The New York Times reported today that the Obama administration, as part of the military options presented for the initial U.S. action in Libya, considered conducting a cyber attack against the air defense systems in order to protect U.S. and allied war planes. The administration and the Pentagon chose not to exercise that option.
According to the article, "....administration officials and even some military officers balked,
citing the precedent it might set for other nations, in particular
Russia or China, to carry out cyber raids of their own, and questioning
whether the attack could be mounted on such short notice. They were also
unable to resolve whether the president had the power to proceed with
such an attack without informing Congress."
It's gratifying to see well intended people at senior levels in government debating these kinds of issues; the military readiness and ability to conduct such an attack, the legal issues involved, the potential actions of other nations, and the need to coordinate with and keep Congress properly informed.
I only hope nations like Russia and China would actually debate and discuss these issues as thoroughly. I strongly suspect they won't. Russia and China very likely have cyber attack capabilities that are comparable to whatever the U.S. may have developed, and I strongly suspect we would not see a lively debate within the Russian or Chinese command structures about using such capabilities. They will use them as needed to protect their soldiers and their nation's interests, and so should we to protect our military forces and our interests.
Cyber warfare is one of the new weapon sets of the 21st Century. We are hardly the only nation on the planet that possesses them, and we should not be hesitant in using them. Our adversaries will not hesitate, and we need not suffer an electronic Pearl Harbor or 9/11 before electing to use the force multiplying advantage that they can afford us when we send our servicemen and women into battle anywhere on the globe, for any reason.
Monday, October 17, 2011
Tuesday, October 11, 2011
We've Been Lucky, and the Iranians Have Been Caught Red-Handed.
The Department of Justice announced today the charging of two men in an alleged Iranian backed plot to assassinate the Saudi Ambassador to the UnitedStates, and in the process potentially kill a hundred or more civilians and potentially congressional members with an explosive device.
First off, let me be very clear in saying that the men and women of the FBI, the attorneys in the justice department, and apparently the DEA as well, have done an outstanding job in foiling this plot. Their professionalism and competence in working to investigate, and begin the process of prosecuting the precursor crimes to this attempted assassination has been in the best traditions of law enforcement.
Based on the complaint and the Department of Justice’s press release, we’ve been incredibly lucky to find out about this plot and disrupt it. Why were we lucky? Because the first break in this case apparently came when Manssor Arbabsiar chose to meet with someone he thought was a member of a ‘…violent international drug trafficking cartel’ to get this cartel to carry out the bombing. Fortunately for us, the person Arbabsiar met was what the compliant describes as a DEA Confidential Source (CS).
Without attempting to denigrate the hard work of the FBI and the risks taken by the DEA’s CS, it does help when the assassins or terrorists literally come right to law enforcement undercover operatives for help in carrying out the assassination or terrorist act.
Fortunately, the DEA and the FBI moved swiftly to insinuate themselves into this plot, and learn enough about the conspirators to make an arrest and break up the plot, while also using Arbabsiar to verify the Iranian military connection.
While this case is certainly of great concern to the United States, strongly verifies the Iranian military and government’s desire, intent, and capacity to conduct these kind of attacks within the U.S., it also proves that terrorists and assassins need to be lucky just once, and we need to be right all the time.
Imagine what would have happened if Arbabsiar had approached a real member of a violent Mexican drug cartel. We could very well be viewing scenes of carnage at a D.C. restaurant and reports of the deaths of the Saudi Ambassador and many innocent civilians, rather than today’s press conference at the Justice Department.
Friday, September 30, 2011
Killing or Capturing a Terrorist?
Today, the CIA and U.S. military managed to kill Anwar al-Awlaki with a missile strike from an unmanned drone. His death, and those of the terrorists/bodyguards with him in his convoy is another victory in the war against those who use a peaceful faith as an excuse to foment violence in pursuit of a political cause.
I noticed an article in the New York Times today that discussed the debate continuing in political, legal, and public forums about what the 'proper' course of action is in dealing with people like al-Awlaki.
The options for dealing with terrorists like al-Awlaki are pretty straightforward. Kill or capture them. The instance of al-Awlaki presents a different issue in the minds of some - he was an American citizen.
As an American citizen, some people offer the opinion that al-Awlaki should have been treated differently. He should perhaps have been captured by local law enforcement, the civil rights we all enjoy as citizens preserved and protected.
The Obama Administration obviously thought differently, and as it has done since the beginning of President Obama's Presidency, it has continued (and argued for in court) most of the Bush Administration's policies in what is now called the War on Al-Qaeda.
Let's consider the premise of capturing al-Awlaki or another U.S. citizen operating overseas to further the aims of a terrorist organization carrying on a war against America. If this terrorist is living and conducting his operations in the United Kingdom, then capturing him becomes a relatively simple thing, conducted within the rule of law. The UK has an excellent police force, not to mention MI-5 (the domestic security service, a well established court system, and a system of government from the local to the national level that is largely uncorrupted and supported by the people. All of this presents a permissive environment within the UK that would enable the arrest, interrogation, and trial of such a person, under the rule of law. Nice and comparatively neat, isn't it?
Now we need to consider the more realistic scenario. Most of these terrorists, be they Americans, Yemenis, Afghanistanis, or Iraqis, usually work in countries like Somalia, Yemen, the uncontrolled border of Afghanistan and Pakistan, etc. In many of these cases, there is no rule of law as we understand and experience it here in the West. No strong system of courts. No well trained and professional modern police or internal security force with well trained forensic scientists to back them up. Even worse, no supportive population of citizens to set the conditions to allow those kinds of institutions to flourish, and thus create a more supportive population of citizens.
Terrorists operate in these areas precisely because the conditions in these nations make it easier for them to operate and in some cases enable or aid them (like the Pakistani ISI). It cannot be reasonably argued that the U.S. could approach the government or internal security services (assuming they exist at all) for assistance and permission to arrest, and then deport a terrorist. It is likely the target of such an arrest would be tipped off by members of the government or internal security services (either for money or because of some ideological sympathy). Further, attempting to make a case in a U.S. court room against such people, where the rules of evidence are very strict, would be impossible for a couple of reasons. It would require the compromise of U.S. intelligence sources and methods, which would endanger American security; and collecting evidence on a battlefield or in a non-permissive environment in any country would never be able to meet the standards of evidence required in a U.S. courtroom.
This issue will undoubtedly continue to be debated, but we are left with the only practical option, one the Bush Administration started, and the Obama Administration has expanded upon - send in the drones or the Special Forces and kill them.
I noticed an article in the New York Times today that discussed the debate continuing in political, legal, and public forums about what the 'proper' course of action is in dealing with people like al-Awlaki.
The options for dealing with terrorists like al-Awlaki are pretty straightforward. Kill or capture them. The instance of al-Awlaki presents a different issue in the minds of some - he was an American citizen.
As an American citizen, some people offer the opinion that al-Awlaki should have been treated differently. He should perhaps have been captured by local law enforcement, the civil rights we all enjoy as citizens preserved and protected.
The Obama Administration obviously thought differently, and as it has done since the beginning of President Obama's Presidency, it has continued (and argued for in court) most of the Bush Administration's policies in what is now called the War on Al-Qaeda.
Let's consider the premise of capturing al-Awlaki or another U.S. citizen operating overseas to further the aims of a terrorist organization carrying on a war against America. If this terrorist is living and conducting his operations in the United Kingdom, then capturing him becomes a relatively simple thing, conducted within the rule of law. The UK has an excellent police force, not to mention MI-5 (the domestic security service, a well established court system, and a system of government from the local to the national level that is largely uncorrupted and supported by the people. All of this presents a permissive environment within the UK that would enable the arrest, interrogation, and trial of such a person, under the rule of law. Nice and comparatively neat, isn't it?
Now we need to consider the more realistic scenario. Most of these terrorists, be they Americans, Yemenis, Afghanistanis, or Iraqis, usually work in countries like Somalia, Yemen, the uncontrolled border of Afghanistan and Pakistan, etc. In many of these cases, there is no rule of law as we understand and experience it here in the West. No strong system of courts. No well trained and professional modern police or internal security force with well trained forensic scientists to back them up. Even worse, no supportive population of citizens to set the conditions to allow those kinds of institutions to flourish, and thus create a more supportive population of citizens.
Terrorists operate in these areas precisely because the conditions in these nations make it easier for them to operate and in some cases enable or aid them (like the Pakistani ISI). It cannot be reasonably argued that the U.S. could approach the government or internal security services (assuming they exist at all) for assistance and permission to arrest, and then deport a terrorist. It is likely the target of such an arrest would be tipped off by members of the government or internal security services (either for money or because of some ideological sympathy). Further, attempting to make a case in a U.S. court room against such people, where the rules of evidence are very strict, would be impossible for a couple of reasons. It would require the compromise of U.S. intelligence sources and methods, which would endanger American security; and collecting evidence on a battlefield or in a non-permissive environment in any country would never be able to meet the standards of evidence required in a U.S. courtroom.
This issue will undoubtedly continue to be debated, but we are left with the only practical option, one the Bush Administration started, and the Obama Administration has expanded upon - send in the drones or the Special Forces and kill them.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
