Slashdot Mirror
Richard Clarke on Cyberterrorism and Iraq
An anonymous reader writes "Richard Clarke, former counter terrorism advisor to the US National Security Council, has revealed that before invading Iraq, the U.S. government used the Internet to communicate directly with Iraqi soldiers by sending them personalised messages saying, "We're about to invade. We're going to overwhelm you and if you resist us we're going to kill you. But we don't want to do that. So really the best thing for you to do when we invade is to go home." He said the soldiers got the message and most of them went home. Clarke, who many will remember for publicly criticizing the Bush administration, also emphasized the importance of cybersecurity. "Just because it doesn't create a lot of body bags, doesn't mean it's not important. It's vitally important for our economies," Clarke said."
So um who is terrorizing whom when america spams the other country with threats?
Well, I believe that in the end those messages did a good thing. Of course, their mechanism was to scare the soldiers and say they would be spared if they just didn't fight. But isn't it a good thing at least those soldiers knew they had another option instead of fighting?
Still, I can't ignore the fact that the message in the end was something like "Surrender yourself to your new overlords". But that doesn't change the fact that people were spared.
Whats up with the US dropping leaflets, food and etc before we bomb people.
We our really polite at times before killing people.
I wonder why Richard Clarke keeps coming out with these stories, and what he has to gain by them.
Pyschological warfare via the internet has officially begun !
Help pay for my wedding! Go to my kickass website
If we could only focus Spammers' efforts towards flooding the "enemy's" mail boxes full of crap, maybe we can bog down their infrastructure bringing their society to a screaming halt!
And it would be cheap to do... we just buy more of those spamming servers from China and... hmmm... WAIT A MINUTE!!!
Diplomacy is the art of saying, "Nice doggie!" until you can find a rock.
They went home, then they came back when it was easier for them to kill us. If they had just had Saddam to command them, they'd have surrendered en masse again, just like in 1991, and been captured. Instead, we directed them into the ranks of "insurgents". At least half of them showed up again for the free training, guns and uniforms, before regrouping as "insurgents" to bomb us. As usual, we're our own worst enemy.
--
make install -not war
Here's a blog http://cbftw.blogspot.com/ by a solder serving over there. He talks about what it's like to be there, and what he hears from Iraqis he talks to. The ones he mentions don't seem to be that unhappy with us. It might just be that he's reporting what he sees, not just what fits his preconceptions.
Good, inexpensive web hosting
"Clarke, who many will remember for publicly critisizing the Bush administration..."
It truly is memorable that this official publicly criticized the Bush administration. That's scary. A healthy democracy requires broad criticism and debate about those in power.
You know what else was memorable? The administration's ferocious character assasination that began as soon as Clarke spoke out.
Four more years.
Third day, we sent them a leaflet basically saying "Playtime is over. We aren't telling you when we'll drop the next bomb. Go home." According to the show that last leaflet was extremely persuasive.
I don't want knowledge. I want certainty. - Law, David Bowie
i as well.
an intelligent argument stated reasonably and at opposition to my prior understanding is indeed a treat.
(my mind's not totally changed, but i feel a little freer from fud nonetheless)
i had an argument with someone about that, but both of us agreed this is a UN-enforced debt from the last war, and nothing to really blame the US for: they have somewhat marginal say over it.
our argument was whether john kerry's campaign promise to forgive iraq's debt was hot air or not. kinda moot now.
Look, a lot of Americans aren't as pissed b/c we're liberating Iraq - we got rid of a brutal dictator, great, good, that's jolly. We all agree Saddam is bad, no one disagrees. Btw though, if we're just using the oppressiveness of the dictator as a measuring stick on who to invade, why not Iran, Saudi Arabia, North Korea, and half of central/northern Africa?
There are two main issues that many Americans and the rest of the world do take with the war though:
#1 - The dishonesty with the rest of the world pre-Invasion.
- We were told WMD's were the main reason - no WMD's have been found in Iraq. The main American Arms inspector confirmed that none are likely to be found. And don't tell me that crap about the rest of the world believing Iraq had WMD's; if you read the reports by the German and othet European intelligence agencies, you'll see that the wording was more on the order of, "Saddam *MIGHT* be trying to make WMD's, but we're not sure." Most importantly, NONE of those reports, the CIA's included, in ANY WAY implied that those WMD's were in ANY position to harm America. So the bottom line is, Saddam might've been trying to make bombs (but we're not sure), but no way in hell can he hurt America with them.
#2 Lack of international consenus before going in/impact on post-war rebuilding.
- The Bush administration made a half-assed attempt to get the world on board by sending Colin Powell to make the case. Know how you can tell it's half-assed? They sent Colin Powell only, who the entire UN knew differed with Rumsfeld/Rice/Bush on his views, and was thus not a credible negotiating agent. Russia and various other countries pleaded for more time for the UN Arms Inspectors - Saddam was ready to allow them access, but these requests fell on deaf ears.
Now, we have no one but the Bush Administration for the shitty post-invasion botchup. It's basically the US going it alone with a bit of help from the UK; had Bush waited and built a real coalition like his dad did, we might have Germany, France, China, and Russia all providing troops, and more importantly LEGITIMACY. This legitimacy might also alleviate some of the anti-Western feelings that the US is doing a great job of stoking right now with heavy-handed tactis and prison scandals. This isn't just about politics, this could've meant significantly lower American casualties.
Just curious, you criticize CNN/NBC/CBS/ABC (and another person threw in the BBC for good measure) for reporting on the Iraq war, but you offer no cites or substantive reasons or backing as to why those media outlets are not reporting the truth.
Additionally, you left out Fox News and MSNBC. Are we to asusme that they are reporting only the "truth" and what is really happening over there, without bias?
Strange too how you leave out Sinclair broadcasting as well. They own many stations in many major markets, yet, they supposedly require or encourage the news reported on their outlets to be slanted in favor of all things Bush. Is this not an example of mis-leading reporting too?
And on another topic, as a Marine, do you think the US Military should be the World's Police force?
Second, your parent was over-the-top when they said it was "stealing." It's not stealing. But it is securing access to resources, at least in small part. And it's not the 'war on terror,' Rove, Wolfowitz, and Rumsfeld had plans to invade Iraq well before 9/11, and even before the 2000 election. Google for "New American Century," if they haven't removed the documents already.
Finally, I admire what you are doing. It's hard work and, for the most part, you and your fellow soldiers do a very hard job very well. However, I do not think you can spread democracy with the barrel of a gun; you can't enforce freedom. And violence certainly isn't the answer for places like Afghanistan, Syria, Iran and North Korea. Violence just makes Americans the bad guys, even if it's not warranted.
Osama bin Laden isn't a political leader; he isn't some James Bond supervillain. He's a petty thug. We don't send Marines to hunt drug lords, we send cops to bring them to justice. We don't give them the chance that their religion is right and they do get those virgins.
You have two hands and one brain, so always code twice as much as you think!
> not long ago.
>
Wow, really? You truly are a polymath then. I've been keeping a private list of interesting things claimed by specific Slashdot posters; "I am a doctor", "I am a rocket scientist" and so forth. When I went to add your ID and username to the list, I found that someone else must have stolen your identity, because I'd already logged someone using your account name and UID as stating "I'm the I.T. Director for a large organization..." (Sorry, I don't track hrefs for each comment, because I didn't think I'd need to refer back to them, but that's a direct quote from a comment.) I guess it'd be in one of these previous comments but I'm on expensive dialup & haven't the time to go trawling for the exact comment.
So, you're the IT Director for the US Marine Corps? Wow, that must be a hell of a job; and you have to see active service as well! Well, good luck avoiding suicide bombers, 'insurgents' and other freedo^h^h^h terrorist types.
"None are more hopelessly enslaved than those who falsely believe they are free." -- Goethe
>Who do you think owns Iraqi oil? Try the government and people of Iraq.
The same way we "own" the airwaves. The elitist policy makers decide who gets what and if you don't understand how there will be selective pro-American contracts then you really have not been paying attention. Hell, the administration even admits it wont give any contracts to most of Europe because they wouldnt send their young men off to die. Luckily, in the US we have Fox News telling us Saddam has nukes with no fact checking and an apathetic populace ready to send off our military into a quagmire.
Idiots, indeed!
So, you're the IT Director for the US Marine Corps?
I'm a reservist who went active and now I'm back. It's that simple. No right-wing conspiracy required. Perhaps if you weren't in such a hurry to sling accusations you'd have thought of it yourself.
In the end they will lay their freedom at our feet and say to us, Make us your slaves, but feed us. - Fyodor Dostoyevsky
First, thanks for putting your life on the line for this country. It's a noble effort, and I admire that.
Thank you. It was no chore for me (and many of my fellow devil dogs). We want to serve. It's as simple as that.
And it's not the 'war on terror,' Rove, Wolfowitz, and Rumsfeld had plans to invade Iraq well before 9/11, and even before the 2000 election. Google for "New American Century," if they haven't removed the documents already.
If I may be so bold, "regime change" for Saddam has been standard American policy since Bush #1 failed to properly finish what he started. Clinton's team had war plans on hand during his entire tenure. The fact that Bush #2 had such plans is not an indication of some sort of pre-9/11 plot, it's standard U.S. policy. We have plans on hand at all times to invade just about any country we're not on completely friendly terms with. This isn't hyper-aggressiveness, this is called "being ready." Saddam's non-compliance with the 1991 cease fire agreement (not a peace treaty, mind you) gave us ample authority to resume the war with or without U.N. approval. Granted it would've been nicer to do it with the full Security Council, but after fourteen years of making pointless resolutions, I don't think the U.N. was interested in enforcing its own declarations. We were.
However, I do not think you can spread democracy with the barrel of a gun; you can't enforce freedom. And violence certainly isn't the answer for places like Afghanistan, Syria, Iran and North Korea. Violence just makes Americans the bad guys, even if it's not warranted.
I agree with you -- partially. Democracy doesn't easily evolve from the barrel of a gun. However, you cannot reasonably expect a multi-decade dictatorship to fall and be replaced with smiling, happy, peaceful, productive citizens overnight. Changes in governments always create at least some chaos. The more drastic the change, the more chaos. Going from a dictatorship to anything else is a drastic change. I think we're all being too quick to judge Iraq here. Look more to what happened with Germany and Japan following WWII. The Marshall plan took more than a decade to evolve, and many of the same problems we're now having in Iraq were present in both postwar Germany and Japan. We're being too impatient here.
Osama bin Laden isn't a political leader; he isn't some James Bond supervillain. He's a petty thug. We don't send Marines to hunt drug lords, we send cops to bring them to justice. We don't give them the chance that their religion is right and they do get those virgins.
Actually, we have sent U.S. armed forces to go after drug lords (or, more correctly, their production areas), but that's beside the point. The problem here is Osama's operation in countries outside the U.S. with the tacit approval of those governments. We faced similar problems in the Korean war, with insurgents dashing back and forth across an imaginary line on the map, knowing we wouldn't pursue. As long as combatants like Osama have a safe haven, we're hamstrung. By showing the U.S. has the will (we already had the firepower) to go after these thugs no matter where they operate, we both disrupt Osama's operations while simultaneously we put pressure on governments not to cooperate him -- or face "serious consequences" like Iraq. The Syrians don't want that. The Iranians don't want that. If they think we're serious (and we are), they're going to stop playing ball with the terrorists. If not, they're not going to be in power for much longer, and believe me, the like being in power.
In the end they will lay their freedom at our feet and say to us, Make us your slaves, but feed us. - Fyodor Dostoyevsky
Clarke was one of the major figures interviewed in PBS Fronline documentary about cyber security. You can watch the full, streamed broadcast at http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/cybe rwar/view/
Hi, I'm not the AC you were having conversation with, but I'd like to know what makes you think that USA is right?
Let me put your question another way: what makes you think you're right? Everyone has their own ideas of how a "perfect" world would work. Just about everyond has fantasized about how "things would be different if I were running the show," whether it be running countries or running a business.
It's not so much that I think the U.S. is right, it's that the U.S. and I are in agreement about where we'd like the world to be. Not an American dictatorship, but a place where freedom and prosperity are available to all who wish to strive for it.
Note the qualifiers "available to all" and "strive." I don't believe prosperity can be "given" to anyone. Those who don't work for their rewards generally are unable to value them properly. That's why I'm in general disagreement with many socialist or communist ideologies, many of which are championed by left-leaning EU members and the UN.
In the end they will lay their freedom at our feet and say to us, Make us your slaves, but feed us. - Fyodor Dostoyevsky