Slashdot Mirror
A New Kind of War
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.
unless things have changed since what was reported on NPR at 5:30 this morning, they have not actually declared jihad yet, they have just warned the people of Afganistan that a Jihad will be called if the USA attacks.
Slightly different, but makes a huge difference as to how aggressively to respond.
Afghanistan has NOT declared a holy war, but will do so IF they are attacked. Just as any other nation would do. A secular nation would just call it with a different name.
Actually, some of the latest news have indicated that the US military and intelligence community are beginning to doubt that Osama bin Laden is behind the strike. There are certain reasons to suspect that, in fact, Saddam Hussein is the real culprit and has framed Osama.
I submitted an "Ask Slashdot" the other day on this very topic, suggesting that in this war, the battle need not even be fought by the military. If the script kiddies can be coerced to use their "skillz" against a common enemy, the possibilities are boundless.
.af domain space
What could this "different kind of war" be:
Shut down the power grid in Kabul immediately before the first bombing.
Kabul is not the problem, the Russians conquered Kabul. The problem is the hundreds of Taliban living in caves in remote valleys.
Interception of secure terrorist communications
By this you mean the couriers going to Pakistani cybercafes?
Turn their own military technology against them
You mean point their AKs and RPGs at them?
How can the random hacker help:
Exploit hotmail security holes to monitor for terrorist activity
Execute DoS attacks against Afghani web sites
Target virii at the
My favorite - transfer $4 million from Usama bin Laden's bank account to the American Red Cross
You don't understand, Afghanistan has little IT infrastructure, is dirt poor, and is already bombed back to the stone age. Most of their internet activity is done through our new ally Pakistan.
I don't really think that would be a bright idea. Afghanistan is not something you just invade. Historically, it has always favored the home team in the 27 attempts that have taken place since Alexander the Great. It's just not a smart move to squander your military forces on such a task.
If you level the country then what have you done? You've punished alot of innocent, impoverished citizens for the actions of the government, and a few madmen.
I agree that we need to take action, but we must ensure that it is a focused and honed on the very things that pose the real threat to America.
While in Israel, my first experience with liberty in that country was in passing through customs. It was actually quite easy to get into the country, compared to leaving. I was asked the purpose of my visit (a standard question) and asked to give a list of places I would be visiting. Since I didn't really know where I would be going yet, I said so. I was greeted with suspicious looks and incredulity, but allowed to pass through. I fit the profile of "single male, travelling alone."
Upon entering the country I immediately took a bus to Ashdod where my girlfriend lived. There were several soldiers on the bus. This seemed odd, but my girlfriend assured me they were there merely as travelers, not guardians. I still felt safer knowing there were several people with assault rifles on the bus.
Over the course of my visit, I was in many busy public places, including restaurants, night clubs, transit centers, malls, etc. In the malls and transit centers I was asked to show the contents of my bag upon entering. I didn't feel violated by this. I felt safer knowing these checks were being made. The people were friendly and expeditious.
Everywhere I went in Israel I saw soldiers. All had rifles; some had rifles with grenade launchers. You actually get used to this after a while. I was only there a month, but by the end of my visit I hardly noticed anymore.
But the most important thing I noticed in Israel was the degree of freedom I had. I didn't have to pass through checkpoints (except when I went to Bethlehem, which is a Palestinian area, and even then we weren't even stopped, just looked at as we drove through) and was never asked what I was doing or where I was going.
Look people. America has been changed, and not by choice. Security must be enhanced, or we will continue to be blown to small pieces on a whim. I ask people to look at Israel as an example of how to conduct security without impinging unduly on people's liberties. There are necessary steps which must be taken. There is simply no option. But it needn't be an end to liberty. If Israel (a country that clearly has its own governmental problems) can do it, so surely can the United States.
I am hopeful.
Yes.
Jihad means Struggle (more or less). And there are several possible Jihads.
Jihad of the mind. When You have a confussed mind
Jihad of the soul. When you are facing a religious struggle, with all the questions about religion, meaning of life...
Jihad of the Sword. When you have to "get your sword" and defend yourself (you, your family...). It does not mean Holy War.
I don't remember know what is the forth "jihad". But sure it was not a "let's kill all non-muslims!" thing.
Also, I would like to note that in the Muslim religion, there are different non-believers: The people from the Book and the rest. The People from the Book are all the Christians, Catholics, Jewish... that share fundamental pieces of Holy Writtings (Bible, Torah, ...). And the Al-Coran explicitely says that they are "brothers" and should not be harmed.
And this is all what I remember form my talks with Medieval Historians, so long ago...
Regards, with sadness