Signal failure: If you can't get a chat group right, how can you handle war?

The Pentagon knew Signal was a risk. Why didn't it heed its own advice?

- Lin Suling

Two decades ago, a job at Singapore's Ministry of Defence (Mindef) where I worked came with a huge sacrifice: You couldn't use a 3G smartphone.

The risks were numerous. Hackers could turn your phone into a mic and listen in on conversations. They could track your whereabouts via the Global Positioning System. And they could intercept phone calls.

The biggest risk? You might use the camera function to take pictures of classified documents for the convenience of future reference and a photo could wind up in the wrong hands.

Most of us young public servants grumbled but complied, despite our disbelief that such a ludicrous scenario premised on comedy-level human buffoonery was even realistic.

Then Signal-gate happened this week.

INCLUDING A JOURNALIST ON A NATIONAL SECURITY CHAT Some form of comedy-level human buffoonery is surely the answer to the question of how the heck a non-US government person was added to a high-level US national security chat group on a military assault on Yemen.

Hopefully, US investigations get to the bottom of who mucked up and recommend safeguards to prevent a recurrence of what political observers are calling "amateur-hour behaviour".

Fumbling over the contact list for a military strike operation is not a good look for the administration of US President Donald Trump, who had vowed at his inauguration on Jan 20 to reclaim America's rightful place as "the greatest, most powerful and most respected nation on earth".