U.S. Cybersecurity Strategy in the 2.0 Century

This article was published in the April-May issue of The Paris Globalist, a magazine of International Affairs.

The mother country of the Internet faces the risks and attacks this revolutionary tool has generated. For the United States to protect the country against the potential lethal dangers of new technologies and the malicious uses of an instrument initially designed for communication, the focus needs to be on education, research and development. They are the last true competitive advantages the United States has over the rest of the world.

What lies behind the US Cyber security strategy is a complex understanding of the new security threats of the 21st Century. It is not cyberspace itself that we should be afraid of, it is what that platform allows to do that is extremely dangerous and worrying. A modern form of offense, cyber crime can have fatal offline consequences.

Cyberspace is made of several hundreds of thousands of computers, routers, servers, fiber optic cables and switches, which allow all of U.S. infrastructures to work properly and efficiently.

From hacking into bank accounts, paralyzing business in a company or stealing data from government agencies to broader criminal attacks threatening the entire U.S. economy and national security, cyber crime is now becoming more appealing than other criminal activities such as drug trafficking or human trafficking because of its rising financial gain and the difficulty to authenticate the authors of cyber crimes.

The possible infrastructure damage is also incredible. National and critical infrastructures, be they private or public, in all possible sectors, are constantly facing the risk of a cyber attack which could paralyze the entire country.

In April 2009, cyber spies infiltrated the US electricity grid and implanted software that could be used to disturb the system in a crisis or if a conflict were to occur. If no damage was done then, the software programs could help navigate the system from afar and damage the electricity grid by destroying some of its key components. Such intrusions are growing and being monitored by U.S. intelligence and the U.S. Cyber Command, which is part of the Department of Defense and should be fully operational in October 2011. These attacks are not exclusive to the United States, but failure to control them would reveal a lack of understanding of these threats and an inability to adapt to the risks new technologies have generated with their widespread use.

Along with attempting to protect American infrastructures from cyber attacks, it is extremely difficult, if not impossible sometimes, to find the origin of the attacks. Locating a single individual committing a cyber attack truly illustrates the old saying of trying to find a needle in a haystack. Even if the several countries through which an attack is operated can be easily spotted, once the country of origin is found, how can the law be applied? And should it be international or national sanctions? Who has jurisdiction when States don’t play fairly?

Experts are currently debating those issues, which are incredibly delicate given their obvious link with civil liberties, the right to privacy and the freedom of the Internet. The United States needs to be particularly careful in the way these issues will be addressed in attempting to protect American infrastructures. In a globally competitive market, the only way for the United States to stay on top of their game is to be at the forefront of research and development in promoting freedom and yet protecting Americans and the homeland.

However it is very much a question of defense rather than freedom. In the age of globalized terrorism, the United States constantly strives to take defense to the next level. The 9/11 attacks were prepared online, using encryption on websites. U.S. intelligence has not forgotten and is heavily investing in cybersecurity exercises, predictions and risk assessments.

The National Cyber Security Division of the Department of Homeland Security has already conducted two national exercises called “Cyber Storm” I and II, respectively in 2006 and 2009. Like every exercise, it helped uncover American vulnerabilities in the response that can be provided in case of an attack and it contributed in setting up international cooperation with allies in Canada, the United Kingdom, New Zealand and Australia. Several departments and agencies were involved and such training is as common as it is essential for preparedness.

The exercise was part of a wider effort to protect the American cyber infrastructure. The National Cyber Security Division of DHS has two main goals: “To build and maintain an effective national cyberspace response system and to implement a cyber-risk management program for protection of critical infrastructure.” Like many other countries, the United States has to protect itself on a daily basis against thousands of intrusions and attacks against public and private institutions. A ‘National Vulnerability Database’ was created to record attacks and intrusions for analysis.

China and Russia would appear to be the most likely countries to attempt an infiltration into American infrastructures, but attacks on an individual basis also need to be monitored. Nevertheless, although U.S. government agencies only advertise about defensive measures against cybercrime, they are also major players in cyberwarfare. The StuxNet virus that disrupted computers in an Iranian nuclear facility was reported to be from an Israeli or American operated source. Further, with a growing China barely respectful of intellectual property, the United States has an important stake in monitoring activities. The ‘Enduring Security Framework’ is a partnership between government agencies and private technology and science companies. They meet regularly to cooperate on how to address cyber threats.

With global and 24 hour communication and connection, the digitalization of international affairs changes the dynamics of State-to-State interactions and the distribution of power. Numerous non-State actors now have more of a stake in State behavior and actions than they ever did. Cybersecurity and cyberwarfare may be the new most important reality of state relations for the 21st Century, and we are only beginning to grasp the potential ramifications of a globally connected planet.

Go Further:

- Lynn III, William J. "Defending a New Domain." Foreign Affairs. Sept.-Oct. 2010. Web. Accessed 02 Mar. 2011. .
- "Cybersecurity and Cyber Freedom: The Future of Digital Surveillance Technology." Brookings Institution. Web. Accessed 02 Mar. 2011. .
- "DHS | National Cyber Security Division." Department of Homeland Security. Web. Accessed 02 Mar. 2011. .

Counterterrorism Efforts in International Cities in the Age of Globalization

Article originally published in The Paris Globalist, a magazine of International Affairs (http://www.theparisglobalist.org/2011/01/24/counterterrorism-efforts-in-international-cities-in-the-age-of-globalization/)

The size and complexity of modern cities make them highly vulnerable to terrorist attacks. The security measures undertaken to protect these urban jungles surpass the forces that some small countries have.

“Think globally, act locally” is the motto of the New York City Police Department. A leading example in counterterrorism efforts since September 11, the NYPD is a great case study on how international cities currently deal with terrorism. It stands as one of the largest police departments in the world. With 37,000 police officers and 15,000 support staff, the NYPD is twice as big as the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), one of the primary agencies in charge of counterterrorism for the United States. Further, the force has directly benefited from the diversity of its ranks in its efforts to combat terrorism.

Following September 11, the NYPD implemented a threefold plan to tackle terrorism. The city established a counterterrorism bureau supported by 250 officers working hand in hand with the FBI, The Joint Terrorism Task Force and the CIA. The intelligence division of the force now employs a thousand officers dedicated to counterterrorism on a day-to-day basis. The enormity of this effort is further highlighted by the NYPD’s aggressive recruitment of high profile counterterrorism and security experts from the FBI, the Department of Homeland Security and the CIA – among other security agencies.

Second, the NYPD has employed a large police presence in potential target areas, in addition to regular surges against suspected plotting terrorists in the city. They have proven to be effective at discouraging potential terrorist attacks. Finally, by leveraging their diversity, community outreach has been a very successful endeavor. It counters radicalization by engaging with the various communities living in New York City and adapts the force to the city’s particularities.

Counterterrorism strategy is a hybrid of intelligence and police work as well as a defense and a global security effort. The post-9/11 decade witnessed the civilian world of police and the military joining hands - more or less easily - to address the security threats of the 21st century. Risk assessment, prevention and management stand at the core of today’s counterterrorism policies. Predicting the next attack, whether it is homegrown or from an external source, whether it is an explosive device, chemical, nuclear, or biological is the main goal of counterterrorism units all over the world.

Specifically, managing numerous risks and threats in modern international cities, large and dangerous playgrounds in which the public’s activity can hardly be disturbed, requires complex mechanisms of surveillance and prevention. High rise buildings, extensive underground transportation systems, and other critical infrastructures vital to millions of people represent highly vulnerable targets for attacks. Many global cities now have more resources for counterterrorism than certain small countries and are becoming active, autonomous actors on the international scene.

As Brian Nussbaum explains, “World cities are key nodes in the economic and technological networks that constitute the world community. As such, they represent a sort of international critical infrastructure underpinning the global economy. They face potentially higher threats because of the high profiles, high number of international travelers and citizens, and target rich environments.” (Nussbaum, 2007).

In other global cities like London or Paris, the use of technology along with a massive police force is the current strategy to tackle threats. In fact, London was the first city to come up with CCTVs - closed circuit surveillance cameras - during the 1980s when dealing with terrorist attacks from the IRA. According to Ayse Ceyhan, Director of the “Security, Technology, Society” research program at the Maison des Sciences de L’Homme in Paris, “in an environment characterized by uncertainty, the unknown and risk generated by globalization and reinforced by September 11, the adoption of electronic identification and surveillance tools is perceived as the ultimate solution for fighting insecurity.” (Ceyhan, 2008)

Going just as unnoticed as close circuit recording cameras, the use of biometrics for identification and authentication in airports is of major importance to counterterrorism efforts. We might not think of it, but our own bodies have become the focal point of security nowadays. Ayse Ceyhan notes that bodies are the most reliable way of authenticating people. In a world of suspicion, being able to use biology and genetics is a godsend for security units.

In this sense, the construction of a surveillance infrastructure that encompasses nearly every matter related to a violation of the law is a reality. What used to be a fight against an external enemy is now a suspicion of all. The National Strategy for Homeland Security of 2002 and 2007 also show this trend of a growing world of secrecy. As a result, the very nature of our modern lives is threatened daily not only by the fear of terrorism but also by the fear of the intrusion of authorities into our private lives.

As a consequence, the militarization of civilian security to deter terrorists has changed the way we view security, starting with the tracing of people’s activities and information. We are no longer invisible. We all have what is called “data-doubles”, an electronic trace of ourselves that can be retrieved mostly through credit card transactions, and travelling information - through programs like the Passenger Name Record information, in which airline companies have to share the names of all passengers to the United States before being able to take off. As the scholars Haggerty and Ericson put it, it is the “disappearance of disappearance” for everyone.

This is why experts say that international cooperation stands as a core requirement to an effective fight against terrorism (Cordesman, 2010). And relations between the FBI and the NYPD intelligence division have been rather strained since the post-9/11 era reorganization of the NYPD. There has been a lot of contention as to who has authority over the NYPD, especially because the NYPD currently conducts overseas intelligence and has many agents abroad. This international outreach is somewhat competing with the CIA and underpins the authority of the Department of Homeland Security. But with the necessity for law enforcement and no clarity in terms of lines of authority, the NYPD and other police forces in major global cities have been able to undergo considerable expansion.

This is a clear symptom of the need for States to adapt to the new context of global security. This would mean more international cooperation between intelligence agencies, the high tech security industry, policy makers and cities. Despite any real homogeneity in their approach, the fact that global cities are acting locally to combat international threats is yet “another challenge to the pre-eminence of the traditional state in international politics” (Nussbaum, 2007). But it might yet be the best method to protect global cities from potential terrorist attacks.

If interested in learning more:

- Nussbaum, Brian (2007) “Protecting Global Cities : New York, London and the Internationalization of Municipal Policing for Counter Terrorism”, Global Crime, 8 : 3, 213 – 232

- Ceyhan, Ayse (2008) “Technologization of Security: Management of Uncertainty and Risk in the Age of Biometrics” in Surveillance and society, 5: 2

The Irony of Afghanistan

Tweet

Follow @AdelineGuerra

This article was originally published on Thenextgreatgeneration.com on November 15, 2010.

In October, nine years ago, American troops arrived in Afghanistan to conduct a modern day blitzkrieg against the Taliban regime. Having hosted and supported al-Qaeda while they planned the 9/11 attacks against the United States, they were decidedly with the terrorists.

Almost a decade later and al-Qaeda is nowhere to be found in Afghanistan. The remaining few members in the region have fled to Waziristan near the Pakistani border. The Taliban has made a successful comeback and America is financially broke, leading to the faltering support among Americans for this war. NATO forces and the American commandment can only hope that negotiations with the “moderate” Taliban will help find a sensible exit to this never-ending war.

How did we get here?

Gen Y grew up with the Afghanistan and the Iraq wars. We experienced the 9/11 attacks as teenagers and throughout most of our adult lives war has been the status quo of America.

Afghanistan was nicknamed the graveyard of empires for a reason. No one has ever had a clear victory in Afghanistan, and the United States unfortunately no longer seem to be an exception.

But the painful irony is that America could have won. American and allied troops could have succeeded in the Tora Bora battle of December 2001. Bin Laden was there and could have been caught. Since then, no one ever got close to being so lucky again.

The failure of Afghanistan can be blamed on an Iraqi “counterproductive sideshow” in the words of MIT security studies Professor Stephen Van Evera. But the numerous changes in the commanders and strategies on the ground are the real mistakes. How can you conduct a war when you keep changing strategies? Or in the case of President Obama, when you divulge a withdrawal deadline. Talk about announcing defeat.

Since the target date of June 2011 was announced, the surge has been the bloodiest of the decade. The Taliban now know that they only need to wait for the departure of Western troops, who no longer have the financial, material or public support to sustainably outweigh the Taliban in the regions they have lost.

Gen Y was born during the final years of the Cold War and has only known the United States as the sole superpower of the world. We grew up basking in the stories of American exceptionalism, learning that this is the greatest country in modern history. Since the September 11 attacks, both America’s prestige and credibility have steadily slipped away. A mismanaged war, another illegitimate one, countless human rights violations, breaches of American citizens’ privacy and an intelligence infrastructure that has gotten out of control are all the result of ten years of living in the shadow of al-Qaida and the continued failure to capture Osama Bin Laden. Add America's bankruptcy and the financial crisis and we have a problem.

Can America sustain its way of life?

The war in Afghanistan was conducted to restore America's honor and hunt-down the perpetrators of the most devastating attack on our soil since Pearl Harbor. It is therefore sadly ironic that Afghanistan could be the deathbed of the United States as we know it. Unless the debt crisis is solved, the United States will face extreme vulnerability by depending on foreign lenders like China for any of their activities. And the pursuit of American interests internationally will be much harder without credible leverage of any nature.

We are at a turning point in Afghanistan. A sign of leadership from President Obama is strongly needed, and although the word on the street is that President Obama would rather distance himself from the Iraq and the Afghanistan wars he is the Commander-in-Chief and needs to talk to the American people.

President Obama should tell Americans the war in Afghanistan has indeed become obsolete. Al-Qaida will not be defeated on Afghan soil. It will be crushed in Yemen, in Somalia, in Pakistan and in the Maghreb with intelligence, security technologies and precision bombing – options cheaper and safer than conventional wars and supported by both Republicans and Democrats in Congress. In fact, President Obama successfully employed these strategies as early as December 2009.

What matters though is that America’s Gen Y has inherited this conflict and they are the biggest American victims. According to ABC journalist Mike Corcoran, “two thirds of the soldiers (…) were still in school when George W. Bush declared War on Terror.” A lot of them thought they were going to fight a “just war”.

Millennials fighting in Afghanistan for their 3rd or 4th tour need to come home. Sadly, it is very unlikely that the United States will soon be able to withdraw from Afghanistan. The strategy on the ground isn’t successful and negotiations with the Taliban are a slow start to a long process.

Obama, The Deficit and The American Public

Tweet

Follow @AdelineGuerra

Originally published on Thenextgreatgeneration.com on November 3, 2010

Arguably, the national debt is the issue for American voters this fall. But many of them don’t exactly know why. It has something to do with jobs and economy stuff. Right?

First, make no mistake. The national debt is the direct result of the Bush administration’s decision to conduct two wars without the financial means to back them up. Then the bailout, and the auto bailout and the stimulus added more. Today, America is in serious trouble, and divided over how we will fill the humongous deficit hole.

Democrats are trailing behind in the campaign and we know Republicans are expected to regain seats in Congress. Yet, the Democratic Party is not exploiting the work done by the Obama administration to reduce the budget deficit (yes you read that right) and how it went from 1.416 trillion dollars to 1.294 trillion dollars this year. A trillion-dollar national debt won’t reduce itself by tomorrow, but measures are being taken to control it.

Thanks to more fiscal revenues from corporations and less bailout money spent, the deficit was actually reduced in 2010 compared to 2009, a record year for the American deficit. Still, it’s predicted deficit for 2011 will be 1.070 trillion.

If 70 percent of Americans say “it is very important for Congress to reduce the federal budget deficit”, it’s because every policy matter in the U.S. is somewhat related to it. The deficit means ending the war in Afghanistan that we can no longer sustain. It means less money for education and student loans; inadequate funds for repairing Americas eroding infrastructure: clean water, roads and levies; No cash for health care, welfare or unemployment.

Further, a huge debt also means a weak economy. The size of the national debt will determine America’s future and global competitiveness. Paying it down will help bolster America’s role in the world economy and renew its ability to stay the best at research and development. Bottom line, American jobs should come back once the deficit problem is sufficiently addressed.

But it’s not all America’s fault, Obama or Bush. The free market system isn’t working like it should because someone isn’t playing fair.

The Obama administration is currently battling with China to liberalize its currency and play by the rules of capitalism. This is important to Obama and his economic advisers because a simple revaluation of the Yuen could create millions of American jobs by making U.S. exports competitive again. Case and point, the dollar being weaker than the euro or the pound, American exports are higher in volume than for Europe. But the American public doesn’t really get that, and will continue blaming Obama for his jobs stimulus plan of last year, seen by many as another way to worsen the debt problem.

Conceptualizing a trillion-dollar debt is hard. According to a Time magazine article, it’s actually impossible for our human brains. Thousands of Americans are in debt. From college loans to credit card debt, Gen Y is directly participating to the deficit. The good news is, with the war in Iraq coming to an end, and the prospect of a solution to end the American presence in Afghanistan, the deficit might not get worse – provided the worry of a double-dip recession remains only an anxiety.

Barack Obama’s policy relies on China still being the U.S.’s first creditor. But China is starting to sell off the American debt, and letting go of these assets means that China is not ready to let its currency adjust to the market. Concurrently, the U.S. is also pushing for the revaluation of foreign currencies to avoid deflation and have foreign countries solve our mistakes. However, only time will tell if the G20 countries will abide by America’s demands.

Thus American jobs will probably have to be created another way, and national solutions are the most promising. When President Clinton was in office, Republicans were the first ones to roar at the deficit problem, whereas under President Bush, it was the Democrats’ turn. Now that the deficit has gotten out of control, and the American public is largely united on the issue: it has become bipartisan.

Balancing the budget may not be easy, but until currencies stabilize it seems to be the only solution we can count on. Getting rid of earmarks and pork in Congress would be a good start, before making Gen Y and their parents pay even more taxes for the deficit reduction.

As much as “Obama’s Wars” might determine a possible reelection, the management of the deficit might become the prism through which the American people will decide whether they want to give him another go in 2012. Everyone in the US, especially the President, is at the mercy of the deficit.

Living in a Digital Age Surveillance Society

Tweet

Follow @AdelineGuerra

Originally published on TheNextGreatGeneration.com on August 5, 2010

The July 25 cover story in the New York Times Magazine was titled “The End of Forgetting,” which spoke to our greatest fears on how no one can escape their past in the digital age. We can never really start from scratch when our past blogs, photos and other online activities can all be retrieved in a single click. And if that’s true, how can we protect our identities and our privacy?

The ability to take pictures, make films and access the web with our cell phones has allowed for thousands of videos and photos of both mundane and earth-shattering events to be made public. Now, because technology has allowed this, should we be condemned for having witnessed such an event as an innocent bystander with a smartphone?

It seems as though that’s what’s happening now. Forget the first amendment, because when it comes to cops, you’re no longer allowed to report abuses.

A recent ABC News article reported that a growing number of people are being prosecuted for filming cops when they intervene on the highway or on the street. But the flurry of attention begs the point that if cops were doing a good job, they wouldn’t be so worried about it. In short, it’s OK for the government to spy on citizens, but we powerless mortals can’t do anything without being prosecuted for filming the unprofessional behavior of the people who are supposed to be protecting us.

This is even more ironic when we consider how the post-9/11 era drastically reduced peoples’ privacy rights in the name of protection. It makes me wonder, are counterterrorism and security measures the McCarthyism of our time?

We live in societies petrified by the fear of terrorism, in which we let our governments trade our freedom for more supposed security. We let them wiretap us, search us, we give them our fingerprints, let them scan our retina, use our photos and keep private information. Recently, a man from Montreal who had applied to live in the United States was sent back at the border because a government employee found information online about his experiments with LSD thirty years ago.

It is indeed the end of forgetting.

The surveillance society described by Jeremy Bentham in 1785 and Michel Foucault almost two centuries later is now a reality in industrialized countries. The security technologies market is booming and has only recently started being regulated by lawmakers – who are having difficulties monitoring the number of firms existing in the market between North America, Oceania and the European Union.

Security technologies existed long before 9/11, but private companies that were already on the market benefited from most countries’ despair in dealing with tightened security measures. Security technologies have become so far advanced that special thermal monitors can tell if you’re lying simply by filming you, and Department of Homeland Security officials are thinking of providing every border customs booth with this technology.

Government employees in the DHS are trained to ask embarrassing questions and to make their subjects nervous in order to obtain information on the sincerity of the applicant. Such measures are common for visa applicants.
Before going to the American Embassy in Paris, I had to fill out a form called DS 160 on the Department of State website asking for all my past employers’ contact information, my closest friends’ information, my five previous trips to the United States, and other exhausting questions that had me research my own life in order to know what to respond. It’s not like I’m “high profile,” in terms of security threat; I’m a white, European student wanting to be a research scholar overseas. Yet, the U.S. government has at least five samples of my fingerprints.

The Big Brother has yet to truly exist, though. As much as the Washington Post series of articles on Top Secret America outlined a growing world of secrecy and surveillance behind armored walls, the United States government agencies have yet to share and coordinate the huge flows of data they catch every day.
What we should really be concerned about is the ability to trace anyone, thanks to numerous public space surveillance cameras, credit card information, Passenger Name Record information, satellite GPS equipment and any electronic data-related activities.

With this data collecting, known as data-doubles, we are truly no longer invisible. The problem will become very real when President Obama cleans up the security agencies mess and truly commits himself to “connecting the dots.”

We all have an online version of ourselves, viewable through social media, that’s how Gen Y connects and communicates. We are an exposed generation, and we are only starting to understand the consequences of being so transparent online.We have to look out for the numerous uses of our information for purposes unrelated to counterterrorism intelligence.

Be afraid of your governments, people, because this is getting scary.

Top Secret America: What today's fight against terrorism reveals about our societies and international relations

Tweet

Follow @AdelineGuerra

Top Secret America is the best series published by the Washington Post this year. While dwelling on issues that were no surprise to people familiar with the field of American foreign affairs, other elements are truly astonishing. The idea that a country as powerful as the United States, which thrives on military power and intelligence work could be so unable to deal with the complexity of its own response to security threats is disturbing.

Many critics have been addressed to the Washington Post articles from all sides of the political forum. But we have to be thankful that this investigation is probably the most exhaustive picture of the institutional monster the creation of the DHS and the multiplying of security agencies in the US Government in the post 9/11 era and currently existing on public record.

The wars and international struggles of the 21^st Century are so different from the 20^th century experience. New technologies, globalization, economic interdependence, nuclear proliferation and energy dependence have made international relations a growing labyrinth of complexity and power imbalance. How can more than 200 states - many of them started existing during the 20^th century – with desires of prosperity on one single and smaller planet, live alongside each other peacefully?

The Realists might be right. IR is a game of powers balancing each other out, struggling for their existence in an anarchic environment. Is power – or puissance as the French distinguish it – the sole driver for foreign policy? I believe national reforms and politics are what determine international affairs, and not the contrary. Admittedly, globalization affects internal politics, but we still live in a nationalistic era. The 2008 world economic crisis bears that beginning of the 21^st century contradiction: all industrialized countries of the world were hit by the economic downfall which originated in the United States and yet most of these countries crafted and implemented a national response to the problem, despite engaging internationally or at a regional level.

What does Top Secret America reveal about today’s societies? If it has become a contractor business, it is due to a growing market in Europe, Asia, Australia, Israel and other countries that joined America after 9/11 in the fight against terrorism. Just think of the word ‘security’. It is widely used in any language and has lost any substantial or specific meaning nowadays. The era of technology and information we know goes hand in hand with the surveillance societies we now live in. I am eager to see how the next ten years will be conditioned by this present and what role biometrics will play.

Politicians and Generals: Two Strategic Visions of Afghanistan ?

Tweet

Follow @AdelineGuerra

“War shouldn’t be left to Generals. Strategy should be left to politics.”

Peter Herrly[1]

The recent firing of General Mc Chrystal from the Command of US forces and NATO troops in Afghanistan raises the question of the complex relationship between executives and the military.

General Mc Chrystal lacked any tact or respect for authority when he decided to express himself in irrespective words to a journalist. There is nevertheless no doubt that his comments were deliberately aired and served his purpose. General Mc Chrystal might not have been able to carry out the strategy he wanted to implement in Afghanistan. The war went from the removal of the Taliban regime that sheltered Al Qaeda at the end of 2001 to a complete disaster partly due to the “counterproductive sideshow in Iraq”[2] in the words of MIT political science professor Stephen Van Evera. The reflection about which strategy to implement after President Obama took office was bound to be difficult and raise challenging opinions.

Generals are not politicians

Politicians and Generals evolve in different worlds. While one might be thinking of reelection, making his party, his voters and his allies happy, the other can only think of what might be best to win the battle and protect his men, continuously, until the tactics carry out a coherent general strategy. The overall strategy might be the only thing on which executives and top-level officers agree to in their duties: winning the war. But there are many ways to win a conflict, and where a politician juggles and negotiates, a general gives out orders, and makes the most impossible coordination happen. It’s great to be President, but try to be the boss on the ground, the real boss when it comes to ending this war…and you might get as frustrated as Stanley Mc Chrystal was.

It is one thing to have the means to execute a strategy, but it is another to believe in it, and cooperate between the civilian world and the military. As many of the current press articles on the subject point out, numerous people in government are leading the Afghanistan war. In Afghanistan - as Michael Hastings put it in the Rolling Stone article[3] - only Mc Chrystal was the real boss, due to ongoing disagreements between Richard Holbrooke and Hamid Karzai, or between the American ambassador and Mc Chrystal.

Strategy, as André Beaufre summarily put it, is about carrying out a set of tactics that lead you to the final goal. One cannot unroll a series of tactics if there is constant disfunctioning within the machine. Here, cooperation, coordination and communication between civilians and military personnel went from non efficient to non existent. We thought counterinsurgency tactics were cool, little did we know it wasn’t the strategy that was the problem, but the lack of perspective of the people supposed to help implement it successfully.

Obama can win this war, but he has not shown great confidence in the two Generals he has already fired in 18 months. General David Petraeus will not be removed from his functions, as it would be political suicide for Barack Obama. Hope will not be sufficient this time. Political aides are very smart, but they need to understand they cannot wage a war they have no knowledge about. Let the generals be generals. Let them do their jobs. Maybe they won’t need to become as political as the Washington exec’s and let journalists into their lives.

Petraeus is a great choice because he knows how to pull both sets of strings. But I believe that behind his boorish ways, General Mc Chrystal knew how to pull them too. He played dirty, but we cannot stand here thinking it was out of stupidity or poor judgment. It was calculated and it probably came from a strong feeling of having been misunderstood, mislead, and incapacitated to do what he really needed to, in order to win the war.

The Generals and Colonels I’ve met are not the most patient men in the world. But they are not expected to be politicians. And vice versa. Trust might have been the main issue in this recent scandal. Joe Biden wanted to choose another strategy. President Obama did not know Mc Chrystal. Mc Chrystal wanted out.

Problems with the strategy itself

The war in Afghanistan has now surpassed Vietnam in terms of longevity. Today’s war is hidden, removed from the main land and the public does not want to see it. Casualties are almost forbidden. But it is a war, and by definition, that is why democracies don’t go to war as often as they used to, because they know they will encounter losses no matter how hard they try to protect themselves.

A successful and solid strategy is therefore indispensable. During his Senate confirmation of June 28, “General Petraeus acknowledged the inherent tension between fighting a war and protecting and winning over the civilian population in a classic counterinsurgency campaign.”[4] The paradox lingers: how can you reconstruct a country while you are also waging a war against the Taliban?

Other potential disagreements exist as the withdrawal date of July 2011 was not advised or supported by David Petraeus when it was announced in November 2009. Petraeus said “July 2011 is the point at which we will begin a transition phase…July 2011 is not a date when we will be rapidly withdrawing our forces and switching off the lights and closing the door behind us.”[5] As Leslie Gelb pointed out, Petraeus has “locked down” President Obama to Afghanistan.  In the end, it seems as though Generals have the final word, because as much as presidential candidates like to think they’ll make a lasting difference, the executive function is largely out of their hands when it comes to success. Mc Chrystal was facing paradoxes with the COIN strategy on the ground. Will it work better with Petraeus?

Politicians and Generals differ in their strategic vision of Afghanistan mainly because the nature of their means to attain their common goal is fundamentally different. The Commander-in-chief chose to not back up his General, he chose the tactics for him, when it should have been left to the military. I believe David Petraeus will do a great job but the war now depends more on Barack Obama than on his general himself, for he needs to support him unconditionally, which did not happen with his two former generals.

---

[1] Peter Herrly, retired Colonel of the US Army, Director for European Affairs for the Association of the United States Army. He taught military history, strategy, and organizational culture at the United States Military Academy at West Point and the National War College in Washington, D.C.

[2] Van Evera, Stephen. "Assessing U.S. Strategy in the War on Terror." 2006 The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science 607.10 (2006): 10-26. Sage. Web. .

[3] Hastings, Michael. "The Runaway General | Rolling Stone Politics." Rolling Stone. Web. 01 July 2010. .

[4] Bumiller, Elisabeth. "The New York Times Advertise on NYTimes.com Petraeus Pledges Look at Strikes in Afghanistan." NY Times. Web. 01 July 2010. .

[5] Gelb, Leslie H. "General Petraeus Locked Obama Into Afghanistan." The Daily Beast. Web. 01 July 2010. .