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."

Comments

Re:No, it was like

[techno-vampire]

The vast majority of Iraqis would like us to just leave - even if it means that we don't spend another dime on reconstruction and there is no western investment in the country.

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.

Sign 'o' the times

[Tim Doran]

"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.

Re:No, it was like

[prisoner-of-enigma]

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.