[osint] Chertoff Editorial
Make No Mistake: This Is War By Michael Chertoff Sunday, April 22, 2007; B07 http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/04/20/AR200704 2001940_pf.html As the rubble of the Twin Towers smoldered in 2001, no one could have imagined a day when America's leaders would be criticized for being tough in protecting Americans from further acts of war. Now, less than six years later, that day has arrived. Since Sept. 11, a conspiracy-minded fringe has claimed that American officials plotted the destruction. But when scholars such as Zbigniew Brzezinski accuse our leaders of falsely depicting or hyping a war on terror to promote a culture of fear, it's clear that historical revisionism has gone mainstream. Brzezinski stated the obvious in describing terrorism as a tactic, not an enemy [Terrorized by 'War on Terror,' Outlook, March 25]. But this misses the point. We are at war with a global movement and ideology whose members seek to advance totalitarian aims through terrorism. Brzezinski is deeply mistaken to mock the notion that we are at war and to suggest that we should adopt more muted reactions to acts of terrorism. The impulse to minimize the threat we face is eerily reminiscent of the way America's leaders played down the Ayatollah Khomeini's revolutionary fanaticism in the late 1970s. That naive approach ultimately foundered on the kidnapping of our diplomats in Tehran. A sensible strategy against al-Qaeda and others in its ideological terror network begins with recognizing the scope of the threat they pose. Al-Qaeda and its ilk have a world vision that is comparable to that of historical totalitarian ideologues but adapted to the 21st-century global network. Is this actually a war? Well, the short answer comes from our enemies. Osama bin Laden's fatwa of Feb. 23, 1998, was a declaration of war, a self-serving accusation that America had somehow declared war on Islam, followed by a ruling to kill the Americans and their allies -- civilians and military . . . in any country where it is possible to do it. Since then, bin Laden and his allies have sought to carry out acts designed to strike at our global system of security, safety and economy. I am reminded of that every day when I see threat assessments and other evidence of a militarized and networked foe. Measured by intent, capability and consequence, fanatical Islamist ideologues have declared -- and are prosecuting -- what is, by any objective rendering, a real war. Intent: Today's extreme Islamist groups such as al-Qaeda do not merely seek political revolution in their own countries. They aspire to dominate all countries. Their goal is a totalitarian, theocratic empire to be achieved by waging perpetual war on soldiers and civilians alike. That includes the use of weapons of mass destruction. Capability: The fanatics' intent, while grandiose, is not entirely fanciful. Islamist extremists such as those in al-Qaeda, the Taliban and associated groups from North Africa to Iraq and South Asia are fighting for and sometimes achieving control of territory in which they can train; assemble advanced, inhumane weaponry; impose their own vision of repressive law; and dominate local life. To be sure, as Brzezinski observes, the geographic reach of this network does not put them in the same group as the Nazis or Stalinists when they achieved first-class military power. But without relentless vigilance and effort from the civilized world, Islamist extremists could gain control of a state or establish a network of radical statelets in the Middle East, Africa and Asia. Consequence: The events of Sept. 11 highlight the dramatic difference between the consequences of Islamist extremist war-making and those of the political terrorist attacks unleashed against the West in the 1970s. The Sept. 11 attacks were the most devastating single blow ever visited upon our homeland by foreign enemies. The Islamist extremists' plot last summer to blow up multiple transatlantic airlines in Britain threatened a similarly devastating -- but thankfully unrealized -- consequence. Both episodes demonstrate that the terrorist ideologues aim to achieve not only a massive loss of life but also substantial disruption of our international system of travel and trade. Simply put, our foes have declared their intent to make war, have demonstrated a capability to prosecute war and have laid on us the horrific consequences commensurate with war. In the aftermath of Sept. 11, our allies correctly perceived al-Qaeda's strikes as acts of international aggression. By Sept. 12, the U.N. Security Council had passed a resolution vowing to respond, and NATO began its unprecedented move of declaring the attacks to be aggression against all of its members. That radical Islamist fanatics have not yet achieved all the elements of state power should not blind us to the global threat they pose. This globalized war has theaters from traditional battlefields in Afghanistan and Iraq
[osint] UPI Analysis: Owning the keys to the Internet
Please find below an example of UPI's continuing coverage of cyber-security and the Department of Homeland Security, published earlier this month. I hope you find it interesting. You may link to it on the Web here: HYPERLINK http://www.upi.com/inc/2007/04/12/analysis_owning_the_keys_to_the_internet/print_view/ http://www.upi.com/inc/2007/04/12/analysis_owning_the_keys_to_the_internet/print_view/ Please note that the story remains the copyright property of UPI. If you wish to publish or archive this article, or get more information about UPI products and services, please contact me or e-mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] To stop receiving these alerts, just reply with the word unsubscribe in the subject line. Shaun Waterman UPI Homeland and National Security Editor E-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Tel: 202 898 8081 Analysis: Owning the keys to the Internet By SHAUN WATERMAN UPI Homeland and National Security Editor WASHINGTON, April 12 (UPI) -- The U.S. government is pressing ahead with plans to implement a new security regime for the basic architecture of the World Wide Web, despite unease in some corners of the international Internet management community. This is the U.S. government stepping forward and showing leadership, Douglas Maughan, an official with the Department of Homand Security Science and Technology Directorate, told United Press International. At issue is the long-debated implementation of a new security system governing the Domain Name System, or DNS, the Internet architecture that directs surfers to the sites they want to visit. The DNS translates the familiar www Web page addresses known as URLs into the numerical Internet Protocol, or IP, codes which identify the servers hosting that page. Because DNS, like much of the Internet, was built with a relatively open architecture, it is possible to fake Internet addresses. Various techniques for doing this, known to specialists as DNS spoofing or poisoning, are widely used by cyber-criminals. They can con people into believing they are logging on to their bank or e-mail accounts, entering personal information or passwords that can then be used to rob them. The DNS Security Extensions Protocol, or DNSSec, is designed to end such abuse by allowing the instantaneous authentication of DNS information -- effectively creating a series of digital keys for the system. One lingering question -- largely academic until now -- has been who should hold the key for the so-called DNS Root Zone, the part of the system that sits above the so-called Top Level Domains, like .com and .org. The U.S. Department of Homeland Security is funding the development of a technical plan for implementing DNSSec, and last October distributed an initial draft of it to a long list of international experts for comments. The draft lays out a series of options for who could be the holder, or operator, of the Root Zone Key, essentially boiling down to a governmental agency or a contractor. Nowhere in the document do we make any proposal about the identity of the Root Key Operator, said Maughan, the cyber-security research and development manager for Homeland Security. Maughan said a new version of the draft specification, incorporating suggestions from the experts who reviewed it, would be released later this year for public comment. We are still working through some of the process issues such as how to record and respond to all the public comments, he said, adding he hoped the document would be released no later than the end of the summer. He said the new version adopts a different nomenclature for the Root Key Operator, to make it clear that a non-governmental organization or non-U.S. governmental agency could play the role. We recognize that increasing the security of the Internet requires global cooperation, stated a note accompanying the draft technical specification when it was circulated last year. Nonetheless, at a recent meeting in Lisbon of the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers, the international non-profit that currently manages DNS, there was some concern that the U.S. government might push ahead with implementation unilaterally. Our concern is that if unilateral action is taken it could generate friction in the operation of the Internet, Bernard Turcotte, president of the Canadian Internet Registration Authority, who was at the Lisbon meeting, told UPI. Maughan said that while the U.S. government was committed to implementing DNSSec this year in the .gov domain, which it owns, that could be done independently, regardless of whether the new security system was rolled out Internet-wide or not. We can secure .gov and all the zones under .gov (like dhs.gov, or usdoj.gov) even if the Root (Zone) remains unsigned, he said, pointing out that HYPERLINK http://www.upi.com/Security_Terrorism/Analysis/2007/04/12/analysis_owning_the_keys_to_the_internet/#; nSweden had already
[osint] UPI: Recent stories on intelligence reform and the DNI
Over the past two weeks, UPI has published a series of long articles looking in depth at the challenges the new Director of National Intelligence Michael McConnell faces, and the changes he is making to his office and the rest of the Intelligence Community. Shorter versions of some of these pieces appeared in the Washington Times. The full-length versions are pasted, one after the other, below, and you can link to them at the following URL's: April 10, New DNI says he lacks authority http://www.upi.com/inc/2007/04/09/state_of_security_dni_lacking_power1/print_view/ April 13, White House threatens veto of intelligence auth bill http://www.upi.com/inc/2007/04/13/analysis_bush_veto_of_spy_law_threatened/print_view/ April 16, Relationship with military key factor for new DNI http://www.upi.com/inc/2007/04/15/state_of_security_dni_defense_relation4/print_view/ April 19, New DNI seeks to leverage personnel powers http://www.upi.com/inc/2007/04/18/analysis_dni_leverages_personnel_powers/print_view/ Please note that these links no longer expire after 60 days, so you can post or archive them. If you wish to publish or archive this article, or get more information about UPI products and services, please contact me or e-mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] To stop receiving these alerts, just reply with the word unsubscribe in the subject line. Shaun Waterman UPI Homeland and National Security Editor E-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Tel: 202 898 8081 Analysis: New DNI says he lacks authority By SHAUN WATERMAN UPI Homeland and National Security Editor WASHINGTON April 10 (UPI) -- Newly confirmed Director of National Intelligence Michael McConnell says he doesn't have the authorities he needs to lead the 16 agencies he oversees -- and that his office isn't properly structured to take best advantage of the authorities he does have. At least he can fix the latter, and officials say he is trying to do so in a little-noticed redrawing of his office's organization chart last month. We don't have it right yet, McConnell told a conference of federal officials last week, speaking of the intelligence restructuring mandated by Congress in 2004. As director of national intelligence, McConnell said, I'm responsible for basically two things ... the budget for the 16 (U.S. intelligence agencies) and ensuring that no one breaks the law. But, he added, 15 of those agencies, all save the CIA, are part of other Cabinet-level departments, and he lacks direct line management authority over them. I would submit that's a challenge. If you're going to dictate someone else's budget in another department and worry about compliance with the law and the regulations where you ... cannot hire or fire, it puts you in a challenging management condition, he said. McConnell's chief of staff, David Shedd, told United Press International in an interview that a recently announced restructuring of the way the director's office was organized was designed to address those challenges. One important change was the metamorphosis of Shedd's own job into the new post of director of the intelligence staff. From his new perch he will convene regular meetings of a new executive committee, chaired by McConnell, on which will sit the Pentagon's intelligence chief, representatives of the departments of State, Treasury and Homeland Security, and the heads of the major intelligence agencies. The intent, said a statement from McConnell's office, is to use the (executive committee) to initiate, change, and end programs, policies, and capabilities. In his new post, Shedd will also directly oversee the work of the three officials who exercise the director's most significant authorities over the occasionally fractious collection of 16 agencies that insiders call the U.S. Intelligence Community. The chief information officer, the chief personnel (or human capital) officer and the chief financial officer all have significant policy authorities over, respectively, the information technology, staffing and budgets of the U.S. intelligence agencies. Because they will all report to the staff director, who will convene and draw up the agendas for the executive committee, Shedd said, the committee will be a place in which the director can effectively drive forward his policy agenda in those three areas. The committee will be the nexus between those issues and the agency heads, said Shedd. McConnell, he added, wants that lash-up to be close. Two other important changes, Shedd said, were the creation of deputy director posts for acquisition and for policy, plans and requirements. Last week McConnell said the ability of U.S. agencies to purchase, procure (and) acquire large-scale systems, had atrophied during the 1990s, as U.S. spending on intelligence declined 40 percent, and there was something called the dot (com) boom. Fungible skills inside the government, very sophisticated program management skills, engineering
