Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Making a Case For Cyberwar Against Syria

Posted by timothy on from the too-bad-so-few-picked-the-anti-war-candidate dept.

Hugh Pickens DOT Com writes "Jason Healey writes at Defense One that if the Obama administration conducts military strikes against Syria, as now seems likely, it should use military cyber weapons at the earliest possible moment to show 'that cyber operations are not evil witchcraft but can be humanitarian.' Cyber capabilities could first disrupt Syrian air defenses directly or confuse military command and control, allowing air strikes to proceed unchallenged. A cyber strike might also disable dual-use Syrian critical infrastructure (such as electrical power) that aids the regime's military but with no long-term destruction as would be caused by traditional bombs. Last, it is possible the U.S. military has cyber capabilities to directly disrupt the operations of Syria's chemical troops. Healy writes that one cyberweapon that should not be used is covert cyber operations against Bashar Assad's finances. 'Both of his immediate predecessors declined such attacks and the world economy and financial sector are already in a perilous state.' Before the American-led strikes against Libya in 2011, the Obama administration debated whether to conduct a cyberoffensive to disrupt the Qaddafi government's air-defense system, but balked, fearing that it might set a precedent for other nations, in particular Russia or China, to carry out such offensives of their own. This time should be different in Healey's view. 'By sparing the lives of Syrian troops and nearby civilians, an opening cyber operation against Syria could demonstrate exactly how such capabilities can be compliant with international humanitarian law,' writes Healey. 'America should take this chance to demystify these weapons to show the world they, and the U.S. military in general, can be used on the battlefield in line with humanitarian principles.'"

31 of 203 comments (clear)

  1. No by lightknight · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Those who live in glass houses, should not throw stones...

    --
    I am John Hurt.
    1. Re:No by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Those who live in glass houses, should not throw stones...

      Especially not at people who live in much less glassy houses and still have plenty of stones... Seriously, unless the world of SCADA systems, consumer operating systems, and assorted web infrastructure, and such is far less of a clusterfuck than is routinely reported at security conferences, do we really want to encourage any more hackery than already goes on?

      (Attempting to use the 'humanitarian' bullshit is doubly foolish: 'humanitarian' is always an object of politicized cynisism, and wouldn't it arguably be 'humanitarian' to discourage US military activities by turning out the lights in DC for a few days every time somebody gets cruise-missiled?)

    2. Re:No by Sarten-X · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Forget about the houses... America has a glass neighborhood.

      Let's assume for just a moment that the government has magically secured its own systems against any particular attack. The next target of convenience for any retaliation is everybody else. Remember the headaches when Anonymous lashed out at Mastercard? Now add in a military's knowledge and resources, and it won't just be credit cards that won't work. Everybody from health care to restaurants becomes a target, and the usual rules of engagement don't really apply.

      The government will survive. It might take a few hits, but I suspect the American military's networks are disparate enough that no single attack will completely cripple their ability to function. The civilians, though, are far less protected and far less resilient. One bad week can mean the end for many small businesses, leading to widespread fear, and another economic crisis.

      A war over the Internet is the current nuclear option. We don't want it, and we can't survive it, but it is one heck of a powerful weapon.

      --
      You do not have a moral or legal right to do absolutely anything you want.
    3. Re:No by UnknownSoldier · · Score: 3, Interesting

      No kidding! This "justification" for "war" is sounding like a broken record.

      Wasting money to kill others (who disagree with you) is spiritually retarded.

      When are people going to demand that violence is NOT the solution -- it is precisely part of the problem in the first place!

      I'm reminded of MLK Jr's speech who said it a little more eloquently:

      A true revolution of values will lay hand on the world order and say of war, "This way of settling differences is not just." This business of burning human beings with napalm, of filling our nation's homes with orphans and widows, of injecting poisonous drugs of hate into the veins of peoples normally humane, of sending men home from dark and bloody battlefields physically handicapped and psychologically deranged, cannot be reconciled with wisdom, justice, and love. A nation that continues year after year to spend more money on military defense than on programs of social uplift is approaching spiritual death.

      * Full transcript & audio of the brilliant speech:
      http://www.americanrhetoric.com/speeches/mlkatimetobreaksilence.htm

    4. Re:No by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · · Score: 4, Insightful

      It doesn't much help that people are proposing violence as a solution to a war where there aren't even any factions we actually want winning...

    5. Re:No by Stan92057 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      What would you do to stop this tyrant who kills his own men ,women, children, by chemical weapons? Say please stop? Speechs are feel good things that dont do shit. What is your solution.Speechs are not solutions.

      --
      Jack of all trades,master of none
    6. Re:No by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Also, bear in mind that the majority of the rebels are made up of Al-Qaida operatives\stooges... people who have been our declared enemy since 9-11. That means aiding them is an act of treason....yet no one is paying any attention to that "little" facet of the equation.

    7. Re:No by FishOuttaWater · · Score: 4, Insightful

      You seem to be starting from the assumption that we have to be the ones to stop him. Do you think you can stop every bad person from doing every bad thing? If you just want to save lives, you'd have a lot more impact per dollar going after mosquitoes. If it's not about the lives, then what is it about?

    8. Re:No by cusco · · Score: 2



      Baloney. All the real advances since the beginning of civilization have been brought about by advances in science, education and exploration. Military action (which I what I have to assume you mean by 'violence') has been nothing but a destructive force throughout history, frequently arm in arm with its sibling in ignorance, religion.

      And why would Russia want to condemn the Syrian government for an action which it doesn't believe they committed? Would you have condemned the North Vietnamese government for the My Lai Massacre?

      --
      "Think about how stupid the average person is. Now, realise that half of them are dumber than that." - George Carlin
    9. Re:No by 0111+1110 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      We were kind of hoping that you, Stan, would solve this problem for us. Why is this our problem? We have nothing to do with Syria. Why not let a local country deal with the problem? There are nearly 200 sovereign countries in the world at least half of which could probably kick the Syrian government's ass. Why do we always have to be the world's sole policeman? Sorry, but that is just bullshit. You want to go to war with Syria for fucking humanitarian reasons (haha!) then you go do that. I don't want my own country getting involved at this point and the last time I checked the majority of Americans agreed with me.

      I'll tell you what, when the Syrians overthrow our government for us and release us from our own chains then we can return the favor. We don't owe the world or any particular country in it a damn thing. And the vast majority of them don't want our help anyway. Let's get a poll of the Syrians who want us to bomb them in order to save them. You really think the majority will be in favor of it?

      Even if we succeed with our plan for regime change and manage to install a puppet leader and puppet government how long before that government gets overthrown by the people? And it's not like our govenment is really all that much better anymore even from the POV of someone who wants more freedom, which most Syrians probably don't anyway.

      Maybe the best thing to do is something along the lines of what Sweden is doing. Let the few Syrians who are pro-liberty and would support a US puppet government just come here instead. And let the rest fend for themselves. They don't want to be rescued. They don't want our "help".

      --
      Quite an experience to live in fear, isn't it? That's what it is to be a slave.
    10. Re:No by cavreader · · Score: 2

      " science, education and exploration"

      War speeds up advances in both science and technology. For example had WW2 not happened the advances in electromagnetic field theory (radar),aviation technology, and nuclear technology would not have happened as quickly as it did. The technology advances to create ICBMs provided the technology needed to go to the moon. War or the threat of war has accelerated the advancements in satellite technology to provide things like GPS services. Even the early internet started out as a DARPA project focused on distributed network capabilities for military command and control applications. It's amazing how fast you can advance technology when someone is trying to kill you. And war is definitely a destructive force but that is the whole point. The winners get to determine what type of government will be used. The recent violence in Egypt was about determining what type of government the rule the state. You might get a government to change a little policy now and then by standing in the street and holding up signs but if you really want a whole sale change it will involve violence.

    11. Re:No by LordLimecat · · Score: 2

      I'll tell you what, when the Syrians overthrow our government for us and release us from our own chains then we can return the favor. We don't owe the world or any particular country in it a damn thing.

      You were doing well towards here.

      You clearly dont have any idea whats going on in Syria, or you wouldnt compare their situation to ours. When you fear to send your child to work because of government snipers who target children, then we can talk.

    12. Re:No by flyingsquid · · Score: 2

      A war over the Internet is the current nuclear option. We don't want it, and we can't survive it, but it is one heck of a powerful weapon.

      One problem with cyberwarfare is that the US is heavily dependent on the internet, whereas the dictatorships we're facing off against aren't. North Korea is a good example of this. The North Korean regime is supposed to have invested heavily in offensive cyberwarfare as a deterrent weapon. If hostilities were to break out with the U.S., North Korea could try to disrupt our civilian infrastructure and economy, but they'd be almost invulnerable to counterattack, since the country doesn't depend on the internet. They are about the worst opponent you could face- Russia and China would have more formidable offensive capabilities, but they would also have their own vulnerabilities so you could at least hit back.

      Syria is a different issue. Assad's regime did invest heavily in technology to monitor the internet but doesn't seem to have any serious offensive cyberwarfare capabilities. The "Syrian Electronic Army" is just a bunch of pro-Assad hackers hacking websites. So far they've managed to hack the Twitter feed of BBC Weather, the Onion, the Marines web page... the most serious thing they managed to do was hack the AP and post a story about the White House had been bombed, which caused the stock market to take a dive (before just as quickly rebounding). This is advanced mischief, not serious cyberwarfare of the type that can cause major economic damage. It's possible that the Syrian regime has some sort of weapon hidden up their sleeve, but I doubt it. As Dr. Strangelove says, the whole point of a deterrent weapon is lost if you keep it a secret. The bigger issue is how effective cyberwarfare will be against the Syrians.

      Israel was able to use cyberwarfare against them effectively when they bombed the Syrian nuclear plant- they hacked into the air defense system. The Syrian air defense radars actually detected the inbound Israeli F-15s, but the screens showed clear skies. The first clue the Syrians had they were under attack was when their nuclear bomb program blew sky high. But currently the fight is brutal and low-tech. It's being fought by soldiers with guns, with artillery, and with paramilitary groups. The communications of the regime might be more vulnerable to attack but overall any cyberattack would probably have a psychological and propaganda effect rather than really altering the military equation.

    13. Re:No by jimshatt · · Score: 2

      America didn't overthrow the German government. They just helped kicking them out of the countries they invaded. Entirely different. And they were actively dragged into WW2 (Pearl Harbor). So please quit childishly replacing words. It doesn't make you look smarter.

    14. Re:No by tinkerton · · Score: 2

      When the leader of a country who has claimed that Assad has to be toppled, sets up a bombing action that can take from 60 to 90 days (longer will need extra approvals) , do you think this has anything to do with punishing? It's not even likely that Assad did the bombing. It would require him to become overconfident and not minding to put his russian allies in a difficult position in order to win a minor advantage. Assad was winning. That was an unacceptable outcome for some, and that ment more dramatic measures had to be taken.

  2. Nope, this is an act of war! by s.petry · · Score: 4, Insightful

    How many times do we have to tell the Government that they must obey the law? Only Congress can declare war! If the CIA is found to be engaging in acts of war with foreign nations, they need to be held accountable. If politicians, such as Obama, defy the constitution they need to be held accountable. If corporations are found to be engaging in acts of war, they need to be held accountable. This is obviously a request for you, the people, to demand that the law be enforced.

    If you start with the agents and put them on trial for treason, evidence will grow for higher ups. There is no immunity in this simply because someone was following orders. We, the people, need to stop accepting law breakers sitting in public offices.

    We have let things slide for over 40 years, and if you keep ignoring the severity of the situation we won't have a USA or a world worth living in.

    --

    -The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.

    1. Re:Nope, this is an act of war! by s.petry · · Score: 2

      Actually there is a legal question since Obama claimed he did not need the approval of Congress to attack Syria. It is that statement that now has 14 members of congress demanding that he follow the law or face impeachment in addition to several members of the Senate expressing similar statements and voicing concerns.

      The War Powers Act of 1973 limits the President's ability declarations to responding to an attack against the USA (sovereign territory, attack on the military, and a few other cases). It can not be done offensively, and was specifically enacted due to abuse of Police action.

      --

      -The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.

  3. Syria's seen it before by ubrgeek · · Score: 4, Informative

    Also with their air defense systems.

    --
    Bark less. Wag more.
  4. So... by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Apparently we should use 'cyber' weapons; but not against the finances of the guy we accuse of killing ~100k people; because the poor, poor, banks might get weepy or something. What kind of bullshit is this? Sure, target the Syrian electrical grid (it's "dual use"!) but don't touch the financial markets, they have feelings too(and apparently financial markets aren't "dual use" much to the confusion of money launderers, mercenaries, and plundering kleptocrats worldwide?)

    1. Re:So... by flyingsquid · · Score: 2

      Apparently we should use 'cyber' weapons; but not against the finances of the guy we accuse of killing ~100k people; because the poor, poor, banks might get weepy or something. What kind of bullshit is this? Sure, target the Syrian electrical grid (it's "dual use"!) but don't touch the financial markets, they have feelings too(and apparently financial markets aren't "dual use" much to the confusion of money launderers, mercenaries, and plundering kleptocrats worldwide?)

      As tempting as it would be to attack the finances of the Assad regime, it would be a really, really bad idea. Let's say we hack into his bank accounts and where it says "$37 billion" we change a few decimal places and all of a sudden, it's 37 cents, or maybe we write a $37 billion dollar check to that charity that buys cows for people in Africa. Then the regime collapses because he can't pay for supplies or buy the loyalty of his cronies. This might be effective, but it creates a nasty precedent. During the next conflict, maybe someone decides to attack finances in the U.S. If bank accounts are vulnerable, everyone is going to start panicking and withdrawing their funds trying to put it somewhere safe, and people will be reluctant to loan money, and you'll have a financial panic on your hands like in 1939 or 2008. And of course, everyone's connected to everyone else. U.S. firms borrow money from Germany and China... if those firms suddenly go belly-up that's going to cause a global panic.

  5. Rebels released the chemical weapons. by MrL0G1C · · Score: 5, Informative

    There appears to be much evidence that it was in fact the rebels that used the chemical weapons which were supplied by the Saudis,

    1) Video evidence of Chemical weapons being launched.
    2) Photographic evidence of the weapons being Saudi.
    3) Testimony from Syrian rebels from the faction that had the weapons and admitted they didn't know what they were doing with them.

    http://www.wnd.com/2013/08/video-shows-rebels-launching-gas-attack-in-syria/

    http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2013-08-30/dont-show-obama-report-about-who-really-behind-syrian-chemical-attacks

    http://beforeitsnews.com/alternative/2013/08/rebels-admit-responsibility-for-chemical-weapons-attack-chemical-weapons-supplied-by-saudi-arabia-not-syria-forwarded-by-erasmus-of-america-august-31-2013-905-am-2751942.html

    And anyway, what is American Military going to do, team up with Al Qaeda and Hezbollah to attack Syria and kill hundreds of thousands more people in the middle east?

    --
    Waterfox - a Firefox fork with legacy extension support, security updates and better privacy by default.
    1. Re:Rebels released the chemical weapons. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

      Are you seriously taking WND seriously? Lol, they make up 10 times more "facts" than Fox News and CNN put together.

    2. Re:Rebels released the chemical weapons. by seyyah · · Score: 3, Informative

      And anyway, what is American Military going to do, team up with Al Qaeda and Hezbollah to attack Syria and kill hundreds of thousands more people in the middle east?

      Al-Qaeda and Hezbollah are not on the same side.

    3. Re:Rebels released the chemical weapons. by tftp · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Sarin is extremely deadly and not really a substance for haphazard manufacture or haphazard loading into munitions.

      You are saying that the entire filthy rich state of Saudi Arabia cannot do what some small, underground sect in Japan was able to do a couple decades ago?

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sarin_gas_attack_on_the_Tokyo_subway

    4. Re:Rebels released the chemical weapons. by cold+fjord · · Score: 2

      Before directly answering your question I will point out that the allegations of Saudi involvement for Sarin based on the presented "evidence" is nonsense. As to your question....

      Yes, pretty much - the Saudis couldn't "do" what Aum Shinrikyo did. They are two different types of events. The attack in Tokyo was a terrorist attack with hand-carried home-brew sarin (made by a group with over $1,000,000,000 in assets) used to attack people in a highly enclosed space (about the best possible environment for the success of their attack) and it only managed to kill 13 people*. That isn't very effective. The attack in Syria killed over 1,400 people in the open, and was delivered by artillery rockets, not by plastic bag. Killing people in those circumstances is much more difficult. The success of the Syrian attack points to much more sarin used in the attack, higher purity in the sarin used, which means much more sophisticated chemical agent processing, deliberate development of chemical agent rocket artillery warheads, and proper planning and weapons handling needed to build a lethal dose of the nerve gas chemical agent on the target under the specific weather conditions. All of those activities would potentially be detectable to intelligence operations, but there don't seem to be any indications of that regarding the Saudis and rebels. A shipment of chemical weapons is almost certainly going to be handled differently than ordinary high explosives, and will probably be detectable by intelligence operations, something which I haven't heard any indication of regarding the Saudis and rebels.

      There do seem to be indications of the Assad regime handling such weapons though.

      Here Is the Evidence the U.S. Has on a Syrian Chemical-Weapons Attack
      Troops led by Assad’s brother likely to blame for chemical weapons, Syrian activists say

      Highly effective chemical agent rocket warheads aren't something that are just tossed off the assembly line for plastic water bottles on alternate weeks. They are a highly specialized weapon with many highly specialized components. The Saudis have signed the treated banning them, and I thought it was common wisdom by many on Slashdot that every country on earth followed treaties without cheating except for the US. How could the Saudi's cheat?

      * Al Qaida had planned attacks on the New York subway system but called them off because they weren't certain that they would kill enough people to maintain their reputation.

      --
      much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
  6. Re:!Seems likely by SnarfQuest · · Score: 2, Insightful

    the funny thing about this "war", is that the "facts" come from the same people that the Democrats discredited during the Iraq war. Now that Obama wants a war to distract everyone from his other disastrous wars (like Egypt, Benghazi, ...), the press is willing to forget their claims against these sources. Anything for Obama, and the Democrats.

    --
    Who would win this election: Andrew Weiner vs Andrew Weiner's weiner.
  7. The US should stay the hell out of Syria by msobkow · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The US should stay the hell out of Syria's civil war. Both sides are vicious, dictatorship-prone fanatics. There is no "good" side to support. It's either the existing brutal dictatorship or an Al-Queda inspired bunch of Sharia nutbars.

    I feel sorry for the people of Syria caught in the middle of it, but bombing the shit out of the country isn't going to make a decent democracy emerge.

    --
    I do not fail; I succeed at finding out what does not work.
    1. Re:The US should stay the hell out of Syria by gallondr00nk · · Score: 2

      bombing the shit out of the country isn't going to make a decent democracy emerge.

      Quite, and certainly not in Syria.

      What is most perplexing is why the US is so bent on arming the Syrian rebels. In the past the US has been absolutely terrified of political Islam.

      It now seems willing to embrace and fund it, even if one or more of the parties of rebels are linked to terrorist groups. Deposed dictators like Mubarak, Saddam Hussein, the Shah of Iran and so on have been used in the past to stop the forming of an Islamic government.

      Perhaps it's because they'll get a better deal out of the new rulers than the old. Perhaps it's to weaken a Russian ally. Is there much oil in Syria? Perhaps they want oil again.

      In Iraq where one of the first laws passed after the invasion was the implementation of US style copyright laws. Perhaps this has been set up by the RIAA? After all, the US helped overthrow a government for United Fruit once.

      I imagine whenever the US decides to go to war, the president just spins a little wheel in the White House marked "justification" and runs with whatever it lands on.

  8. The War Powers Act Checks Presidential Power by cervesaebraciator · · Score: 4, Informative

    What you're referring to is the War Powers Act. This does allow the president the ability to engage in conflict on short notice and without a declaration of war, but the act was designed to check the president's warmaking powers, restricting it to specific conditions. According to the act, the president can only act by statutory authorization or "a national emergency created by attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces." Presidents (R and D alike) have tended to focus on the details like the 60 to 90 days they have discretion, while ignoring the conditions under which such discretion is allowed. Unless we are in a national emergency (i.e. a nuking or a Pearl Harbor like event), Presidents act against the letter of the War Powers Act if they exercise such powers.

    I point all this out because its so often misrepresented in the media, which rarely questions a President's authority to go to war (again, R or D president).

  9. I have an idea by slashmydots · · Score: 2

    They should make a Syrian language version of Final Fantasy Online and release it for free in the country. Productivity will drop to zero, the GDP will go down the toilet, and their entire economy will collapse. That would work better than a more obvious cyber attack.

  10. Re:Nope, no by gmuslera · · Score: 4, Insightful

    US is actually in war with everyone, specially in the cyber realm. They have (or think their have) the upper hand and then is happily going against all the world, not just spying, but infiltrating, planting backdoors, sabotaging, and other activities that in their own opinion deserves decades in jail if is done by civilians. They aren't doing this for preserving the peace, protecting their citizens or attack terrorists, they are doing it because they want war, they profit from it, and they think they can win it, no matter the cost in lives.

    They are trying to legalize the war in Syria (that probably they or their associates are instingating) , so they can define hacking as something similar to weapon of mass destruction, and justify intervention in even more countries.