The Center for the Study of the Presidency has released their Afghanistan Study Group Report (PDF), warning that gains made in Afghanistan beyond Kabul against al-Qaeda and the Taliban risk being lost without an influx of forces and a unified international approach.

We believe that success in Afghanistan remains a critical national security imperative for the United States and the international community. Achieving that success will require a sustained, multi-year commitment from the U.S. and a willingness to make the war in Afghanistan – and the rebuilding of that country – a higher U.S. foreign policy priority. Although the obstacles there remain substantial, the strategic consequences of failure in Afghanistan would be severe for long-term U.S. interests in the region and for security at home. Allowing the Taliban to re-establish its influence in Afghanistan, as well as failure to prevent Afghanistan from becoming a failed state, would not only undermine the development of the country, it would constitute a major victory for al-Qaeda and its global efforts to spread violence and extremism.

The “light footprint” in Afghanistan needs to be replaced with the “right footprint” by the U.S. and its allies. It is time to re-vitalize and re-double our efforts toward stabilizing Afghanistan and re-think our economic and military strategies to ensure that the level of our commitment is commensurate with the threat posed by possible failure in Afghanistan. Without the right level of commitment on the part of the U.S., its allies, and Afghanistan’s neighbors, the principles agreed upon by both the Afghan government and the international community at the 2006 London Conference and the goals stated in the Afghanistan Compact will not be achievable. Additionally, recent events in Pakistan further emphasize that there can be no successful outcome for Afghanistan if its neighbors, especially Pakistan, are not part of the solution.

Unfortunately, a stable Afghanistan has not been in Pakistan’s interests. Not before the events of September 11, 2001, and not after. This does not make the report incorrect, but illustrates, as the authors themselves understand, that enlisting Pakistan in Afghan support is a tall order.

Secretary of Defense Robert Gates, as quoted in a TIME magazine article on the report, looks at Afghanistan with less alarm, accompanied by frustration toward European NATO allies’ flagging commitment and will in the Afghanistan mission.

Defense Secretary Robert Gates said he was not familiar with the study’s findings, but he struck a more optimistic tone on Afghanistan’s future.

“I would say that the security situation is good,” Gates told The Associated Press. “We want to make sure it gets better, and I think there’s still a need to coordinate civil reconstruction, the economic development side of it.”

Gates said more troops are needed in Afghanistan, but “certainly not ours.” When asked how many more NATO troops might be needed, he said that number should be determined by ground commanders.

ThreatsWatch has not yet completed digesting the Afghanistan Study Group report. We will release a distilled analysis once that process is complete.

By Steve Schippert at 9:00 AM | Permalink | Feedback (2) | Referenced By (0)

Al-Qaeda’s North African wing, Al-Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb (AQIM) claimed responsibility for a suicide bombing against a police station in Thenia, Algeria on January 29. Four people were killed by the blast and twenty wounded. The perpetrator drove an explosives laden van toward the station whereupon policemen opened fire on the vehicle, which detonated before reaching the police station outright. Severe damage was caused to surrounding buildings. AQIM’s claim was posted on a jihadist website the next day:

“A lion’s cub of Al-Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb, valiant martyr Hamza Abu Abderrahman, drove a vehicle laden with at least 650 kilograms (1,430 pounds) of explosives against the ramparts of the apostates: the judicial police station in Thenia,” said a statement on a website routinely used by Al-Qaeda.

The attack comes amidst a heightened threat environment in Algeria with embassies urging their nationals to avoid public venues and travel to the country’s interior where AQIM is active. Olivier Guitta, a counterterrorism consultant, has reported on internal dissension in AQIM’s organizational structure over the decision to switch from independent operations as the Salafist Group for Preaching and Combat (GSPC) to the umbrella of Al-Qaeda and the methodology of attacking civilian targets in suicide strikes. If so, this attack, though relatively on the lower end, is evidence that AQIM still retains operational capability.

By Clay Varney at 8:45 AM | Permalink | Feedback (0) | Referenced By (0)

Protecting business records and information is among the priority security issues that have to be paramount in executives’ minds. It is certainly one of the points emphasized by local law enforcement when they speak to small and large businesses alike. Many businesses worry about natural disasters and act of terrorism. Is your business prepared to deal with a disaster or catastrophic event like a fire or flood? Maintaining redundant backups is an essential component of good business practices and security in today’s digital world.

However, the question here is whether those same businesses are conscious of the potential damage to be done by spiteful, angry, and vengeful employees. When a woman working for a Mandarin, Florida architectural firm noticed a classified ad with a job description similar to hers with her boss’s phone number, she mistakenly concluded that she was about to be fired. Her response was to sabotage the firm’s computer files.

“She decided to go and mess up everything for everybody,” said Jacksonville Sheriff’s Office spokesman Ken Jefferson. Jefferson says Cooley accessed the company’s server with her own account, and with a handful of mouse clicks and keystrokes she deleted seven years’ worth of architectural drawings. Seven years of work were gone in but a few seconds. The company put the value of the deleted files at $2.5 million.”

Even though the owner of the company was able to hire data recovery consultants and retrieved all of the drawings, this incident raises the serious question of computer and data security, regardless of the size of your business. Is your company’s data backed-up? Is it off-site? Is it automatic or manual? I maintain triple back-ups of my critical data (CD-RW, external hard drive and separate desktop computer). It only takes one incident to make you super careful.

By Jay Fraser at 10:49 PM | Permalink | Feedback (0) | Referenced By (0)

At The Daily Standard, Daveed Gartenstein-Ross and Threatswatch’s Nick Grace have co-written an article looking at the state of the Pakistan Peoples Party (PPP) after the assassination of Benazir Bhutto. In Shattered Hopes, they write:

BUT THESE ARE NOT THE BEST of circumstances, and [Bhutto’s widower] Asif Ali [Zardari] may find it difficult to hold the PPP together. Islamabad-based political commentator Ahmed Quraishi told us that the Bhutto family is privately suspicious of the will that Asif Ali relied on to take over the party’s reins. “Nobody knew about it, not even the Bhutto family, nor any of Benazir Bhutto’s political aides nor close associates within the party,” he said.

“Zardari’s rise to leadership marks the beginning of dissension within the PPP,” B. Raman, former head of counterterrorism for India’s external intelligence agency, told us. “It was a very unwise decision of the PPP to endorse Zardari, and very unwise of Benazir to have endorsed her husband.”

There are already signs that Raman may be correct. Some members of the Bhutto family (who have controlled the PPP since its inception forty years ago) have signaled their rejection of the legitimacy of both Bilawal and Asif Ali. Though Bilawal recently adopted “Bhutto” as his middle name, some family members do not consider him a part of the dynastic line. “Bilawal is actually a member of the Zardari family,” Saifullah Mehsud, a research analyst with the International Centre for Political Violence and Terrorism Research in Singapore, told us. “They repositioned him as a Bhutto, but lineage is traced from the father and not the mother. He is a Zardari son.”

Grace and Gartenstein-Ross conclude that the significant troubles of the PPP post-Bhutto, while not fatal, do not bode well for US interests.

Even if the PPP does not collapse under the weight of internal bickering, the odds are overwhelmingly against anyone in the party leadership accomplishing the goals that Benazir Bhutto had upon her return to Pakistan. Since the PPP is Pakistan’s only secular opposition party with true national reach, its weakening is significant for U.S. strategic interests.

The entire article can be read by clicking the Weekly Standard link in this post’s ‘Notes’ section in the right column.

By ThreatsWatch at 3:00 PM | Permalink | Feedback (0) | Referenced By (0)

With the 2008 Presidential election upon us, the Nation also faces the first ever transition of the Department of Homeland Security from one Administration to another. Staying totally apolitical, that this is the first election in over 50 years where there is no incumbent Vice President running for the higher office presents an even greater challenge. A few weeks ago, I noted that Congressman Bennie Thompson, Chairman of the House Committee on Homeland Security had sent a memo to the Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security, Michael Chertoff. The memo contained a “to-do” list that included developing a plan to deal with the “mass exodus” that would occur with the change in Administration.

A new task force, a subgroup of the Homeland Security Advisory Committee, just published what they describe as “politically neutral” recommendations to deal with the transition, a period of heightened vulnerability that they define as one month prior and six months following the change in Adminstration. Seeking to achieve a seemless transfer to a new President, the recommendations include:

• Any “credible threat reports” should be disseminated to all presidential and vice presidential nominees in a “timely and reliable” fashion;

• Nominees should be encouraged to issue “one joint statement” in the event of a heightened threat level;

• DHS, the presidential nominees, their staffs and the Senate should develop an “expedited process” to handle appointments and nominees to top departmental posts “that goes far beyond the top three or four senior positions”;

• Current appointees in the Bush Administration should be “incentivized” with financial bonuses to remain in their posts and overlap the new administration;

• A bipartisan group of senators should set a goal of confirming all incoming DHS nominees for national security posts “by the start of the August 2009 recess.”

The mission of the Department of Homeland Security is to “Prevent, Prepare, Respond, and Recover.” Considering the difficulties experienced by DHS during its first six years coordinating the activities and integrating the staffs of 22 legacy agencies, the need to plan for and deal with the potential loss of a significant number of senior level key people is obvious and essential. According to the report, there are 177 “Senior Executive” positions at DHS Headquarters, including 12 presidential appointments who require Senate approval, 33 political appointments and 107 career employees (25 positions are currently vacant, 3 of which would be political appointees). Aside from the transition to a new Administration, one of the more significant challenges facing the next DHS Secretary is to figure out how to streamline and integrate the activities of the disparate agencies.

By Jay Fraser at 9:02 PM | Permalink | Feedback (3) | Referenced By (0)

That’s what our Iran policy seems the byproduct of, as I expressed in Fare Thee Well, Optimism over at National Review.

And unless one can induce the return of the Mahdi without catastrophic calamity, hoping that Iran’s messianic regime will stumble on another route to fulfillment is a direct path to the catastrophe they intend to create in order to pave the way for the return of the 12th Imam. With “peaceful nuclear power,” no less.

On that day, persistently left to others to confront by each U.S. administration since the 1979 Khomeinist revolution, investing in the tangible support of the Iranian people will have seemed like a bargain basement [deal] we were unthinkably unwilling to take. Today, it is too high a price.

It’s a MasterCard foreign policy no less indicative of our American quest for comfort today than our individual and collective debts. One day, the convenient minimum payment will exceed our income and savings, and regret and conscience will be the least of our concerns.

By Steve Schippert at 8:25 PM | Permalink | Feedback (0) | Referenced By (0)

So…. Hizballah demands an investigation into recent killings in Lebanon? Oh, really? Well…

One thing is for certain: The investigation will not be conducted by Capt. Wissam Eid, inspector for the Lebanese Internal Security Forces. You see, he had been investigating car-bombing assassinations until he was assassinated himself. No word on whether Hizballah has lodged a formal investigation request for that killing.

It’s a ‘pot, kettle, black’ kind of thing. Except, in this instance, the kettle isn’t really black, is it?

Short answer: No.

In-depth answer: No.

By Steve Schippert at 8:30 AM | Permalink | Feedback (0) | Referenced By (0)

Yesterday’s Daily Briefings highlighted an article discussing the use of vehicles displaying the “logos” of FedEx, Wal-Mart, DirecTV and the U.S. Border Patrol by the drug cartels to smuggle drugs, human cargo and weapons across the border into the U.S. This was based on a report by the Florida Department of Law Enforcement.

Termed “cloned” vehicles, the report also warns that terrorists could use the same fake trucks to gain access to secure areas with hidden weapons. The report says criminals have been able to easily obtain the necessary vinyl logo markings and signs for $6,000 or less. Authorities say “cosmetically cloned commercial vehicles are not illegal.”

This is not the first report of this type. In August 2006, over 3000 pounds of marijuana and more than 200 kilos of cocaine were seized from a cloned Wal-Mart semi driven by a criminal wearing a Wal-Mart uniform.

Last week when I posted Violence Spikes on the “Other Side” of the Border, one or two commenters objected to the premise that the violence on the Mexican side of the border was a threat to our National security. In fact, it was even posed that in some way, we were the cause for border crossovers. I don’t think so.

Well, according to Stratfor, there’s an undeclared war on the Mexican/US border between Mexican Federal forces and the drug cartels, with spillover into the United States. It impacts the cross border supply chain of NAFTA, has potential impacts on our energy markets (Mexico remains one of our primary suppliers of petroleum products), and raises the question of the safety of travel and tourism across the border. In this short video, Fred Burton of Stratfor describes what he calls the battle for turf between the Gulf and Sinaloa drug cartels.

Whether or not the violence is sporadic and whether or not the Mexican government is either attempting to break the cartels and quell the violence, or, as one other commenter implied, is in league with the cartels, is less the issue, then the actual threat to American security posed by the continuing narco-violence on the “other side of the border.” To ignore the problem will not make it disappear, and to suggest that it doesn’t exist, is even worse.

By Jay Fraser at 6:27 AM | Permalink | Feedback (2) | Referenced By (0)

As-Sahab, al-Qaeda’s central media wing, released its 4th video for 2008 and the second installment of “The Winds of Paradise” on January 27 on the main al-Qaeda message forums. The 46-minute video, a documentary-style strategic PSYOP product aimed at boosting morale among the rank and file, promoting martyrdom, and encouraging participation in the Afghan theater, is an extremely well-produced product that features a group of al-Qaeda fighters from Turkey, Kuwait, Syria and Afghanistan who died while fighting alongside Taliban forces in Afghanistan.

The video begins with a 4-minute title and introductory reel that originally appeared in the first installment of “The Winds of Paradise,” which was released on July 14, 2007, and re-released with English-language narration on September 5. It starts with a campfire 3D computer animation and speech by former al-Qaeda in Iraq head Abu Musab al-Zarqawi and then a recitation from the Qur’an. A 50-second and undated clip of Usama bin Laden espousing the virtues of martyrdom follows. Bin Laden, it is interesting to note, is flanked by a member of his elite security detail, the Black Guards. The video also includes speeches by al-Qaeda Afghanistan chief Mustafa Abu al-Yazid, who is chroma-keyed onto a green After Effects backdrop, and al-Qaeda “defense minister” Abu Yahya al-Libi.

Each fighter featured in the video is introduced by a narrator and identified by his nom de guerre. They are shown engaged in weapons training, marching in formation, and morale-boosting activities like singing Islamic nasheeds and camping overnight in a cave. At one point they also meet former Taliban commander Mullah Dadullah, who arrives at the training camp in two pick-up trucks. Each fighter delivers a video testimonial, including the Turkish fighters who are subtitled in Arabic. They are then shown participating in ambush operations.

As-Sahab camerawork has increasingly improved in sophistication and technique. Although the footage included in this latest video seems to have been shot before Dadullah’s death in May 2007 it shows a level of creativity that as-Sahab field work has previously lacked. Whereas in the past training and operations footage has consisted of “point and shoot” with little thought about the final product, the training footage in “The Winds of Paradise Part 2” experiments with different camera angles and techniques. One shot, for example, shows the fighters reflected off the shimmering water of a creek as they march by. Additionally, the overall pacing of the video is also tight, which suggests improved storyboarding capabilities.

The video was posted in 3 video formats and 4 different file sizes and seeded across a total of 426 free file transfer sites on January 26, including archive.org, uploaded.to, badongo.com, yourmirror.biz, hostupload.net, rapidfile.net, megaupload.com, filepep.com, theonlinedatastorage.com, picshome.com, ezyfile.net, fastuploading.com, simpleupload.net, archiv.to, egosh.dr.ag, netload.in, egoshare.com, bluehost.to, depositfiles.com, filefactory.com, badongo.com, share-online.biz, cocoshare.cc, savefile.info, 4filehosting.com, zshare.net, upitus.com, ntshare.com, heyupload.com, and maxishare.net. Some of the seeds are stamped with “mirrorit.de,” a Web site that facilitates three uploads at once.

The files were last modified on January 22 between 4 and 5 am (local computer timestamp). Following standard operational security, the files are zipped in the RAR format and protected with the randomly-generated password “h7dkk4%^0$45FJ*(DJ&Xhy43VFchys#@^&G(HFfah.” The unlinked promotional banner for the video first appeared on the Web forums on January 23 - four days before the final official release.

[Editor’s Note: We have begun posting the propaganda from al-Qaeda and others for the primary purpose of informing and educating both the general public and policy makers about the level to which the enemy has actively engaged in Information Warfare. Some of the messages contain graphic content. We at ThreatsWatch post these videos as evidence of the brutal nature of the enemy we face and the clear intent they have to kill those not aligned with them. Making the public aware of the nature of the enemy - as well as the often forgotten virtues of our own nation - is one of the primary missions of ThreatsWatch and the Center for Threat Awareness.]

By Nick Grace at 12:30 AM | Permalink | Feedback (2) | Referenced By (0)

As tangled as the web may be, often spun so for public consumption and confusion, at the end of the day dealing with the Iranian nuclear weapons program comes down to trust. Do you trust Iran with a nuclear program? The rest is confusing clutter, and we engage ourselves in heady, time-consuming intellectual debate over the incredibly simple.

The Washington Post’s Lally Weymouth had a conversation with Ehud Barak, Israel’s defense minister. He addressed Iran, Hamas and the potential of a nuclear weapon in the hands of terrorists “within 10 to 15 years.” Regarding Israel’s understanding of the Iranian nuclear program - in stark contrast to the minority opinion proffered by the December Iran NIE - Barak shared the following.

“We think that they are quite advanced, much beyond the level of the Manhattan Project. We suspect they are probably already working on warheads for ground-to-ground missiles…”

Before dismissing, one must ask why the IRGC had a significant contingent inside North Korea to observe their nuclear weapons test, which was most likely a plutonium device. Plutonium production is what heavy water nuclear reactors are built to produce, and Iran is continuing construction of one at Arak.

Iran’s nuclear program need not be exclusively in Iran. Syria and North Korea are both fertile grounds for an extended program and - in the particular but not exclusive case of Syria - beyond the horizon of the IAEA.

And, just to tangle the web spun, consider recent accusations by a Russian defector and former Deputy Resident of Russia’s SVR foreign intelligence service (successor organization to the KGB) New York City operations. Having run Russia’s post-Cold War espionage program in the United States, defector Sergei Tretyakov charges that the UN’s top IAEA verification official is a Russian spy.

The top U.N. official responsible for monitoring the clandestine nuclear programs of Iran and Pakistan is a Russian spy, according to a new book on Moscow’s espionage operations in the United States and Canada. The official is identified only by his Russian code name, ARTHUR, but other sources identified him as Tariq Rauf, 54, a Pakistani-born Canadian who is chief of verification and security-policy coordination at the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA).

Too sensational to believe? Read on.

Tretyakov’s description of ARTHUR all but names Rauf as his spy.

“When Sergei had recruited ARTHUR [in 1990],” Earley writes, “he worked at the Canadian Centre for Arms Control,” a think tank for experts on nuclear weapons.

Later, ARTHUR was “a project director at the Center for Nonproliferation Studies, part of the Monterey Institute of International Studies, a California think tank,” he relates.

A few years later, when Tretyakov became deputy chief of Russian intelligence in New York, he renewed his relationship with ARTHUR, who had become “a U.N. senior verification expert,” who specialized in the clandestine weapons programs of “rogue states” such as Iran, Libya and his native Pakistan.

“I know that he is still employed at the agency and I have no reason to believe he has stopped working for Russian intelligence,” the one-time master spy says in the book.

“He hated America.”

Rauf’s résumé is identical to Tretyakov’s description of ARTHUR’S career. They are one and the same, according to multiple sources.

A former Russian diplomat and arms control specialist who knew Tretyakov well in New York, reviewed the description of ARTHUR and said it appeared to describe Rauf.

“The fingered Canadian guy, well, you know only too well who could theoretically fit this reference,” he said on condition of anonymity.

Another former Monterey arms expert, when asked whether Rauf might be the spy code-named ARTHUR, said, “Yes, the name you provided is correct.”

As part of The China-Russia-Iran Axis, Russia is a critical part of the Iranian Protectorate, with veto power inside the UN Security Council and perhaps its own loyal operative within the heart of the IAEA itself.

There are many reasons the IAEA’s many voluminous Iran reports provide little confidence one way or the other regarding Iran’s nuclear weapons program. This only potentially adds to the mix of the incredulous.

We should be wary of trusting Russia regarding Iran, to say the least, regardless of the specific veracity of the above claims. Likewise, we should be wary of the straightforwardness of IAEA reports when the Director General states in an interview that his primary charge is not to inspect, identify and verify nuclear programs, but rather to avert a war with Iran at all costs.

So at the end of the day the individual is left with a decision to make regarding Iran: Do you trust Iran with nuclear technology?

Coming up with the answer to that fundamental question is not terribly difficult, is it? If so, perhaps you have been in Washington, DC for far too long.

For my money, there’s no need to qualify a stance against an Iranian nuclear program with hard evidence of X or Y or proof of collusion, gerrymandering or accuracy within or without the IAEA. It’s a simple matter of trust and consequences.

Iran defiantly gives no reason to trust and the consequences are too great, making the risk unacceptable. Yet, we appear on a path that will leave difficult consequences to be dealt with by others at a later time. And that is wholly irresponsible.

But then again, perhaps I simply have not been in Washington, DC long enough. Surely one day I will come to my senses and enjoy the new Great Game.

By Steve Schippert at 10:05 AM | Permalink | Feedback (0) | Referenced By (0)

When miles of the border fence separating Gaza from Egypt was simultaneously brought down this week the first thing to enter my mind was the ease of movement it afforded Hamas and the enhanced ability it provided for the Palestinian terrorist group to infiltrate Egypt and, perhaps from another border, Israel.

Yet, most news articles chose to report a narrative that the Gaza siege had been broken, and thousands of hungry and thirsty Gazans crossed into Egypt on shopping sprees and supply runs. While there is of course truth to that account, it was not the reason Hamas leveled the iron fence. If it wanted relief for the Gazan citizens, it would halt the rocket attacks on Sderot, Ashkelon and other Israeli towns and cities. Bringing down the fence allowed Hamas to further the propaganda meme of victims of Israeli aggression and of humanitarian tragedy wrought by Israel.

Keep in mind two very important pieces of information (1 & 2) for proper context (3) here:

1. The steel posts of the Gaza-Egypt fence were severed - under cover and in secret by Hamas - over the course of weeks before the whole of the tract was brought down in a coordinated set of post-midnight blasts.

2. As the support post cutting was nearly complete, days before the fence was brought down Hamas stopped supplying fuel to its only power generation plant in order to create an international media storm of Palestinian plight at the hands of an Israeli aggressor fomenting humanitarian crisis.

3. The proper stage of perception and ‘crisis’ was then set to be effectively used to condition media coverage to characterize the streams of Gazans as fleeing siege and violence, and of course shopping, rather than coordinated Hamas operations for a.) Information Warfare; and b.) Infiltration into Egypt.

The final paragraphs of this Ha’aretz article finally cuts to the chase.

Hamas and other terrorist organizations in the Gaza Strip have used the newly open border with Egypt to send numerous terrorists into the Sinai peninsula over the last two days, with the goal of then sending them from Sinai into Israel to commit attacks, defense officials said Thursday.

The Israel Defense Forces, the police and the Shin Bet security service have consequently beefed up their forces and their alert level along the Israeli-Egyptian border in an effort to thwart infiltrations. Should terrorists succeed in entering Israel from Sinai, one defense official said, they might commit suicide bombings, kidnap soldiers or civilians, or attack small agricultural communities or military outposts.

In addition, the counterterrorism unit in the Prime Minister’s Office warned Israelis against visiting Sinai and urged those who are already there to leave, since the flow of terrorists from Gaza also increases the likelihood of terror attacks in Sinai’s tourist resorts. Egypt is also worried about the possibility of terror attacks in Sinai.

One member of the counterterrorism unit noted that the open border not only enables terrorists to enter Sinai, but would also make it easier for them to smuggle an abducted Israeli back into Gaza.

Remember that the popular vacation spot for Israelis, Sharm el-Sheikh, is nearby inside Egypt, a ‘target rich environment’ for Hamas terrorists who may gain access.

When there is a successful or failed bombing and/or kidnapping of Israelis at Sharm el-Sheikh in the coming weeks, remember all of the stories that you read about the Great Gaza Blackout and the sudden Palestinian shopping spree in Egypt - both blamed on Israel, and each story missing the terrorist operational component of the propaganda campaign.

The headlines have been simply unbelievable. Witness:

For Gazans, it was a day of joy, shopping - Ft. Worth Star-Telegram
Shopping and shooting on Gaza’s border - BBC
Palestinians Hurry to Finish Their Shopping in Egypt - New York Times
Palestinians Profit From Breach - AP

Of course, there is still room for concern as every silver lining has a black cloud. To wit, increased unemployment due to the breaching of the fence.

Open border is a nightmare for hundreds of Palestinian smugglers - Globe & Mail

You should be more informed than that. Hopefully, now you are. Keep your eyes on the resort of Sharm el-Sheikh in Egypt.

And remember that you heard it here.

By Steve Schippert at 12:17 PM | Permalink | Feedback (0) | Referenced By (0)

A few weeks ago I offered a rather lengthy backgrounder on the subject of balancing the academic and researcher urge to publish and seek peer review of work, and the potential national security implications of publishing those results. In many ways, this is also related to the problem of the sale or theft of intellectual property as a number of entries here at ThreatsWatch have recently discussed.

Today we find ourselves on a precipice of discovery. On the one hand, our Nation’s scientists and researchers attack the many challenges of a World that is moving at Internet speed. But it is that speed that also creates the scientific dilemma. September 11th changed more than just our lives. It changed more than just the question of security, because it also changed the importance of judging how and when sensitive (but not secret) information should be shared.

The issue is no longer the simplistic “publish or perish.” Dealing with scientific discoveries and advancements at a time when the free flow of information and access to reports, even perhaps the reports contained in the previous entry on this topic, Science, Technology and the “Age of Terrorism” are open to almost anyone with a computer and an Internet connection. This fact could well be problematic.

Allowing sensitive information on new discoveries to travel free around the World in a matter of seconds leads to the very real question of National security, and raises the parallel question of freedom of speech (or at least issues of extreme censorship). I first became intimately aware of this problem as I was preparing for a presentation on Bioterrorism and Homeland Security that I delivered in May 2004 on Long Island. What struck me then was the discussion of the work of Dr. Mark Buller and his associates. They had created a highly lethal virus in an effort to develop stronger protections against supervirulent forms of smallpox that terrorists might turn on humans

Back then the question was whether the benefits of doing the research, especially when it came to new and particularly virulent bio-terror agents, was prudent, and whether the publication of the results outweighed the potential for educated terrorists having the information and potentially being able to duplicate it.

This type of research has been debated for years, with critics arguing again yesterday that superviruses created in laboratories could inspire terrorists to create their own deadly diseases. The mousepox scientists countered that the research could help deter terrorism by demonstrating the emergence of more potent medical defenses.

The mousepox research was done at St. Louis University as a project financed by the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases meant to find new protections against smallpox, which kills one in three victims.

The leaders of the research said that the lethal mouse virus would have no effect on humans even if it somehow escaped from the laboratory, which they said was safeguarded at biosafety level three, the second-highest degree of security.

“To my knowledge, there’s no scientific evidence to suggest that this kind of research poses any sort of human health risk,” said Mark Buller, a professor of molecular microbiology at St. Louis University who directed the mousepox research. Many experiments have shown that mousepox does not cause disease in humans, he said.

We are seeing clearly that the limits of science are boundless. We know that these advances must continue to enable us to be prepared to counter the “whatevers” that can (might) occur. What are the limits of science? Where is the line between seeking peer accolades and recognition and crossing a line of discretion, over which we allow access to critical information and scientific advancements that could harm us if used against us?

An earlier publication from the Central Intelligence Agency, The Darker Bioweapons Future draws the picture of what “could be”:

According to experts, the biotechnology underlying the development of advanced biological agents is likely to advance very rapidly, causing a diverse and elusive threat spectrum. The resulting diversity of new BW agents could enable such a broad range of attack scenarios that it would be virtually impossible to anticipate and defend against, they say. As a result, there could be a considerable lag time in developing effective biodefense measures. However, effective countermeasures, once developed, could be leveraged against a range of BW agents, asserted attendees, citing current research aimed at developing protocols for augmenting common elements of the body’s response to disease, rather than treating individual diseases. Such treatments could strengthen our defense against attacks by ABW agents.

An article in the November 28, 2007 Journal of American Medical Association commented about the increased concerns about the threats of bioterror attacks outbreaks of an infectious disease. It is a simple and undeniable fact. Our enemy in this Global War on Terrorism is educated and determined, and they have already made it clear that they will use all means of weapon against us. Therefore, things like scientific literature, technology transfer efforts, academic conferences and patents become the source for potential use. The potential lethality of some of the scientific and biotechnological developments, if they fell into the wrong hands, is beyond comprehension. However, the counter argument is that in parallel with the development of these agents, also comes the development of vaccines to deal with them.

It cannot be the most popular position with the scientific community, but I believe that discretion is warranted when it comes to publishing scientific results. If it isn’t already policy, I believe that National Security must be superior to scientific accolades, and therefore, a filtering process needs to be established. Is that censorship? Perhaps it is censorship. But the net effect of that censorship (if that is what it is), is a probably increase in security along with a decrease in academic/research accolades.

By Jay Fraser at 10:05 AM | Permalink | Feedback (2) | Referenced By (0)

Over the weekend, FrontPage Magazine asked for an interview regarding the cooperative and protective relationship that both Russia and China have undertaken with regard to Iran. Both Russia and China are pursuing their own goals and needs, which include energy supply, economics and the shared desire among all to damage and weaken the United States. Iran remains, in the context of the triumvirate, a hot hand in a re-surging cold war.

FP: We’ve gathered here today to discuss the Iran-Russia-China alignment. I think a good place to start is with Russia sending nuclear fuel to Iran. What do you make of this development?

Schippert: The 11-shipment Russian supply underway of 80 tons of enriched uranium nuclear fuel for the Russian-built 1,000 megawatt light water reactor is a sweeping Iranian victory and troubling in several respects. From a strategic view flying by at 20,000 feet, it is indicative of Iran and Russia’s deepening common alignment against the United States. It’s an alignment – an allied partnership beyond nuclear cooperation - that also includes China.

Iran has notched yet another major victory over the West, which remains quick and eager to talk while slow and reluctant to act. Iran smartly feeds the Western obsession with talks and negotiations, while acting without pause or regret. The West, in this regard, is persistently, willingly and knowingly being played.

The first question that should come to mind should be, why then does Iran need to continue enrichment if Russia supplies the fuel for its only production reactor? And, what use does Iran have for the enriched uranium it will soon begin producing in significant quantities itself? With the Russian-built Bushehr reactor on the Arabian Gulf operating on Russian fuel and no other light water plants in operation – let alone being built – the answer is either benevolent stockpiling for future plants or the development of nuclear weapons. Of course, there’s the Arak heavy water plant nearing completion, which will be used to create plutonium.

Recall that Iran steadfastly refused a deal tabled in which they would have received Russian enriched uranium fuel in exchange for scrapping their enrichment program. What ended up agreed to in 2005 was a Russian supply with no enrichment cessation requirement at all. Until now, Russia hesitated to deliver the fuel. This Iranian victory, which few discuss from this perspective, has afforded the world’s foremost state sponsor of terrorism both the preservation and advancement of its nuclear enrichment program and the Russian nuclear fuel for the low, low cost of…nothing. Iran ceded nothing and has now received both.

If that were not disconcerting enough, consider the timing of the sudden arrival of the first Russian enriched uranium fuel shipment.

The timing of the delivery and the massive oil and gas deal signed between China and Iran are not mere coincidences. Each unforeseen event came days after the latest NIE on Iran provided the necessary political and diplomatic cover to freely proceed with each.

The entire interview published today can be read at FrontPage Magazine, and includes a fundamental policy recommendation for dealing with the ‘new axis.’

By Steve Schippert at 9:13 AM | Permalink | Feedback (1) | Referenced By (0)

It may be dismissed quickly by some as open cheerleading for President Bush. But consider the critical issue of discarding the out-moded ABM treaty with Russia discussed in a commentary in today’s The Wall Street Journal and it’s hard to judge the decisions made on these issues any way other than favorably. It opens discussing Iraq.

One of the most difficult and consequential decisions of the Bush presidency took place in January of last year: the decision to fundamentally change our strategy by “surging” more U.S. forces to Iraq.

This decision was taken against the backdrop of escalating violence in Iraq, calls for immediate or “phased” withdrawal, prognostications of imminent defeat, and an abundance of political blame directed at the White House. The president’s move was met with skepticism and outright vilification, except for a few principled politicians like John McCain and Joe Lieberman. Today, people are getting in line to claim credit for the “surge.”

Mr. Bush’s decision was guided by a clear strategic principle. The president wanted the U.S. to win, and refashioning our strategy was the best opportunity to succeed in this goal, as well as to leave Iraq policy on a sounder basis for his successor. Whoever wins the presidency in 2008 will be pleased that he did. What a difference a year makes.

And they begin with the Iraq decision one year ago in order draw the parallels common to what are commonly termed “tough decisions.” “Tough decisions” are, by definition, the same decisions in which much criticism arises and views commonly split - such as those regarding Iraq last year and the ABM Treaty early in his presidency. For if there were consensus, such decisions would not be characterized as ‘tough.’

While there is arguably much to criticize, this is the nature of divided opinion, not a failed presidency. It’s important to distinguish the two and, in an election season, ask yourself exactly what it means to you when you hear ‘ability to make tough decisions’ when a candidate is discussed.

We at ThreatsWatch overwhelmingly prefer clarity over consensus and understanding over agreement. And when core principles guide thinking during trying times and issues, the ‘tough decisions’ are instinctively less difficult to make and reflect the consistency afforded by followed principles.

While the ABM Treaty decision widely criticized is discussed at length in the Wall Street Journal commentary, of greater interest here today is the decision-making process that delivered it.

By Steve Schippert at 8:36 AM | Permalink | Feedback (0) | Referenced By (0)

NOTE: As shown by the comments, this subject is controversial. The opponents are many (actually there are eighteen states). Among the objections is the high cost pass through to the states of the mandated changes in drivers’ licenses as defined in the Real ID Act of 2005. Also, civil liberties supporters claim that privacy is violated by various requirements for biometric information being embedded in the new IDs, as well fearing that a Real ID is a precursor of a National ID card. Yet, despite all of the objections, a key question remains. How do we ensure that a person presenting an ID is not only the person for whom the ID was initially issued, but also whether the ID document itself is authentic.

The “final rule” released by the Department of Homeland Security on January 11th reduced the pass through costs by 73%. The DHS announcement also included:

“The American public’s desire for greater identity protection is undeniable,” said Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff. “Americans understand today that the 9/11 hijackers obtained 30 drivers licenses and ID’s, and used 364 aliases. For an extra $8 per license, REAL ID will give law enforcement and security officials a powerful advantage against falsified documents, and it will bring some peace of mind to citizens wanting to protect their identity from theft by a criminal or illegal alien.”

While opponents argue that the Real ID Act was passed as an amendment to a Defense Department Appropriations bill, Congress passed the Act in an attempt to address some of the findings of the September 11 Commission. When you look at the events of September 11th that raised everyone’s attention to issues of security, it is hard to lend too much credence to the opponents’ issues when balanced against issues of security. While the following is admittedly from an editorial written by Secretary Michael Chertoff in the Houston Chronicle the facts remain:

● All but one of the 9/11 hijackers carried government IDs that helped them board planes and remain in the country illegally.

● Last year, our immigration and customs agents charged hundreds of illegal workers with crimes relating to state and federal document fraud.

● In 2005 alone, identity theft cost American households $64 billion, and 28 percent of these incidents likely required a driver’s license to perpetrate.

Even though some people argue that some of the hijackers carried legal drivers licenses, those people fail to understand that there are serious holes in security, especially when it comes to the authenticity of the so-called “breeder documents” (like birth certificates and social security cards) that people have used in the past to secure (I should actually use the word, “obtain”), a legal drivers license.

As a result, one of the important provisions of the recently “Final Rule” of the Real ID Act issued by the Department of Homeland Security (at least in my opinion) is that it will :

“…establish minimum standards for state-issued driver’s licenses and identification cards in accordance with the REAL ID Act of 2005. These regulations set standards for states to meet the requirements of the REAL ID Act,” including:

● information and security features that must be incorporated into each card;
● proof of identity and U.S. citizenship or legal status of an applicant;
● verification of the source documents provided by an applicant; and
● security standards for the offices that issue licenses and identification cards.

This final rule also provides a process for States to seek an additional extension of the compliance deadline to May 11, 2011, by demonstrating material compliance with the core requirements of the Act and this rule.

Minimum Standards for Drivers Licenses and Identification Cards Acceptable by Federal Agencies for Official Purposes: Final Rule

Final Rule, Part 1 (PDF, 120 pages - 4.2 MB)
Final Rule, Part 2 (PDF, 164 pages – 5.6 MB)

Based on the Final Rule, the Timeline for Real ID Implementation is as follows:

Security Upgrades – Phase I (by December 31, 2009)
States will:
● Verify lawful status with DHS to prevent illegal aliens from obtaining REAL IDs
● Check Social Security number electronically with the Social Security Administration, so that one else can claim your identity.
● Ensure than application does not have licenses in multiple identities
● Conduct background checks for DMV/contractor employees to ensure licenses are not issued by corrupt insiders

Security Upgrades – Phase II (by May 11, 2011)
States will:
● Verify electronically all identity document with the issuing source to ensure reconrds exist and are accurate
● Confirm tamper resistant features of REAL ID licenses
● Record in DMV databases the full name established by the required identity documents
● Commence issuing REAL IDs (if not sooner)

Enrollment – Age 50 and Under (by December 1, 2014)
● All license holders born on or after December 1, 1964 who want a REAL ID-compliant license have one by December 1, 2014

Enrollment – Over Age 50 (by December 1, 2017)
● All license holders – regardless of age – who want a REAL ID- compliant license have one by December 1, 2017

Under these new standards, individuals seeking driver’s licenses must provide their state Department of Public Safety office with documents proving who they are and that they’re here legally. States must verify that the documents presented are legitimate, secure their own license issuing offices from identity theft and work together to prevent individuals from receiving driver’s licenses from multiple states.

Additionally, the DHS is providing $360 million to the states to defray the implementation costs (this is composed of $80 million in REAL ID grants and $280 million in homeland security funding).

This is not to say that there isn’t a loud and vocal group of people and states (18 states) that oppose the implementation of the Real ID Act. Among the concerns is the fear that the Real IDs will lead to a National Identity Card. Additionally, opponents argue that privacy of citizens will be violated by the creation of this more secure ID card. From what I know and understand, the standards being proposed by this Act are an extension of the Drivers License Standards as previously established by the American Motor Vehicles Administrators Association (AAMVA) that as late as 2004 was revising the menu of security features from which states could choose in an effort to reduce counterfeiting of this form of ID (there are details included on this page). Thus, the Real ID Act retains the flexibility of each state to issue their own cards, but to conform with a standard so that each state’s license contains minimum common elements. Still, the issue has been raised as one of states rights.

Under the proposed rules all current driver’s license and state I.D. holders would have to track down verified copies of “breeder documents” that prove their citizenship and marital status. Many states are balking at the proposal, seeing it as a federal encroachment on state sovereignty, a privacy-invasive initiative and a financial strain on cash-strapped states.

So, to the opposition. Montana governor Brian Schweitzer has announced that his state will not comply with the requirement to apply for the extension as provided for in the “Final Rule” and is calling upon the governors of 17 other states to also not comply with the new regulations. The extension:

DHS understands that the States are concerned about the tight timeline required to comply with the REAL ID Act. The Secretary and other DHS officials have discussed this matter with various Governors. Since DHS wants all States to be able to comply with the Act, DHS has set-up a procedure in the NPRM for States to obtain extensions until December 31, 2009. DHS expects States that have been granted an extension to begin issuing compliant licenses no later than January 1, 2010, in most cases with a roll-out of licenses as they expire.

Schweitzer sent a letter to the governors of Colorado, Georgia, Idaho, Maine, New Hampshire, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Arizona, Hawaii, Illinois, Missouri, Nebraska, Nevada, North Dakota, Pennsylvania, Tennessee, and Washington. In that letter, he wrote:

“Today, I am asking you to join with me in resisting the DHS coercion to comply with the provisions of REAL ID, ” Schweitzer wrote. “If we stand together either DHS will blink or Congress will have to act to avoid havoc at our nation’s airports and federal courthouses.”

In response, Homeland Security spokeswoman Laura Keehner says DHS has no intention of blinking, and says that non-compliance “will mean real consequences for their citizens starting in may if their leadership chooses not to comply” and “That includes getting on an airplane or entering a federal building, so they will need to get passports.”

At the same time, the Western Hemisphere Travel Initiative is going to be only partially implemented, with a valid U.S. Passport to be required after January 31, 2008 to travel by air between the United States and Canada, Mexico, Bermuda, and the Caribbean region are required to present a passport or other valid travel document to enter or re-enter the United States.

I’m not going to get into all of the details and controversy surrounding the WHTI, but here are the key documents:

Final Rule - Air Phase (PDF)
Final Rule - Passport Card (PDF)
Notice of Proposed Rulemaking on Land/Sea Rule (PDF)

Some people see the coming of Big Brother, and all I see is another step toward ensuring our Nation’s security. Beyond this, even those who are concerned about security, specifically myself and my colleague, Mike Tanji had a series of emails over the last 24 hours discussing this very topic. Once he and I have agreed, I’ll add the email thread to this post.

By Jay Fraser at 9:36 PM | Permalink | Feedback (3) | Referenced By (0)

The subject of surveillance in a free society is controversial. As currently enabled, FISA allows our intelligence agencies to listen in on conversations between terrorists in the Middle East who may be plotting to hurt America. While we have ongoing debates about the FISA courts, arguing the balance between citizen privacy and gathering information to prevent or intercept terrorist attacks, there are sufficient enough examples in recent time in which such surveillance has led to an early detection and response to a planned terrorist attack. I don’t really see much alternative.

In fact, National Intelligence Director Mike McConnell believes that the government needs even more expansive powers to examine web searches, internet activity, and e-mail.

FISA – the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act – is the biggest obstacle, argues McConnell, with its outdated rules creating absurd situations that needlessly hamstring intelligence efforts. Worse, U.S. lawmakers are continually dragging their feet, and he thinks that the policy of tweaking 30-year-old laws is insufficient. “If we don’t update FISA, the nation is significantly at risk,” said McConnell. He noted that the NSA’s monitoring capabilities dropped by 70 percent when federal judges entered a secret ruling that required warrants for intercepting traffic that “incidentally flowed” into domestic computer systems.

Well, early last week, the U.K.-based Privacy International and the U.S.-based Electronic Privacy Information Center gave the U.S., the United Kingdom, China and Russia the lowest possible rating, “endemic surveillance societies.” Of course, this is the first time that the United States has dropped to the “bottom rung,” with the two groups attributed the U.S. position to increased surveillance and reduced government oversight, all from the concern over terrorism, immigration, and border control. It is the second year in a row at this low level for the U.K. that has the World’s largest network of surveillance cameras. The U.K.’s extensive use of surveillance cameras was covered in an earlier post, Emerging Trend: Use of Public Surveillance in the U.S.

Plans for National ID cards or other types of identification documents containing biometric information leads to a low rating by these organizations. That would certainly include the eventual coming of the ID cards in compliance with the Real ID Act and other DHS rulings. Another contributor to a low rating include security breaches when data or information is lost. Generally, this report showed a general increase of surveillance around the globe and noted a decline in “privacy safeguards” last year.

New Scientist’s Phil McKenna writes in his article, US and UK rival China for government surveillance that part of the problem may be technology advancing faster than government safeguards.

Part of the problem may be technology advancing faster than government safeguards. “There is a rapid expansion of technologies for surveillance, identification, and border control and a much slower adoption of policies to safeguard privacy and security,” says Marc Rotenberg, of the Electronic Privacy Information Center. Despite their low ratings, the US and UK do not compromise privacy as much as China or Russia, says John Palfrey, of the OpenNet Initiative, an international academic research group that monitors government internet filtering and surveillance. Yet, he is troubled by the way governments can anonymously monitor internet traffic.

“Even democratic societies don’t make clear to their citizens how comprehensively governments reach into the private lives of individuals,” says Palfrey. “We have no way of knowing what our government can come to know about us as private citizens.”

The question of surveillance cameras was also raised in a recent Chief Security Officer Online (CSOonline), Should Surveillance Cameras Detect Criminals - or Deter Crime? The article discusses the use of a covert surveillance camera to detect “graffiti-related motion” by snapping pictures and emailing them to the police, and collects TV-quality video on a tamper-resistant, encrypted memory card. The problem in this case is that the particular product discussed stops criminals (graffiti artists) but does nothing to deter crime itself (vandalism).

The contradiction here lies in the fact that detection, by definition, must allow the crime to start taking place. Otherwise there’s nothing to detect. Hidden cameras still allow paint to get on the wall, which happens to be by far the most expensive aspect of the graffiti problem—the cleanup. This particular article comments that deterrence (consistently removing graffiti within 24-48 hours) is more effective than the detection itself. Thus, CSO argues that addressing the crime is a more effective use of time than the detection.

Clearly, the comparison between terrorism and graffiti is a bit ludicrous. But the question of surveillance, and weighing of the balance between its benefits and costs, will be a continuing issue. In the case of terrorism, we have no choice but to continue walking that thin line between pre-empting acts of terrorism by detecting plans ahead of time, and abridging the rights of normal citizens. Somehow, I still don’t see how any of my rights have been limited.

By Jay Fraser at 9:36 PM | Permalink | Feedback (0) | Referenced By (0)

Events in the conflict stricken Niger Delta region of Nigeria took a decidedly unusual turn on January 19 as the Movement for the Emancipation of the Niger Delta (MEND) issued a statement urging movie actor and People magazine’s two time “Sexiest Man Alive” George Clooney to help mediate the standoff between the Nigerian government and the insurgent group. MEND has used kidnappings, bombings, and other violent tactics against elements of the oil industry operating in the Niger Delta in a campaign for a greater share of the oil revenue for the delta’s impoverished people. MEND’s call comes shortly after Clooney was named a United Nations Messenger of Peace for his advocacy work on Darfur. Excerpts from MEND’s statements follows, as reported by AFP:

“The Movement for the Emancipation of the Niger Delta (MEND) wishes to draw your attention to the unrest in this oil-rich region of Nigeria which is gradually building up to a crisis that will make Darfur an adjective for child’s play,” MEND said in an open letter sent to the press.

[…]

“We suggest that the UN should take a proactive step to nip the Niger Delta unrest in the bud before it is too late,” the letter continued.

“Both sides of the conflict are building up arms for an imminent battle which can only be prevented with the intervention of well meaning and credible peace makers like you,” the group said.

MEND invited Clooney to come and “see things for himself” in the delta.

In related news, some of the delta’s other insurgent groups will participate in peace talks with the Nigerian government in the coming week. MEND refuses to participate in these talks while its leader, Henry Okah, remains jailed in Angola. In a statement issued to Reuters, a MEND spokesman had this to say in reference to recent attacks perpetrated by the group:

“What you are seeing is the calm before a storm. We are working on a major terrifying event that will be a date not easily forgotten like 9/11,” the spokesman said. “Those smaller raids serve as irritants and reminders that all is not well and over.”

No word yet on whether Mr. Clooney will take MEND up on its offer.

By Clay Varney at 8:10 PM | Permalink | Feedback (0) | Referenced By (0)

Increasingly, there is concern that the spike in violence on the “other side” of the border continues, despite the promised crackdown by Mexican President Calderon. In fact, some attribute the upsurge in violence to a reaction by the drug cartels to the government efforts.

Edgar Millan is a federal law enforcement official in Mexico. At a press conference he said Mexican President Felipe Calderon’s crackdown on crime could cause more violence as drug cartels retaliate. But, he says the country will not back down in its war on drug cartels.

Yesterday, a gun battle broke out in an upper class neighborhood of Tijuana as Mexican federal agents raided a house that sheltered armed drug traffickers suspected of being members of the Arellano Felix drug cartel. Following a three hour gun battle that included military and law enforcement, authorities found six slain kidnap victims. All of the victims were male and found shot execution style in the head. Whether the victims had been kidnapped for ransom or were members of a rival gang remains under investigation.

In an almost surreal pronouncement, Osuna Millan, Governor of Baja California told reporters, “we’re winning the battle.”

Shortly after the arrests yesterday afternoon, Tijuana’s City Hall, police station and other city buildings were evacuated. Someone broadcast bomb scares on the police radio frequency. Local media report someone also said they’d hunt city officials and their families. Then the person played narcocorridos, songs that celebrate drug traffickers.

This isn’t the only violent activity going on in Mexico.

● last week, gunmen killed two federal agents and a civilian in the central state of Michoacan.

● also, two other federal agents were killed and three were injured during a shootout in Reynosa, across the border from McAllen, Texas.

● before the Reynosa shootout, three suspected criminals were killed and 10 federal agents and soldiers wounded in a shootout in the town of Rio Bravo, across the border from Donna, Texas.

● Ten people, including three U.S. residents, suspected of having ties to the powerful Gulf cartel were arrested the next day.

● In the central Mexican state of Hidalgo on Wednesday, assailants killed the director of public safety for the town of Tulancingo was shot more than 20 times;

Why is this important to Americans? The flow of illegal immigrants and narcotics across the porous Mexican border to the United States remains a continuing issue of debate. I watch things very closely these days. Laredo is just a day-trip away, where the drug violence has already more than once crossed over the border from Nuevo Laredo. In 2007, drug violence claimed more than 2500 lives. Already this year, one estimate the count at 148 people who have died in the continuing war. Take a close look at the map of border areas. There are a number of “sister” or “twinning” cities that include San Diego-Tijuana Metro; Tecate, California – Tecate; Baja California, Calexico; California – Mexicali, Baja California; El Paso, Texas – Ciudad Juárez, Chihuahua; Laredo, Texas – Nuevo Laredo, Tamaulipas; McAllen, Texas – Reynosa, Tamaulipas;Brownsville, Texas – Matamoros, Tamaulipas (the list is alot longer). Human smugglers use the same routes as the narcotics cartels. This represents a continuing threat.

UPDATE: As a reminder of the effect the porous Mexican border has on us, a Border Patrol officer was killed when he was runover by a “rogue vehicle” as he attempted to stop it after it ran a checkpoint in Yuma California.

By Jay Fraser at 8:58 PM | Permalink | Feedback (3) | Referenced By (0)

The importance of securing national resources that access cyberspace just got a shot in the arm:

On Wednesday, in New Orleans, US Central Intelligence Agency senior analyst Tom Donohue told a gathering of 300 US [and foreign] government officials, engineers and security managers from [critical infrastructure sectors] asset owners that

“We have information, from multiple regions outside the United States, of cyber intrusions into utilities, followed by extortion demands. We suspect, but cannot confirm, that some of these attackers had the benefit of inside knowledge. We have information that cyber attacks have been used to disrupt power equipment in several regions outside the United States. In at least one case, the disruption caused a power outage affecting multiple cities. We do not know who executed these attacks or why, but all involved intrusions through the Internet.”

Such an event would be problematic at any time, but timed to occur during high-stress periods like during heat waves or inclement weather, the impact could be devastating. Most “cyber terrorism” noted to date is little more than miscreant mischief, but a concerted effort to conduct a serious attack in this sector could actually cost lives. The volume may be minor, but the idea that services we take for granted are not under our control is one way to shake people’s confidence in the government’s ability to protect them.

By Michael Tanji at 5:45 PM | Permalink | Feedback (1) | Referenced By (0)

From Strategy Page comes a familiar but still disturbing tale of what awaits us if we do not rapidly and comprehensively improve our counterintelligence capabilities:

Corporate security officials have been delivering some bad news to the U.S. Department of Defense, and American intelligence agencies. It seems that the Internet criminals are putting more effort, and skill, into seeking out corporate secrets. Why should that trouble the Pentagon? Mainly because many of the corporate secrets sought are all about military technology, and the U.S. government uses the same kind of networks and software, and security tools, that corporations use. Worse, corporate security tends to be better than what’s found in government organizations. So if the [intruders] are getting into corporate systems, they can burrow into the Pentagon, and other government agencies, as well.

Commercial firms doing business with the government in the defense and national security sectors are obliged to follow a number of personnel, information and industrial-security policies, but work done far from government watchdogs or in a more scientific/academic environment can get lax as a matter of course.

From a security perspective, these firms are essentially extensions of government agencies and they merit equal protection. This is unlikely in the current environment as we are hardly able to defend government secrets with the nominal resources available to us. Allow adversaries to gain access to sensitive data before we are even able to test or field it provides them with an incredible strategic advantage that renders our investment in time, money and intellectual capital moot.

By Michael Tanji at 12:30 PM | Permalink | Feedback (1) | Referenced By (0)