Technology and New Media in International Conflict

Whether allowing for destruction on a scale unimaginable in the past, altering historic concepts of logistics by removing obstacles of time and space, or bringing about revolutionary changes in the field of intelligence; technology has inarguably changed the scope of modern conflict.  A great volume of literature exists on the changes brought to conflict and strategic thought in the 20^th century, but in recent years, time and again the development of social media has been noted as innately different from these past innovations.  This development is often regarded with hostility by government officials around the world and regularly with a blend of envy and genuinely amusing befuddlement by traditional forms of media.
Continue reading »

International Relations in Chaotic Times

In the midst of constantly changing and increasingly unstable events in the Middle East, President Obama has been on a trip through Latin America to the mixed delight and disdain of political thinkers.  Visiting themes similar to last year’s journey through Asia, the trip serves as a reminder that we’ve a host of problems more persistent than the current chaos in Libya.  Of particular note among the subjects focused on throughout the Presidents travels are a potential deepening of economic ties between Latin American nations and the United States.

Though as usual I can understand the complaints of those against the trip in light of current events in Libya and Japan, ultimately this seems another issue of short-term versus long-term thinking.  Issues of our nation’s economic future may not be at the top of anyone’s list this week, but those issues have certainly not disappeared since the last time they dominated the news.  Though the present disasters in Libya and our country’s involvement in military action in the State certainly deserve our attention and concern, as a nation we have a tendency to focus on one subject to the exclusion of all others.

Ultimately, who can say for certain if the decisions President Obama has made in the past few years will have much positive impact on the world in the long term.  I like to think that Obama’s approach to international relations have been a beneficial shift in the role played by the United States on the international stage, but likely that’s only because the administration’s actions abroad fit my personal model for what I feel our country should be.  As I’m sure many have said in the past, it’s strange living in such dramatic times.  Often I can’t help but wonder what history books will say in the future, about the years I’ve lived through.

Life on the wrong side of history

Protestors gathered outside the US Embassy in Bahrain today carrying signs with slogans like, “Stop Supporting Dictators” and “Give Me Liberty Or Give Me Death.” Apparently, the US hasn’t been quite as supportive of a democratic transition in Bahrain, an Absolute Monarchy, as many there would like. There is a good reason for this: Bahrain is the home of the US Navy’s Fifth Fleet. One of the fleet’s most vital functions is to ensure the US has a steady supply of oil from other Absolute Monarchies in the region, such as Kuwait, Qatar, and Saudi Arabia. Personally, I don’t see much of a future for Absolute Monarchy as a form of government. I hope the bright minds in the Obama Administration are thinking about how the US can get on the right side of history in the Middle East. Placing our energy security on the durability of allies with anachronistic forms of government like Absolute Monarchies doesn’t seem very wise.

Government Policy & Internet Freedom

The subject of internet freedom is a contentious one, even without the hornet’s nest of foreign policy being involved.  Though not exactly an issue of common household conversation, this touchy subject has fierce advocates on both sides here in the United States.  It is one of those rare subjects in US politics that does not divide clearly along partisan lines, and also among those thorny areas where concepts of freedom of speech, information and a right to privacy contrast sharply with state and private interests.  So when Secretary Clinton spoke today on the promotion of internet freedom around the world it didn’t take long for criticism of the administration to start rolling in.

Internet freedom is one of those subjects that opinions vary heavily on depending on the specific situation and one’s personal interests in keeping information controlled.  In light of this year’s rather massive political scandals over WikiLeaks and the diplomatic cabletastrophy, it seemed an interesting choice of subjects for Secretary Clinton to address.  On the other hand, given the impact internet freedom and the development of technology had in the recent uprisings throughout the Middle East, how could she not?

Unfortunately the nation has faced a great number of problems with contradictions in policy and public diplomacy throughout the political crises coursing through the Middle East.  Our government’s reactions to the troubles presented by WikiLeaks, set against Secretary Clinton’s words on internet freedom seem to be the latest addition to the list of contradictions.  There is no doubt that the US has a more relaxed approach to information control than the world’s authoritarian regimes, but we’ve a long way to go still before dubbing ourselves champions of internet freedom.

It is clear that internet freedom is an immensely important subject lately, and easily one of the greatest tools to promote government accountability, transparency and support for democratic institutions.  What is less clear is just how much right we as a nation have to lecture on the subject at this particular moment in history, and what potential impacts such lecturing might have on international relations.

Cyber Attacks & International Cooperation a BFD

When I first read on the newest Godzilla of a virus and the subsequent disaster of a “technological issue” faced by Iran’s nuclear program, the internet was abuzz with rumors on the nature of the attack.  For a few months I recall reading article after article noting the devastating impact of the Stuxnet worm, and classifying it as the first cyber attack to have an impact equivalent to a physical military strike.  At that time, I dismissed the claims that an attack of this magnitude required the efforts of one if not two of the world’s military powers.

To be clear, the region of the internet where there exists an overlap between tech nerds and political nerds tends to be heavy with conspiracy theory and a host of unsubstantiated claims explaining all the varied secrets of global conflict and the broader universe.  While trolling around these regions of the web I tend to take most of what I read with a grain of salt lest I go completely batty.  So imagine my surprise when more “mainstream” sources of news media begin to start supporting claims of the Stuxnet attack having been a concerted effort between the governments of the United States and Israel.

Readers may remember my general opinion on the “wave of cyber crime” in recent days along with broadcast media’s strange love-hate relationship with WikiLeaks.  As stated previously however, the attack on Iran’s nuclear program falls into a decidedly different category.  No mere nuisance or leak of information the Stuxnet fiasco presents a relatively new approach to conflict.  Relevant as a huge step forward in the viability of cyber attacks as a form of warfare, the attack also paints a startlingly clear picture of the United States and Israel’s role in the ever growing conflict with Iran.

At the same time, reading about an event like the cyber attack in standard news outlets so soon after the event was surprising in and of itself.  Effectively these recent articles have shed some light on the sort of subject I would normally expect to remain uncertain until decades from now in declassified documents.  In summary, the cyber attack on Iran’s nuclear program followed by increasing news coverage on the subject is, to quote our illustrious Vice President, “a big fucking deal.”