A New Kind of War

As noxious as Washington talk shows generally are, this weekend's were significant. Watching all of the Talking Head shows out of D.C., I struggled to decipher the particular meaning, language and codes of that city's inhabitants. George W. Bush, Donald Rumsfeld, Colin Powell, Dick Cheney and others were on the tube all weekend, and they seemed to be sending the same signals and saying something important. They were talking about a "new kind of war," one that re-emphasized human analysis and intelligence gathering, but also offered a central role for many involved in security technology, from electronic ID to surveillance. They were not talking about Desert Storm, but something radically different. As usual, the media offered much rhetoric, few details. And there are substantial concerns about privacy and civil liberties. People are wondering how this new kind of war might work, what it might look like. Some of you might have some ideas.

Americans think of D-Day or the invasion of Iraq when they think of war -- massed fleets, armies and planes, tanks and fortifications. But the National Security types and military brass were clearly talking about something else completely.

This sort of offensive, confusing and strange-sounding to non-tech laypeople and those outside the military, will clearly rely heavily on security technology -- surveillance, wire-taps, electronic ID's from cards to voice and fingerprint scanning, biological warfare and defense, e-mail encryption and interception, satellite photographs, the digital tracing of money, the use of pin-point troops and weaponry to go after small numbers of terrorists located in inaccessible cells in distant countries. Such a conflict raises all sorts of policy questions, from our grasp of different cultures to the nature of religious fundamentalism to changes in traditional ideas about civil liberties, to use of the Net as a communications medium for terrorism, to technologies that might make airplanes and buildings safer. People have suggested more sophisticated X-ray devices to spot weapons and bombs, stronger pilot cabins, buildings less massive and vulnerable than the World Trade Center towers.

Most officials were quick to say the war would like unlike any other, and that drafting vast numbers of people wouldn't be necessary. This war would be fluid, varied, combining weaponry with diplomacy and economic pressure.

The intelligence experts who came out of the cold last week were nearly unanimous in agreeing that old-fashioned spies -- sometimes unsavory humans -- were crucial to get close to terrorist "cells" but also that new forms of communications -- e-mail, cell, the transmission of encrypted files -- required new laws and better technologies to monitor them, since they were terrorist tools. Also needed, they said, are computer programs to better track the movement of money.

Is such a war possible? Technologically feasible? Can encrypted terrorist communications really be followed online? Is it possible to trace money so precisely by digital means? To what degree can civil liberties or privacy be protected in this context? Is there technology that can spot a knife in a briefcase or hidden in a human body? How close can satellite surveillance take us to small terrorist hideouts in urban or rural areas? Is the idea of the mobile, tech-equipped soldier feasible? What weapons would he or she carry?

Over the last few years, I've gotten e-mail from academics, defense researchers, satellite trackers, government cryptographers about various issues relating to technology. It would be interesting to hear from some of you who know more about this than most people. In fact, some of you might be directly involving in working on these things.

America's defense and policy planners are calling for a new kind of war and a new kind of warfare. Few people have any idea what it might look like or how it might work.

Comments

Alternative Courses of Action

[Alien54]

Events like this bring out my evil side

First, As noted here, The Russians already bombed Afghanistan back to the stone age. and the Taliban are not the Afghans. The Taliban are a bunch of psychopathic nuts, hated by the majority population.

Some more interesting proposals(only half tongue in cheek) are to builds special monuments to the WTC dead, consisting of cities razed perfectly flat and with enormous amounts of salt to make sure no one lives there again. Some people have objected to this. It is worth discussion.

Another idea is based on historic precident, seen in a letter on this page (towards the bottom). - It is based on the idea that we must use cultural factors as well force to fight the war:

Tactic #1 Has a Historical basis. During the pacification of the Philippine Islands 1900-1914 the majority of the bloodiest attacks were carried out by Moros... An Islamic confederation of tribes who did not want their lifestyle of Dacoitery, Piracy and Slavery changed. They had MOKERS... People who would work themselves into a religious fever with dreams of ISLAMIC Paradise, and Literally Run AMOK, killing everyone within reach. So inspired were they that you not only had to kill him, you had to push him over. It was MOKERS that forced the U.S. Army to adopt the .45 Colts Automatic Pistol M-1911. What stopped them was the tactic of Wrapping one of these MOKERS (After you capture him and yes it was possible) in the skin of a freshly killed pig and hanging him in Public view. The touch of the Pig Pollutes a believer so badly that he/She must spend 5 days in a Mosque cleansing and praying... To die in such a state gives a direct path to the deepest part of Islamic Hell.

If we catch a TERRORIST, Wrap him in Pig Skin and hang him from the nearest Lamp Post, Preferably on CNN with Arabic Subtitles.

This sends a message any self respecting emperor would wish. I.e. MESS WITH AMERICA and we will Send you Directly to YOUR HELL!

Tactic #2

For countries that know things and don't cooperate? Modify Tanker planes to carry Sterilized Pig Urine, and let them know that We will make every dwelling Uninhabitable (to the religious). There are several modifications of this... Dipping bullets in Lard for example, Writing Anti-Terrorist messages on bombs in Bacon Grease, the opportunities are endless.

Some people say that this will offend the rest of ISLAM. I suspect not. From all reports a good portion of Islam is against the terrorists and wishes them in Hell as much as we do.

[...]

As you Said, This goes beyond Justice, I say it is a matter of Honor and Blood. If we are to win this, we must strike at them with tactics that strike fear into them at a CULTURAL level. Brute force won't do it.

With Respect,

Harry Reddington BBiBS

Incidentally this really is from Harry Reddington...

Re:Why is a civilian spouting off about war?

[mjh]

Why is a civilian spouting off about war? Are you serious? Because ours is a government of the people by the people and for the people. NOT a goverment of the military, by the military and for the military.

Now, my reading of Katz's article is that he's just asking questions. But even if he was expressing concern or worry, or even if he was saying, let's go get them, why do you seem to think he shouldn't do that? It's just as much his government as it is yours.

Who would even begin to question whether or not the military knows more about making war than civilians? Certainly not I. But I *do* question whether or not the military should or shouldn't be used. And while the military may have good input on that question (like whether or not they think they'll be effective, what kind of effort a particular objective will take, etc) they can *NOT* all by themselves, say whether or not military action *SHOULD* happen. That is a job given to the President, who is accountable to ALL US CITIZENS (even *gasp* civilians).

Do you really think that, even now that we're in a heightened state, on the brink of war, that civilians don't count? I hope you are a minority representative of our military. Because you don't even know what you're fighting for.