Information War

There really isn't a nice way to say it. In my opinion, the 24th Air Force, the United States Air Force premier cyber security organization, has been defeated by Wikileaks in the current information war taking place in the cyber domain.

One way to define victory and defeat in an information war is by determining whether one side has denied access to information to the other side. By any reasonable assessment, and regardless of whether it was a self-defeating policy or by lawfare, Wikileaks has denied the 24th Air Force access to 25 websites including several of the most prominent western media organizations on the planet.

It is embarrassing if you think about it, because it really demonstrates how poorly the DoD understands the strategies and tactics involved with information warfare on the modern battlefield. If we had a good grasp of information warfare, I truly believe the US and allies could implode North Korea without starting a war - after all, these highly centralized and controlled societies like Myanmar and North Korea are more vulnerable than most to information, disinformation, and communication disruption as long as access and delivery of information can be assured.

Discussing the Cables

Several have asked, so here it is. I do want to discuss several topics related to the release of the Wikileaks cables on the blog, but I am holding off for now. There are considerations that I must work out before those discussions.

There are contributors who write on Information Dissemination with secrecy clearances, so how the content is discussed carries professional ramifications with the authors. There are also about 5,000 daily readers of Information Dissemination who have professional obligations related to classified materials, so how the content is discussed carries professional ramifications with at least half of my core audience as well.

I have requested guidance from several entities on how to proceed with Wikileaks related discussions, including Admiral Moynihan directly. There will be no citation of Wikileaks cables on Information Dissemination beyond what can be directly quoted from existing main stream press reporting until agreed upon guidelines are worked out. Many of the cables that I wish to discuss are very Navy centric topics, and will likely not be covered by the press directly. I believe some of these topics should be generally disseminated among professionals within this Navy community, as some very much do offer an opportunity for professional discussion.

That means simply following the lead of the main stream press is not a viable option long term. When I have more details regarding how Information Dissemination will deal with the Wikileaks cables issue, I will let you know.

The Original Whistleblower

Before there was Wikileaks, there was Cryptome. Interesting stuff about Julian Assange over there, both this and even more interesting - this. This is the kind of information one would usually find on the Smoking Gun.

The whole condom breaking/rape warrant starts making a lot more sense if this is actually about HIV. Sweden has strict sex laws and strong laws on HIV, but the law always seems to matter less when it is applied to celebrities.

These links are not to classified cables, and are safe for government employees and contractors to view.

Update: The first link was pointing to the wrong article, and has been replaced with the correct link. The fault for the screw up was mine, thanks to readers for highlighting this mistake.

The Hidden Truth Behind Lieberman's Wikileaks Protest

From a Q&A on CNN with Julian Assange.

achanth

Mr Assange,

have there ever been documents forwarded to you which deal with the topic of UFOs or extraterrestrials?

Julian Assange

Many weirdos email us about UFOs or how they discovered that they were the anti-christ whilst talking with their ex-wife at a garden party over a pot-plant. However, as yet they have not satisfied two of our publishing rules. 1) that the documents not be self-authored; 2) that they be original. However, it is worth noting that in yet-to-be-published parts of the cablegate archive there are indeed references to UFOs.

If it turns out Star Trek IV was based on a true story, Greenpeace is going to be pissed!

* The title of this post is not to be taken seriously*

Wikileaks and North Korea

I try to keep things topical at WPR, and so wrote today's column on Wikileaks and North Korea:

In the context of any discussion about negotiations, the release of the cables brings up some relevant issues of diplomatic secrecy. As Pei suggests, not thinking about a North Korean collapse would be the height of irresponsibility for policymakers in the United States, South Korea, Japan, and China. Since the final status of North Korea effects the interests of all four powers, policy coordination will be necessary. However, none of the states involved can publicly discuss contingency plans for a North Korean collapse. Evidence that South Korea and the United States were actively colluding in planning for the aftermath of such a contingency would probably quash any hopes for the Six-Party Talks. Open Japanese participation in such talks could inflame opinion in both Koreas and in Japan. Perhaps most important, evidence that China had broached the topic of a North Korean collapse with the United States and South Korea might serve to make Pyongyang even more paranoid and reckless.

I should also note that I hew much closer to the view that North Korea should be viewed as a troublesome, sometimes useful Chinese client than a herald of the PRC's impending effort to conquer the world. That China can destroy North Korea whenever it wishes through economic sanction doesn't actually mean that North Korea will do what China wants; clients often stray very, very far from the preferences of their patrons, even when those patrons enjoy overwhelming positions of power. This is not to say that North Korean intransigence can't be strategically useful for China, especially in situation of tension with either the United States or China. However, I'd go so far as to say that analyses that don't take seriously the fact of intra-party conflict in the CCP should probably be ignored.

Wikileaks Thoughts

This interesting write up is probably the most thought provoking essay's I have seen yet regarding the Wikileaks cable leak. I have no intention to debate the author or the topic, as that blog strikes me as a better place for such discussion, but I do think it adds perspective and understanding even if you find yourself in disagreement. Radicals throughout history have always been complex individuals. Given what I think Wikileaks will reveal in the future, I believe this episode of history will ultimately end tragically.

As I have been thinking about what Wikileaks will likely reveal - specifically the number of unicorns that are about to be shattered and how everyone in politics is going to find assumptions both confirmed or denied, I think in the end someone is going to end up killing Julian Assange for leaking the wrong cable. I'm thinking in particular how many cables involving the Russians are going to expose something they have cleverly kept out of public view until Wikileaks, and how someone like Putin might react to being exposed in an unflattering way publicly. They tend to come up with interesting ways to handle problems, and don't seem to mind making public examples of power.

As a side note, I want to lay out ahead of time what I am looking for in the Wikileaks cables as far as blog content I intend to discuss at some point in the future - something to think about over the next few months since the DoD is acting quite stupid towards this issue and sticking their head in the sand on the whole issue.

• The Ethiopia invasion of Somalia in 2006. I suspect we will learn a lot of things we did not know, like who was flying the Ethiopian air force MiGs that were able to make precision bomb drops on the fighters for the Islamic Courts. US pilots don't fly MiGs, and I have serious doubts they were Ethiopian pilots.
• The Song class submarine surfacing near Kitty Hawk in October 2006. It wasn't until almost a year later that Bill Gertz of the Washington Times revealed that incident even happened. We may learn a lot more details about the incident in the Wikileaks cables that suggests how that event actually happened.
• Diplomatic cables as a result of Global Fleet Station and Medical Diplomacy missions including the first African Partnership Station. This seems like as good a time as any to learn how to improve coordination between the Navy and the State Department for these soft power deployments by getting insight to the way the State Department viewed them, and how the host nations discussed these activities at the diplomatic level.
• The harassment of the USNS Impeccable (T-AGOS-23) and other ocean surveillance ships by China in 2009. I suspect there might be a few interesting conversations that took place behind the scenes.
• The ballistic missile launch by North Korea over Japan. I'm thinking this will be an insiders look at how the ballistic missile defense partnership between the US and Japan came to be, which is important as that model is now being used for BMD in Europe.
• There have been several quiet shooting incidents in the Gulf over the last few years between the US Navy and Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps that will likely come to light in the Wikileaks story.
• I am looking forward to perhaps learning more regarding the history of the Somalia piracy courts in Kenya. This will prove particularly important as we approach potential UN discussions about a world court for dealing with maritime piracy.
• We may learn of some interesting discussions regarding F-22 sales to Japan or other nations. FMS in various forms, including potential submarines for Taiwan, might pop up as interesting topics.
• The great tsunami in Southeast Asia in 2004 might pop up as an interesting topic with inside details not previously disclosed.

These are but a few topics, most of which won't interest the mainstream media, I think may provide relevant discussion from the Wikileaks cables. Say what you want, but in every challenge I have always believed an opportunity awaits, and I think it is appropriate the blog takes the same approach towards the Wikileaks cables rather than the dumbass DoD model of hiding from information everyone else can plainly read.

Wikileaks as a Foreign Terrorist Organization

I had written my original post on Wikileaks before I learned of this little detail being discussed in the news. Guess I was too busy actually reading Wikileaks to notice? From AFP:

US Republican congressman Peter King, the ranking member of the House of Representatives' Homeland Security Committee, urged the attorney general to prosecute WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange for espionage.

The latest release "manifests Mr Assange's purposeful intent to damage not only our national interests in fighting the war on terror, but also undermines the very safety of coalition forces in Iraq and Afghanistan."

He went on to urge the State Department to designate WikiLeaks a "Foreign Terrorist Organization," saying it "posed a clear and present danger to the national security of the United States," in a statement from his office.

Apparently Rep. Peter King has written a letter to the State Department on this specific issue (if you see a link to the letter, plz add to comments). As I pointed out in the earlier post, United States Code: Title 18,2331 has a very broad definition of "international terrorism" that claims activities that are "dangerous to human life" and "influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion" fall under the definition of international terrorism. Wikileaks may qualify under that definition (although you can bet that will be challenged in court).

The law is the law. I personally believe the law is fairly broad, but was designed as such to give the US flexibility in dealing with non-state actors that were conducting activity intending to harm the government or people of the United States. For better or worse, the language is quite generic, and indeed this is a case where a non-state actor is conducting activity intending to harm the government or people of the United States. Maybe in that sense the law is written correctly? I'm not certain.

The criteria for being named a Foreign Terrorist Organization are bit more detailed, as defined on the Department of States website. In this situation I think there is a good case to make that what Wikileaks is doing falls under US code to be defined as international terrorism, but I am much less sure that Wikileaks itself falls into the more strict definition of a Foreign Terrorist Organization (FTO), and I certainly have no idea if Assange qualifies as a Specially Designated Global Terrorists (SDGTs).

I'll leave these details to the lawyers.

I am hearing from sources tonight that the letter by Rep Peter King is being taken quite seriously by the leadership in the State Department and the Justice Department, and this is an "all hands on deck" evolution at State to come up with options as of Monday morning. The dynamics and discussion of Wikileaks being characterized as a foreign terrorist organization may emerge as one of the early responses by the United States government to watch unfold over the next few days.

The impact to Wikileaks, anyone associated with Wikileaks, and Julian Assange himself should the State Department apply the Foreign Terrorist Organization (FTO) or Specially Designated Global Terrorists (SDGTs) label would be crippling with second degree effects like making people who donate financially to Wikileaks liable for supporting terrorism financially, among many other negative impacts to Wikileaks.

I am not against what Rep Peter King is trying to do, even though I admit I am not a big fan of such a broad definition of international terrorism. At the minimum for me, Peter King is doing what a leader in government should be doing about Wikileaks - attempting to stand up for the United States government and the State Department specifically in what is clearly a difficult situation - and right now I expect at least that from my political leaders.

I believe this is an issue worthy of keeping an eye on.

Wikileaks

As you are no doubt aware, there will be a lot of press attention given to the diplomatic cables that will be released by the website Wikileaks over the next few hours/days/weeks. I do not know what the impact will be, and if I was to weigh it I would say the impact will be somewhere between a black eye for American diplomacy and World War III. My general feeling is that the release of classified information in the manner chosen by Wikileaks is an act of information anarchy in the information age, and I don't think that approach will end well in the long term even if there are no obvious impacts in the short term.

I also consider what Wikileaks is doing to be an act of international terrorism as defined by United States Code: Title 18,2331 - against both the government and people of the United States. If the folks who run Wikileaks were to expire by means of accident or otherwise, I would shed the same number of zero tears and fake the same amount of non-existent outrage that I do every time any other terrorist is killed.

If I am to be honest, the piety found on the Wikileaks website that attempts to explain the reasoning of those behind the release of the diplomatic cables does little to persuade me of some righteous cause, and quite frankly I find their feeble attempt to excuse themselves up front from the consequences of their actions irresponsible and disgusting. By action Wikileaks is treating sovereign disagreement of nations with indignation and the private discussions and disagreements of governments as a global game of checkers.

It is the choice of each author at Information Dissemination to discuss the contents being released at Wikileaks. For myself, I will be discussing items I find relevant to discussions. The internet is written in ink, and this information is public regardless of ones opinion about it. I do not endorse the actions of Wikileaks but I will not ignore it either. If the content is relevant for discussion on this forum - it will be discussed. I have discussed content released by AQAP and al Shabab, for example, and see the discussion of materials on Wikileaks as any other discussion of content produced by a terrorist organization.

If a reader wishes to express their opinion regarding the Wikileaks policy on ID - this is the post to do so. Keep it professional. I am not interested in a comment section with direct links to Wikileaks, and will delete comments that do that in this thread (future threads that link are fair, as long as they remain on topic).

Are there winners and losers? Yes. The loser is US diplomacy, and the winner is anyone who opposes US diplomacy. Other than that, winning and losing in the context of Wikileaks is probably too subjective to be accurate.