequent question from MOD contacts
regarding how the USG could afford the reforms required by
the QDR, especially following the financial aftermath of
Hurricane Katrina. Thomas noted that DoD faces a number of
challenges, including ongoing operations, the growth of
personnel health care costs, recapitalization of aging
equipment, and the need to contribute to broader Federal
deficit reduction efforts. That said, however, the QDR was
not simply a ""budget drill"". He expected that there would be
a number of proposals for new or increased investment in key
areas, such as counterterrorism and homeland defense, and
that any spending cuts would be made in light of the longer
term strategic vision. Thomas outlined several emerging QDR
capability priorities, including homeland defense and, in
concert with broader interagency efforts, developing medical
countermeasures against advanced, genetically-engineered
bio-terror agents. He noted that emerging non-lethal
technologies might be used to hold and secure a multitude of
WMD-producing sites for eventual disarmament. Thomas also
outlined plans to increase the numbers/capabilities of DoD
Explosive Ordinance Disposal personnel to render safe nuclear
devices, as well as irregular warfare training for general
purpose forces and increases in some special operations
forces.
¶7. (S) Thomas explained the importance of improving language
and culture capabilities, in particular by attracting
American heritage speakers to join the military. Thomas
stressed the need to recruit individuals who are not only
bilingual but also bicultural to improve the U.S. military's
local knowledge and cultural awareness in less familiar areas
of the world. Gen. Veltman related problems the Dutch faced
in attracting individuals from different ethnic backgrounds
to join the military -- often, these individuals or their
families feel threatened if they cooperate with Dutch forces.
Charge Blakeman suggested that linguistic skill was perhaps
a contribution that the Netherlands and other NATO countries
could make in future coalition operations; Gen. Veltman
concurred. Thomas noted that such contributions would be
welcomed.
¶8. (S) Thomas noted that enhancing deterrence was also an
important topic within the QDR and in this regard stressed
the importance of missile defenses to deter adversaries
through the prospect of denying their objectives. He also
noted that achieving Persistent Intelligence Surveillance
Reconnaissance (ISR) capabilities was another area of
emphasis in the QDR. In this regard, he explained that
avoiding a ""Pearl Harbor"" scenario in which space assets
could be attacked was a concern. Thomas also related recent
cyber operations originating from China appear to have
targeted USG unclassified computer networks, resulting in
large volumes of compromised information pertaining to
logistics and defense acquisition programs. As such, net
centricity and information assurance capabilities are vital.
Affect on JSF?
--------------
¶9. (S) Adm. Nagtegaal asked how the QDR might affect plans
for the JSF program. Thomas explained that no decisions have
been taken on JSF but that deliberations are ongoing.
Multinational participation in the program is a
consideration. He said that QDR deliberations were informed
by a long-term strategic framework and the transition over
time to unmanned aircraft. In this regard, he noted that JSF
would likely be the last major manned tactical aircraft
program. A key question would be how JSF and other aircraft
programs would fit into such a transition. DoD is looking at
a number of options, including reducing the number of JSF
variants. Thomas noted that international participation
informed deliberations about the program. He noted that on
their current timelines some of the studies and analyses that
would inform decisions on JSF would not be completed until
after the QDR report was submitted. Thus, some decisions
might not be made until sometime in 2006. Adm. Nagtegaal
said that he would advise his leadership that reducing the
number of JSF variants was under consideration although no
decisions have been taken.
¶10. (S) Reyn related past concerns by the Dutch Parliament
regarding QDR consultations, and asked that the USG
coordinate any QDR-related consultation statements with the
Dutch prior to releasing them to the public. In this regard,
he also expressed his appreciation for the opportunity to
hold bilateral consultations on the QDR in advance of the
review's completion. Thomas agreed to coordinate any
statements about these or future consultations, and asked
that the Dutch do the same with the USG.
MFA Meeting: QDR Focus Areas
----------------------------
¶11. (U) Sandee referred to an article in the Dutch press in
March 2005 regarding Washington interest in consulting with
Allies on this iteration of the QDR; as such, there is much
interest in the Netherlands. Thomas confirmed that was the
purpose of his trip, and looked forward to any comments or
constructive criticism so that Dutch concerns might be better
taken into account in QDR development. He explained the QDR
timeline, noting the report's anticipated release in February
¶2006.
¶12. (S) Thomas commented on four QDR focus areas. The first
involved building partnerships to defeat terrorist
extremism. The challenge underscored the importance of
integrating multinational considerations into force planning.
A second focus area is defending the homeland in-depth --
both internally by working with other Federal agencies, state
and local governments, as well as by working with
international partners globally as many potential problems
cross borders (Avian Flu, international terrorism). Shaping
choices of countries at strategic crossroads is a third focus
area. He described the fourth focus area as preventing
hostile states or non-state actors from acquiring or using
WMD. Our approach should have a preventive dimension along
the lines of the Proliferation Security Initiative (PSI).
Think Globally, Act Locally
---------------------------
¶13. (S) Thomas reviewed several QDR cross-cutting themes,
including the balance between prevention and response. He
emphasized the need to prevent states from failing -- instead
of attempting to rebuild them after failure -- by
maintaining and growing civil society. Thomas noted the
importance of enabling both traditionally strong and
crisis-bound partners, especially at the local level. He
referred to the indirect strategy, noting that the United
States seeks to transform the character of the conflict with
terrorist extremists by empowering moderates within the
Islamic world to confront and ostracize extremists. He
stressed the need to build local institutions and training
trainers, harnessing local knowledge, and adopting tailored,
differentiated approaches that are culturally or regionally
appropriate, i.e., ""thinking globally but acting locally"".
¶14. (S) De Groot described the shift in thinking as ""quite
incredible,"" and suggested that the change will be
difficult as different mind-sets are required to effectively
carry out this ""soft power"" transition. He suggested that
""lessons learned"" be included in the QDR process, especially
regarding the military's role in post-conflict and the
transition from military operations to the international
community reconstruction effort. Gabrielse pointed to the
Dutch MOD/development assistance ""integrated approach"" to
security sector reform (SSR) in Africa. Thomas agreed on the
importance of integrated approaches to security sector
reform, stabilization and transition missions. He noted that
U.S. and allied militaries can help set the security
conditions for nation building, but ultimately the success
would depend on local leaders taking the responsibility to
build or rebuild their own nations; he recalled the
President's statement from his 2nd inaugural address that ""we
stand with others when they stand for freedom.""
NATO, UN, EU, and African Union
-------------------------------
¶15. (S) De Groot asked if NATO was capable of carrying out
such an integrated approach to security sector reform,
especially in connection to Africa. Thomas said that NATO
probably has the capacity, as demonstrated by ISAF in
Afghanistan and NTM-I. But NTM-I is a relatively modest
effort -- NATO can do more with training missions, he said.
Gabrielse agreed, pointing to NATO's role in transforming the
post-Soviet Bloc. Thomas noted the effectiveness of the
Partnership for Peace program, but cautioned against applying
the Eastern European model for security sector reform and
particularly institutional reform at the expense of
constructive field training.
¶16. (S) De Groot noted that training for SSR was different,
involving advisors and small teams, not military units.
Noting the difference in mind-sets, he asked if the USG
envisioned two separate battalions for fighting and
post-conflict phases. Thomas said there should be no
differentiation or specialization of general purpose forces
-- ideally, military units in this capacity should be able to
shift from conflict to stabilization and back to conflict
phases, if necessary. They should also be trained to develop
new skill sets and counter-insurgency techniques.
¶17. (S) De Groot noted that better relations between NATO,
the UN, and the African Union (AU) should be developed.
Thomas agreed, adding that DoD welcomed the development of
such regional security institutions. Gabrielse asked if the
QDR had examined NATO-EU relations in connection to SSR.
Thomas explained that the QDR had not focused much on the EU,
while observing that the EU might be better suited to address
some non-traditional security issues. De Groot and Sandee
highlighted expertise being developed in the EU with regard
to civil-military coordination and suggested that the QDR
factor the EU into the equation.
¶18. (U) DASD Thomas has cleared on this cable.
BLAKEMAN