Hope is Not a Foreign Policy » Future Warfare

Insurgents Hack U.S. Predator Drones with $26 Software Package

Tom Skypek — Thu, 17 Dec 2009 15:59:40 +0000

Congress Should Launch All-Star Commission to Examine Cyber Threats

Tom Skypek — Tue, 17 Nov 2009 23:43:43 +0000

A report issued last month by the U.S.-China Economic and Security Review Commission concluded: ”China is likely using its maturing computer network exploitation capability to support intelligence collection against the U.S. Government and industry by conducting a long term, sophisticated, computer network exploitation campaign.” For the last decade, China has been conducting ”hacker attacks” and network intrusions against U.S. Government and private sector computer networks. In June 2008, Congressman Frank Wolf (VA-10th) revealed that computers in his office had been hacked; authorities concluded that the attacks originated in China. Last May, I argued in The Washington Times that our lack of a declaratory cyber deterrence policy makes us weaker as a nation by enabling our adversaries in cyberspace to operate in what amounts to a consequence-free environment.

Congress should launch a new independent commission to examine the threat posed by offensive cyber capabilities. But this commission should not be comprised of only career national security professionals. Rather, it should include innovative thinkers in private industry. We need creative thinkers to look at this challenge with fresh eyes, unencumbered by Washington’s national security bureaucracy. Cyberspace remains America’s Achilles’ heel. Great steps have been taken to enhance our cybersecurity and head off a “Pearl Harbor” in cyberspace but the threat of a catastrophic, disruptive attack remains.

Candidates for this commission should include an eclectic mix. Here are a few candidates:

Steve Jobs, Founder and CEO, Apple Corporation, Inc.
Sergey Brin, Co-Founder and President, Technology, Google, Inc.
Mitt Romney, Former CEO, Bain & Company
Richard Rumelt, Professor, UCLA Anderson School of Management
Ian Bremmer, President, Eurasia Group

Can you imagine the brainpower these men would bring to bear on this problem? These commissioners should be assisted by a team of staff assistants with expertise in defense, intelligence, information assurance, and law enforcement. Each staff assistant should have 15-20 years of experience in their area of expertise. Each staff assistant should be supported by a cadre of research assistants with 5-10 years of experience in defense, intelligence, information assurance, and law enforcement.

Topics for exploration should include:

Cyber Deterrence
Interagency Resourcing for the Acquisition of Materiel Cyber Capabilities
Human Capitial Elements of Cyber Warfare in the U.S. National Security Community
Offensive Cyber Capabilities
Intelligence Collection on Cyber Threats
Public-Private Sector Coordination
Cyber Capabilities of the People’s Liberation Army

The cyber challenge requires “outside of the box” thinking. Each of these prospective commissioners have proven themselves as innovative thinkers, problem solvers, and entrepreneurs. They are an intellectually diverse group and would examine the cyber challenge with a unique perspective. Rather than have the same Washington think tanks and the same Washington analysts look at the problem, we should ask these successful businessmen to leverage their experience to tackle a huge national challenge.

New Cyber Attacks Showcase Need for Cyber Deterrence Policy

Tom Skypek — Wed, 08 Jul 2009 18:20:33 +0000

The AP is reporting on a new round of cyber attacks that targeted computer networks at the Treasury Department, Federal Trade Commission and Secret Service. Other targets are reported to have included the White House, Pentagon, and New York Stock Exchange. W. David Gardner of InformationWeek reports that the attack was even more expansive, including more than 25 targets:

Law enforcement officials in the U.S. and South Korea were stepping up their efforts Wednesday to halt a rash of denial of service cyber attacks against more than 25 government agencies and companies. While the source of the attacks wasn’t pinpointed as of Wednesday morning, officials said they suspected the attacks originated in North Korea or from groups sympathetic to North Korea.

This problem is not going away. I wrote an op-ed in The Washington Times in May which communicated the need to articulate a clear cyber deterrence policy. Our adversaries, I argued, are launching attacks in cyberspace in what amounts to a consequence-free environment. We need to find ways to impose costs on our adversaries. They cannot continue to launch attacks in cyber space without fear of retaliation. Here’s what I wrote on May 7, 2009, just after the Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) program was hacked and design information was stolen:

Policymakers in Washington should examine how the threat of military force can be used to prevent attacks in cyberspace. Regrettably, deterrence has been an underutilized element of Washington’s efforts to build a strong cybersecurity policy.

Without a cyberdeterrence policy in place, the United States can expect more and larger cyberattacks on its interests. It was reported in the Wall Street Journal on April 21 that a cyberintrusion breached the Pentagon’s $300 billion Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) program. The attackers copied critical design information which could make it easier for an adversary to defend against the aircraft in a conflict.

The Obama administration recently concluded a 60-day review of U.S. cybersecurity; details of the review have not been released, though it is believed the review focused largely on the coordination of U.S. cyberinitiatives throughout the federal government.

An effective cybersecurity strategy must include a clearly articulated cyberdeterrence policy. When responding to a cyberattack, Washington should move beyond cybercounterattacks to include full kinetic attack options.

In other words, cruise missiles or precision guided munitions should be used to retaliate against facilities where cyberattacks are launched with the complicity of an enemy state. All options should be on the table when it comes to responding to attacks in cyberspace.

A declaratory cyberdeterrence policy will not eliminate the threat of cyberattacks, but it will limit the number of attacks – particularly from state actors such as China. Lone-wolf hackers are much more difficult to deter, but deterring state-sponsored cyberattacks will make an incredibly complex problem more manageable as resources can be diverted to focusing on lone-wolf hackers. The deterrent piece of U.S. cybersecurity strategy should focus on state actors. States who sponsor cyberattacks – or allow nonstate actors to launch attacks from within their borders – should be held responsible for such attacks.

I recognize the fact that the attribution piece makes deterring cyber attacks challenging. It is easy for the bad guys to conceal their identity in cyber space or even make it look like another country executed an attack. However, attribution is not an insurmountable challenge and in many cases we are able to attribute the attacks. Developing a comprehensive response plan is what policymakers need to work on–and fast. As I said, this problem is not going away. The “Pearl Harbor in cyber space” that I wrote about in May is preventable, but the U.S. needs to act quickly. These cyber attacks are becoming more frequent and more damaging. The U.S. cannot afford to be surprised by a catastrophic cyber campaign against military, government, and private sector targets. The 2007 adventure film, Live Free or Die Hard, starring Bruce Willis gave us a glimpse into what a catastrophic cyber campaign could do to this nation. This is serious business. The Congress and the Obama administration need to act.

Change You Can Believe In: Sen. Joe Biden?

Tom Skypek — Sat, 23 Aug 2008 11:20:46 +0000

Sen. Joe Biden has been tapped as Sen. Barack Obama’s running mate. Biden has been in Washington since 1972 when he was first elected to the United States Senate. He is a smart guy but a rather loquacious fellow, which has gotten him in trouble several times. Clearly, the Obama campaign felt the need to offset Sen. Obama’s gross lack of experience on national security and believed that Sen. Biden would do just that. Sen. Biden is currently the chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.

However, this pick is a sign of desperation for the Obama campaign, which has begun to see the writing on the wall. The reality is that Obama’s small lead in public opinion polls has completely evaporated. First, Biden is a life-long senator and has no executive experience. Second, it will be difficult to advance the “change message,” which Obama has built his entire campaign on. Biden has been in the Senate longer than John McCain. Third, Biden is a loose cannon, who will most likely make several verbals gaffes during the next two months. Fourth, Biden will likely enflame supporters of Sen. Hillary Clinton, who simply felt that Clinton–who received an impressive 18 million votes during the primary–should have been on the ticket. Fifth, Biden supported going to war in Iraq–obviously a substantive policy difference. Plus, Biden doesn’t even think Obama’s ready to be president and he loves John McCain (see the ad below)!

The Obama Iraq Documentary: Whatever the Politics Demand

Tom Skypek — Fri, 18 Jul 2008 08:00:41 +0000

Here’s an excellent video, chronicling Sen. Obama’s many positions on Iraq.

New Media, Information Warfare and the U.S. Army

Tom Skypek — Thu, 17 Jul 2008 22:02:22 +0000

David Axe posted a very interesting piece today in The Danger Room. He examines the emerging role of new media in the U.S. Army:

Senior Army leaders have fallen behind the breakneck development of cheap digital communications including cell phones, digital cameras and Web 2.0 Internet sites such as blogs and Facebook, Army Secretary Pete Geren said at a trade conference on July 10. That helps explain how “just one man in a cave that’s hooked up to the Internet has been able to out-communicate the greatest communications society in the history of the world — the United States,” Geren said, according to Inside Defense. (Subscription required.)

“It’s a challenge not only at home, it’s a challenge in recruiting, it’s a challenge internationally, because effective communication brings people over to our side and ineffective communication allows the enemy to pull people to their side,” Geren continued. He said the Army brass needs to catch up — fast. But how exactly? One solution: “Find a blog to be a part of,” Geren said.

The popularity of new media tools like Facebook, MySpace and YouTube have grown by leaps and bounds over the past five years. These tools are cheap, user-friendly and have the capacity to reach a global audience. Today, there are “professional bloggers” and you can’t go a day without “Googling.” The military applications of new media require further exploration. Certainly, new media can support psychological operations, strategic communications and information operations. U.S. adversaries have already begun to utilize this new virtual toolkit. Terrorists have been using blogs to communicate and advance their message for years.

While the U.S. military needs to ramp up its new media efforts, Axe chronicles the Army’s efforts to integrate new media training into its military education system:

At the U.S. Military Academy in West Point, a tiny office of Web-savvy mavericks is creating Army-specific Web 2.0 tools (blogs, forums, social networks) for soldiers. At the Army’s graduate school in Kansas, blogging is a new addition to the curriculum. And just recently the Army launched its own “blogger’s roundtable” program to arrange press conference for online journalists.

Each Service should study how new media capabilities can augment their kinetic and non-kinetic portfolios.

Defense Transformation and the Next Administration

Tom Skypek — Fri, 04 Jul 2008 11:07:02 +0000

As the general election gears up, questions surrounding defense and national security are likely to dominate the national discussion. While defense transformation remains an important issue for the Defense Department, it will most likely be lost in policy debates about Iraq and Iran. But defense transformation is not an arcane policy issue; rather it is critical to ensuring that the U.S. retains its preeminent position in world affairs. Simply put, transformation refers to the optimal alignment and development of capabilities, organizations and processes in support of the warfighter to reflect the ever-changing nature of warfare. It is an issue that will confront the next president of the United States.

Current U.S. military operations are a case in point. The Defense Department must be prepared to conduct counterinsurgency operations in one part of the world while simultaneously working to dissuade an emerging peer competitor from taking provocative actions in another part of the world. The next administration must continue to transform the capabilities, processes and organizations within the Department to reflect the diverse array of challenges facing the Department. Transformation efforts should focus on not only the development of innovative military capabilities but also on human capital. A strong executive with a history of innovation and reform should lead this effort within the Department. Former presidential candidate Mitt Romney would be an excellent choice given his executive experience in the private and public sectors. One major task for the next administration will be leaning out the Office of the Secretary of Defense which has become extremely bloated. Originally established to offset the power of the Services in the acquisition process, it has become a stove-piped organization.

The next president will, however, confront the same barriers and challenges its predecessor faced-namely the bureaucracy of the Pentagon. Strong executives will be required to tame the bureaucracy. In order for the United States to maintain its preeminent position in world affairs, its defense apparatus must be transformed. When Donald Rumsfeld returned to the Pentagon in 2001, transformation was at the top of his agenda. However, the events of September 11, 2001 and the subsequent campaigns in Afghanistan and Iraq obviously shifted the focus of the Department’s senior leadership.

Transformation, as Andrew Krepinevich noted in his 1992 assessment on the future of warfare, is not the rapidity of change but the “magnitude of the change itself.” Unfortunately, transformation has become another buzzword in the Defense Department lexicon. There have been countless studies on how to transform the Department by Washington think-tanks. The Center for Strategic and International Studies has done several studies examining Defense Department governance structures as part of their “Beyond Goldwater-Nichols” series. The issue is implementation. Implementation will require dedicated executives willing to innovate and facilitate a cultural shift inside the Pentagon. The imperative of transformation cannot be forgotten by the next administration. A failure to transform will result in adverse consequences for the power and security of the United States.