Maritime and National Security Blog

It is a Crime

The mainstream media – even conservative leaning media are describing the Austin plane incident as a possible act of domestic terrorism.  It is an interesting link to make since a Democrat congressman from Austin called it an act of domestic terrorism.  Therefore, there is some political purpose behind that statement for sure now and it is unfortunate.  Once again, instead of taking the opportunity to advance the right position a political leader draws attention down the wrong path.  If this idea gets a head of steam valuable resources, time, money and expertise will nonsensically divert to this incident.  The facts are not all in, but it seems fairly clear that this is not terrorism in any form.  The FBI defines domestic terrorism as follows:

Domestic terrorism refers to activities that involve acts dangerous to human life that are a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or of any state; appear to be intended to intimidate or coerce a civilian population; to influence the policy of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping; and occur primarily within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States. [18 U.S.C. § 2331(5)]

The real element that distinguishes terrorism from crime is the intent-the goal, not the location or the amount of damage. This incident on its face seems to be a man taking out his frustrations on one of the groups he believes is causing him trouble.  There are a number of them and he could just as easily have driven a car or the airplane into his CPAs house.  Beyond the official definition there other elements that distinguish this incident from terrorism,

Groups that use terror tactics love to take credit.  In some case more thatn one group will take credit for an incident.  The attempt on the Northwest/Delta flight at Christmas is a recent example where both Al Qaeda and Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula took credit. These types of incidents have long been part of the terrorist playbook – broad media exposure.  Attention from the media can turn a small, unknown group into an international threat, all from one spectacularly violent incident for which they happily claim responsibility.  There is no such claim here, no ideological manifesto.  If we divert investigative resources on the call of domestic terrorism, we usurp local law enforcement, bring in the federal government unnecessarily and distract from their real fight against terror groups.  If you narrow the focus correctly and appropriately, you concentrate and apply the resources required to take care of this specific problem – true domestic and international terror use.  It is disappointing, but not a surprise that our political leaders are political leaders no matter the topic.

FBI Terrorism Definitions

http://www.fbi.gov/publications/terror/terror2000_2001.htm

Congressman Call Incident Domestic Terrorism

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0210/33154.html

 

The Economy is a National Security Concern

Our primary military adversary over the next few decades will be China. There is little doubt on the direction the Chinese are taking with regards to their regional and global ambitions.  The military buildup is only for their own security, they say, no need to worry.

Recently the Chinese installed navigational light structures on several islands off its coast, gradually walking its territorial waters claim outward.  The goal is to obtain the rights to several contested islands and areas with a potential wealth of resources, areas claimed by other nations.

Today the President meets with the Dalai Lama, which has infuriated the Chinese. Why do the Chinese have such a consistently extreme reaction to anyone meeting with this man?  Insecurity. China demonizes the Tibetan spiritual leader, claiming he operates in a violent and repressive way – the complete opposite to reality.  Chinese insecurity drives this position, insecurity with their claim over Tibet as a province of China.  The same reaction occurs when the United States shows any support for Taiwan, again insecurity. (It is a bit curious that the Chinese on Taiwan have never claimed their desire to unify themselves with China under a Nationalist banner.)

The Chinese will never feel completely secure until all those insecurities are resolved.  We are one of those insecurities to China.  Therefore, it is unfortunate that China holds a great deal of our debt and at the rate we are spending, it is playing more into the hands of the Chinese.  We are doing to ourselves, what Russia hoped we would do and what Karl Marx predicted.  As Russian communism collapsed in on itself, we are treading the same economic path, one that is not necessarily a capitalist one.  Most economists agree you cannot spend your way out of a recession and that government does not create wealth – it redistributes wealth.  The role of government in a capitalist economy is to make policies, laws and regulations that enhance wealth building in a balanced way (no monopolies, etc.).

Most predictions for defense spending are grim over the next few years, with the number of ships and other weapons systems dropping to new lows.  The most important thing our government can do now is to get the economy back on track, fix the acquisition system and promote navy leaders who understand both military strategy, business and have common sense.  The best thing Congress can do is to stop acting like partisan politicians and start acting like the patriots who are running the Taliban out of Marjah, Afghanistan or serving in hundreds of places around the world.  Are they Sailors, Marines, Soldiers, Airman or Coast Guardsman – or do they consider themselves Republicans and Democrats?

New York Times Article

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/02/us/politics/02deficit.html?th&emc=th

Chinese Lighthouse Construction

http://in.reuters.com/article/oilRpt/idINTOE61802X20100209

Dalai Lama

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/magazine/8521957.stm

Acquisition - Still the Problem

A recent National Defense Magazine article again calls the Navy’s Acquisition program into question.  This time the topic is undersea vehicles.  The operational concept is a good one, using tethered or autonomous vehicles to detect mines or detect and trail enemy submarines; the later performing like a mobile SOSUS net. Great concept – poor execution. A previous post discussed the critical nature of acquisition to our maritime and national security, this is a system, process and program the Navy must get right, but seems to have little desire to correct.  The leadership instead consistently pours good taxpayer money after bad expecting better results from contactors who have consistently proven disappointing.  There are numerous examples, the A-12 (mercifully cancelled), LPD-17, DDG-1000 (though there are many interesting technologies – getting them to work together and in time is the question) and the Special Operations mini-sub to name a few.

The problem is the complexity of the system.  Granted there must be a number of checks and balances, compliance with Congressional rules and Federal law, but too many checks and balances can lead to a stifling of the system, choking innovation and promoting bureaucratic bungling in the name of…checks and balances.  Another point to note – the government thrives on complexity and remains, as an entity, that issues will remain complex and there is little use in trying to make something simpler when it is so – complex.  A quick examination of the Defense Acquisition Framework will give you an idea of its complexity.

A short example or a problem with the process is the use of human factors and human systems integration.  These disciplines are geared toward making designs efficient and human centered.  The Navy continually promotes the essential nature of its people, the value of its Sailors and yet the people charged with saving the Navy time and money, making designs safer, more survivable, more cost efficient over the life cycle for systems and equipment people must use is withering away.  They are generally not included in RFPs (LCS down select the latest example) and rarely called upon in the design phase – when they would do the service the most good.

This is only one example, many others exist…fodder for another post.

National Defense Magazine Article

http://www.nationaldefensemagazine.org/archive/2010/March/Pages/DeploymentofUnderseaRobots.aspx

SOSUS

http://www.navy.mil/navydata/cno/n87/usw/issue_25/sosus2.htm

Defense Acquisition Framework

https://acc.dau.mil/IFC/index.htm

Osama bin Laden and Climate Change

It seems Al Gore has a new recruit, Osama bin Laden.  In his latest audio tape, OBL states the U. S. and its industrialized allies are responsible, through their economic policies, for the condition of the world’s climate.  It affects everyone, he states and therefore everyone should have a certain level of outrage – enough to boycott the U. S. economy, not to use violence.

News outlets have seized on this latest message as OBL’s attempt to broaden al Qaeda’s appeal.  They claim the messages intent is to tap into the outrage against the West and the U. S. in particular, while pushing a boycott – no violence.  Shortly before this latest alleged bin Laden tape, al Qaeda claimed ultimate responsibility for the attempt to bomb Northwest Flight 253 on Christmas Day – it is too much to hope that al Qaeda would give up violence in pursuit of their goals

A basic question, is al Qaeda concerned about climate change or globalization?  Climate change-no, globalization-more likely as they see this as a tool of Western expansion into traditional Muslim lands.  It is much more likely that OBL is spinning up a new target for al Qaeda, a target that is softer than airports, Western multi-national corporations.  The very nature of these companies must seem attractive to al Qaeda, they are symbols of the West – a favorite target, and attacks on corporations will certainly disrupt Western economies and cause reactionary and costly solutions to this latest terrorist outrage.  It will also bring great joy to the so-called Arab Street and bring more recruits to the al Qaeda cause.  This is not to say that the anti-globalization forces would join al Qaeda, they would not be unhappy though.  Perhaps OBL will tackle animal cruelty next.

The main point to remember is that al Qaeda has goals – it is not climate change –it is the conquest of all previously held Muslim lands/expulsion of Western forces, return of the Caliphate, etc. and a tactic, that tactic is violence directed at the vulnerable seams of Western symbols.  They will not give up these goals or the violent tactics they use in hopes of achieving them. 

Bin Laden Audio Tape

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/01/29/AR2010012901463.html

How About a National Cyber Security Agency

The United States has a great opportunity to start something that will transform national security – a consolidated cyber security effort.  The concept of cyber security is not new as problem, however the solution is only now forming its bureaucratic boundaries.  The government should – really must act before those boundaries solidify and become nearly impossible to breach (think Director of National Security).  Although the governments’ intelligence effort has made some progress under the DNI, it is certainly slow, painful, fraught with angst, bureaucratic inertia and has left few broken rice bowls in its wake.

In his State of the Union, the President mentioned that several nations are not waiting to improve their economies; they are also not waiting until we have better cyber defenses.  The Chinese are certainly not waiting and their cyber effort is likely not a decentralized one.  We must consolidate cyber security, it is imperative that resources be utilized by just one agency, that expertise is resident in that agency and that it is a military-civilian, law enforcement and intelligence effort.  Professional computer experts (including hackers) side by side with the experts to help guide their cyberspace efforts – intelligence, military and law enforcement professionals.

DOD will be the loudest voice against such an effort, history proves they like stand-alone capability.  It is not the time for posturing or making an argument for going it alone.  DOD can make a great argument for the needs of combatant commanders, and the like, but there is an overarching need to coordinate the nation’s cyber security.  Every agency has such needs and properly organized, a National Cyber Security Agency can care for those needs.

This change can only come from the top and the appointment of a cyber czar is not the way to go, it is simply recognition of the problem.  Recent news shows the need for the ability to glide easily around cyber space to find all manner of illegal and threatening events.  The recent example of North Korean arms shipments is germane here.  Cyber security must be proactive to have the desired effect, not reactive.  It is time to get ahead of the bad guys.  It is time to have a national and not an agency capability.

North Korean Arms Shipment

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,584437,00.html

Navy Cyber Command Stand Up

http://www.navytimes.com/news/2010/01/navy_fleet_cyber_command_013010/

Cyber Czar

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/05/25/AR2009052502104.html

Chinese Cyber Warfare

http://www.theepochtimes.com/n2/content/view/28907/

Note: The Epoch Times is a publication of the anti-PRC group Falun Gong. It maintains a considerable bias in some reporting, and there are accusations of occasional exaggeration or fabrication.  This article however, has a reliable source as its base and is therefore used here.