[ad_1]
DN has revealed that a head of the Armed Forces headquarters left his job after being investigated for false credentials. The man claims, among other things, that he is a British war veteran who fought in Iraq and Ireland.
This is the second person with fake credentials DN reported this year. In January, several articles were published about the bogus officer who received various classified security and prestigious assignments in defense.
Read more: The Armed Forces have informed the government
According to the Swedish Armed Forces, these are individual cases and errors, but two experts in defense and security protection are now directing harsh criticism of the authority.
Wilhelm Agrell, professor of intelligence analysis at Lund University, is one of the leading Swedish experts in the field. He says both cases point to a bigger problem.
– These two cases, both individually and together, reveal a weakness in the system. It would be surprising if this weakness did not lead to the transmission of more doubtful cases. You have a system error when it comes to evaluating the staff you hire. As long as you don’t do anything about it, there will continue to be more and more cases.
Says the falls It also points to a mere in the Security Protection Act that takes note of things like financial conditions in a personal investigation, but is no more difficult to classify credibility issues.
– You don’t have a mythomaniac filter, you could say.
How about the explanation that this information, surprising as it is, was not the basis of employment?
– There they showed how formal thinking leads to not seeing things that are obvious. Of course, it has no direct relevance, but it has extremely high indirect relevance because it says something about personality and reliability.
According to Wilhelm Agrell, it is notable that the verifications were not carried out, partly because the information should be easy to verify and partly because the Armed Forces have personal control tools that other employers lack. That the man now revealed had a civil service, he does not consider to be an extenuating circumstance.
– The activities carried out at Headquarters are not segregated in such a way that there are two completely different types of activities carried out by officials and civilians. I have worked there myself as a civilian and I know how much security sensitive information you get.
Criticism of the Armed Forces It also comes from Lennart Ohlsson, a retired lieutenant colonel who for many years worked in the military intelligence and security service, including as head of the security intelligence section. Following DN’s earlier disclosure of the bogus officer, he wrote a debate article in which he said the Armed Forces investigation of the case was misleading and incomplete and should be redone.
It says in connection with the new case that the top management of the Armed Forces may have a lack of knowledge about how security matters should be handled, or a “generally poor security awareness.”
“He just doesn’t seem to want to see the two cases handled as security matters, but prefers to reduce it to an administrative personnel issue,” he writes in a written comment.
“It is regrettable that the Armed Forces are reluctant to inform the public who has done wrong, what has done wrong and especially why they have done it wrong or what the consequences are.”
Lennart Ohlsson notes also that if the Chief of Defense’s information on British defense service had been true, it would be remarkable if they were not carefully reviewed before being hired.
“How do you know that loyalty does not yet exist with the British Armed Forces? Would you have acted so naive if you had declared that you had been employed by the Armed Forces of China or Russia?
