- The Wall Street Journal revealed April 24 that current
National Security Agency (NSA) director Lt. General Keith Alexander will
"head the Pentagon's new Cyber Command."
-
- Friday's report follows an April 22 piece published by
the Journal announcing the proposed reorganization. The Obama administration's
cybersecurity initiative will, according to reports, "reshape the
military's efforts to protect its networks from attacks by hackers, especially
those from countries such as China and Russia."
-
- When he was a presidential candidate, Obama had pledged
to elevate cybersecurity as a national security issue, "equating it
in significance with nuclear and biological weapons," the Journal
reported.
-
- The new Pentagon command, according to The Washington
Post, "would affect U.S. Strategic Command, whose mission includes
ensuring U.S. 'freedom of action' in space and cyberspace, and the National
Security Agency, which shares Pentagon cybersecurity responsibilities with
the Defense Information Systems Agency."
-
- How Cyber Command's launch would effect civilian computer
networks is unclear. However, situating the new agency at Ft. Meade, under
the watchful eyes of National Security Agency snoops, should set alarm
bells ringing.
-
- Charged with coordinating military cybersecurity programs,
including computer network defense as well as a top secret mission to launch
cyber attack operations against any and all "adversaries," the
new command has been mired in controversy ever since the U.S. Air Force
declared it would be the lead agency overseeing Cyber Command with the
release of its "Strategic Vision" last year.
-
- Since that self-promotional disclosure however, multiple
scandals have rocked the Air Force. In 2007, a B-52 Stratofortress bomber
flew some 1,500 miles from Minot Air Force Base in North Dakota to Barksdale
Air Force Base in Louisiana with six live nuclear-tipped cruise missiles
affixed to its wings. For nearly six hours, the Air Force was unable to
account for the missing weapons. While the scandal elicited scarcely
a yawn from the corporate media, physicist Pavel Podvig wrote,
-
- The point is that the nuclear warheads were allowed to
leave Minot and that it was surprised airmen at Barksdale who discovered
them, not an accounting system that's supposed to track the warheads' every
movement (maybe even in real time). We simply don't know how long it would've
taken to discover the warheads had they actually left the air force's custody
and been diverted into the proverbial "wrong hands." Of course,
it could be argued that the probability of this kind of diversion is very
low, but anyone who knows anything about how the United States handles
its nuclear weapons has said that the probability of what happened at Minot
was also essentially zero. ("U.S. loose nukes," Bulletin of the
Atomic Scientists, 12 September 2007)
-
- As a result of the affair and numerous procurement scandals,
Air Force Chief of Staff Gen. Michael Mosley and Air Force Secretary Michael
Wynne were fired by Secretary of Defense Robert Gates for incompetence.
Numerous defense analysts believe this was a major reason why the Air Force
was supplanted as the lead Cyber agency.
-
- While one can reasonably support government efforts to
protect critical infrastructure such as electrical grids, chemical plants,
nuclear power stations or the nation's air traffic control system from
potentially devastating attacks that would endanger the health and safety
of millions of Americans, these goals can be achieved by writing better
programs. Yet from its inception, Cyber Command has been theorized as a
nodal point for launching crippling attacks against the civilian and military
infrastructure of imperialism's enemies.
-
- As I reported last July, Air Force Cyber Command (AFCYBER)
is centered at the secretive Barksdale Air Force Base. At the time, AFCYBER
had a unified command structure and a $2 billion budget through the first
year of its operations.
-
- The Air Force Times reported last year that AFCYBER "has
established 17 new enlisted and officer Air Force Specialty Codes--creating
major changes in the career paths of more than 32,000 airmen." Whether
or not the command structure already in place will transfer to NSA is unknown
as of this writing. Nor is it clear whether AFCYBER's offensive capability--real
or imagined--will transfer to NSA. But with billions of dollars already
spent on a score of top secret initiatives, included those hidden within
Pentagon Special Access (SAP) or black programs, its a safe bet they will.
-
- Defense analyst William M. Arkin points out in Code Names,
that these programs fall under the rubric of Special Technical Operations
(STO). Arkin defines these as,
-
- Classified SAPs and other programs, weapons and operations
associated with the CIA and "other government agencies." Entire
separate channels of communication and clearances exist to compartment
these military versions of clandestine and covert operations involving
special operations, paramilitary activity, covert action, and cyber-warfare.
A STO "cell" exists in the Joint Chiefs of Staff and at most
operational military commands to segregate STO activity from normal operational
activity, even highly classified activity. (Code Names: Deciphering U.S.
Military Plans, Programs, and Operations in the 9/11 World, Hanover, NH:
Steerforth Press, 2005, p. 20)
-
- Specific cyber-warfare programs identified by Arkin include
the following: Adversary: an Air Force information warfare targeting system;
Arena: an "object-based" simulation program to create "country
studies of electronic infrastructure characteristics, targeting analyses,
operational information warfare plans" as well as nearly three dozen
other cyber-war programs and/or exercises.
-
- Many of the Pentagon's cyber-warfare initiatives flow
directly from research conducted by the Defense Advanced Research Projects
Agency (DARPA). For example, the agency's Information Processing Techniques
Office (IPTO) has a brief to "create the advanced information processing
and exploitation science, technologies, and systems for revolutionary improvements
in capability across the spectrum of national security needs."
-
- As can be seen from the brief survey above, the vast
majority of Pentagon programs concern Cyber Command's offensive capability
of which denial of service and other attacks against "adversaries"
in the heimat are a distinct possibility. The Journal reports,
-
- The Department of Homeland Security is charged with securing
the government's nonmilitary networks, and cybersecurity experts said the
Obama administration will have to better define the extent of this military
support to Homeland Security. "It's a fine line" between providing
needed technical expertise to support federal agencies improving their
own security and deeper, more invasive programs, said Amit Yoran, a former
senior cybersecurity official at the Homeland Security Department. (Siobhan
Gorman, "Gates to Nominate NSA Chief to Head New Cyber Command,"
The Wall Street Journal, April 24, 2009)
-
- The Obama administration is expected to announce the
the new agency's launch next week, after completing what it terms a "comprehensive
review" in addition to recommendations for cybersecurity policy.
-
- Geoff Morrell, a Pentagon spokesperson, told the Journal
that Gates is "planning to make changes to our command structure to
better reflect the increasing threat posed by cyber warfare," but
"we have nothing to announce at this time." Morrell said the
Department of Defense's 2010 budget proposal "calls for hiring hundreds
more cybersecurity experts."
-
- Aside from lining the pockets of enterprising grifters
in the shadowy world populated by intelligence corporations, where top
secret clearances are traded like highly-prized baseball cards, the potential
for abuse by NSA given that agency's key role in illegal domestic surveillance
raise the prospect of further entrenching the agency in our lives.
-
- While Alexander sought to allay fears that NSA was out
to run the nation's cybersecurity programs, he hastened to add that the
agency's "tremendous technical capabilities" would be used to
"assist" DHS in securing the government's civilian networks.
But given AFCYBER's brief for offensive operations, what does this mean
for civil liberties?
-
- As The New York Times reported April 17, with NSA leading
the charge to control "the government's rapidly growing cybersecurity
programs," critics within the national security apparatus fear the
move by Gates "could give the spy agency too much control over government
computer networks." The Times avers,
-
- Rod Beckstrom, who resigned in March as director of the
National Cyber Security Center at the Homeland Security Department, said
in an interview that he feared that the N.S.A.'s push for a greater role
in guarding the government's computer systems could give it the power to
collect and analyze every e-mail message, text message and Google search
conducted by every employee in every federal agency. (James Risen and Eric
Lichtblau, "Control of Cybersecurity Becomes Divisive Issue,"
The New York Times, April 17, 2009)
-
- This is hardly an issue that should only concern government
insiders or those who engage in bureaucratic in-fighting as if it were
a blood sport. As a Pentagon agency, NSA has positioned itself to seize
near total control over the country's electronic infrastructure, thereby
exerting an intolerable influence--and chilling effect--over the nation's
political life.
-
- As we have seen in our recent history, NSA and their
partners at CIA, FBI, et. al., have targeted political dissidents: to varying
degrees, antiwar organizers, socialist, anarchist and environmental activists
have fallen under NSA's electronic driftnet, most recently during last
year's Republican National Convention.
-
- As I reported last November, during the RNC conclave
in St. Paul, Minnesota, local, state, federal officials as well as private
security and telecommunications corporations conspired to target activists,
journalists and concerned citizens during the so-called National Special
Security Event.
-
- The whistleblowing website Wikileaks published a leaked
planning document which outlined the close coordination across multiple
agencies, including the FBI, NSA, U.S. Northern Command and the National
Geospatial-Intelligence Agency (NGA). Cell-phones and other electronic
communications were routinely monitored in real-time and NGA provided detailed
analysis derived from military spy satellites.
-
- A "Strategic Vision" in the Service of Repression
-
- Although the Air Force has lost out to NSA over control
of Cyber Command, AFCYBER's planning document still provides a valuable
glimpse into the formidable infrastructure arrayed against the American
people.
-
- In the view of Air Force theorists, the strategic environment
confronting imperialism is described as "unpredictable and extremely
dangerous," characterized "by the confluence of globalization,
economic disparities, and competition for scarce resources."
-
- And as "economic disparities" grow, particularly
during a period of profound capitalist economic meltdown, newer and more
effective measures to ensure compliance are required by the ruling class
and its state. This is underscored by Cyber Command's goal "to achieve
situational dominance at a time and place of our choosing." [emphasis
added] According to the Air Force,
-
- Global vigilance requires the ability to sense and signal
across the electromagnetic spectrum. Global reach requires the ability
to connect and transmit, using a wide array of communications networks
to move data across the earth nearly instantaneously. Global power is the
ability to hold at risk or strike any target with electromagnetic energy
and ultimately deliver kinetic and non-kinetic effects across all domains.
These cyberspace capabilities will allow us to secure our infrastructure,
conduct military operations whenever necessary, and degrade or eliminate
the military capabilities of our adversaries. (Air Force Cyber Command,
"Strategic Vision," no date)
-
- As Wired defense analyst Noah Shachtman wrote last year,
-
- The Air Force wants a suite of hacker tools, to give
it "access" to--and "full control" of--any kind of
computer there is. And once the info warriors are in, the Air Force wants
them to keep tabs on their "adversaries' information infrastructure
completely undetected." ...
-
- Traditionally, the military has been extremely reluctant
to talk much about offensive operations online. Instead, the focus has
normally been on protecting against electronic attacks. But in the last
year or so, the tone has changed--and become more bellicose. "Cyber,
as a warfighting domain . . . like air, favors the offense," said
Lani Kass, a special assistant to the Air Force Chief of Staff who previously
headed up the service's Cyberspace Task Force. ("Air Force Aims for
'Full Control' of 'Any and All' Computers," Wired, May 13, 2008)
-
- While the cut and color of the uniform may have changed
under the Obama administration, placing Cyber Command under NSA's wing
will almost certainly transform "cybersecurity" into a euphemism
for keeping the rabble in line. Indeed, cybersecurity operations are
fully theorized as a means of achieving "full-spectrum dominance"
via "Cyberspace Offensive Counter-Operations,"
-
- Cyberspace favors offensive operations. These operations
will deny, degrade, disrupt, destroy, or deceive an adversary. Cyberspace
offensive operations ensure friendly freedom of action in cyberspace while
denying that same freedom to our adversaries. We will enhance our capabilities
to conduct electronic systems attack, electromagnetic systems interdiction
and attack, network attack, and infrastructure attack operations. Targets
include the adversary's terrestrial, airborne, and space networks, electronic
attack and network attack systems, and the adversary itself. As an adversary
becomes more dependent on cyberspace, cyberspace offensive operations have
the potential to produce greater effects. ("Strategic Vision,"
op. cit.) [emphasis added]
-
- And when those "greater effects" are directed
against American citizens theorized as "adversaries" by U.S.
militarists and well-heeled corporate grifters, the problems posed by a
panoptic surveillance state for a functioning democracy increase astronomically.
-
- The already slim protections allegedly afforded by the
shameful FISA Amendments Act have already been breeched by NSA. As The
New York Times reported April 16, NSA interception of the private e-mail
messages and phone calls of Americans have escalated "in recent months
on a scale that went beyond the broad legal limits established by Congress
last year."
-
- As Wired reported April 17, the NSA isn't the only agency
conducting cyber operations against American citizens. One of the FBI's
International Terrorism Operations Sections requested an assist from the
Bureau's Cryptographic and Electronic Analysis Unit, CEAU, according to
documents obtained by the magazine under the Freedom of Information Act.
The FBI "geek squad" was in a position to conduct a "remote
computer attack" against the target, and that "they could assist
with a wireless hack to obtain a file tree, but not the hard drive content."
-
- This followed an April 16 report published by Wired that
a "sophisticated FBI-produced spyware program has played a crucial
behind-the-scenes role in federal investigations into extortion plots,
terrorist threats and hacker attacks in cases stretching back at least
seven years, newly declassified documents show."
-
- But as I documented last year in a case involving activists
targeted during anti-RNC protests, with "preemptive policing"
all the rage in Washington, the same suite of hacking tools and spyware
used to target criminals and terrorists are just as easily deployed against
political activists, particularly socialists, anarchists and environmental
critics who challenge capitalism's free market paradigm.
-
- Despite these revelations, the Obama administration is
poised to hand control of the nation's electronic infrastructure over to
an out-of-control agency riddled with corporate grifters and militarists
whose bottom-line is not the security of the American people but rather,
the preservation of an economically and morally bankrupt system of private
profit fueled by wars of aggression and conquest.
-
- Tom Burghardt is a researcher and activist based in the
San Francisco Bay Area. In addition to publishing in Covert Action Quarterly
and Global Research, an independent research and media group of writers,
scholars, journalists and activists based in Montreal, his articles can
be read on Dissident Voice, The Intelligence Daily, Pacific Free Press
and the whistleblowing website Wikileaks. He is the editor of Police State
America: U.S. Military "Civil Disturbance" Planning, distributed
by AK Press.
-
-
- www.globalresearch.ca
- http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=view
- Article&code=BUR20090426&articleId=13354
|