An Article Discussing Russia

This was an interesting read.

I was going to say that I didn't know what I thought about it yet, or that I wanted to sit on it for a bit, but I realized that a better description is this:

Its an interesting data point, and I will keep an eye out for other data points on this topic. See if they corroborate or contradict. 

I'm only peripherally aware of some of the topics mentioned, thought I can conf the weird possible microwave attacks - and how concerning it is that they (likely Russia, but attribution is hard) felt bold enough to attack our people. And on American soil (iirc) too. 

Russian Kill Switch

A better write up of the coming Russian Kill switch test. 

https://www.engadget.com/amp/2019/02/28/russia-putin-internet-kill-switch-cybersecurity/?__twitter_impression=true

My impression is that it's more about Russian domestic politics than anything else, though it doesn't hurt to consider what else could happen. Not even necessarily with Russia. In the back of my head I've been mulling over what the possibilities are in cyberspace. Most of what we've been seeing is more like criminal behavior, even if it's done by nation/state actors.

But I haven't really fleshed anything out on that yet. Still learning so much in the first place, you know?

Edited to add: I decided to add labels here (I tend to forget when sending out a quick link from my phone) and figured this article was worth including in the post. It's discussing how Moody is trying to incorporate cybersecurity into it's evaluation on how creditworthy an organization is.

Thought Provoking

When predicting enemy Courses of Action (COA) we were always supposed to look for what's most likely and most dangerous COAs. It helps to make sure you're ready in case the worst actually does happen.

I don't know nearly enough about Russia to say whether this prediction is true, but in terms of a 'most dangerous COA' it seems worth considering. Even if nothing of note happens, what could happen and do we have any countermeasures in place?

Check out @J_amesp’s Tweet: https://twitter.com/J_amesp/status/1094840317277282309?s=09

Marketing, Influence Operations, Etc.

I almost forgot.  A few weeks ago I had a discussion with one of my brothers (Kawphy) that spurred some thoughts I wanted to capture here.

What I kind of liked about philosophy classes is that we all can read the famous philosophers (Plato, Aristotle, Kierkegaard, Sartre) and draw on our own experiences to debate their thoughts and ideas.  That is, there's no 'right answer' handed down from on high.  When you debate topics - like justice, or virtue - we all have our own personal experiences that we can draw on.  The best philosophers make sound arguments, make us look at things in a new light, make us think things through more deeply than we otherwise would have...but ultimately we're still the ones who have to decide for ourselves whether what they're saying matches our own experiences. 

I don't like how focused they get on technical details (like spending an entire chapter defining a specific word), though I get why they do that.  Still, there's something sort of fun about coming up with your own answers to the questions posed.

Why did I bring that up?  Because comparing what you are taught to your own personal experience is a pretty useful skill.  It's part of why I think you should have a healthy sense of skepticism towards economics, for example.  I'm not criticizing the field as a whole, but when I consider my own personal experiences as a consumer, I don't think it quite fits the model of rationality and utility they describe (or you have to expand the notions of 'utility' to include things like 'how pretty is the package').  I brought that up in a previous post where I discussed how I'd select a bottle of wine. 

The same process holds true when you consider the impact of marketing, information operations, and possible Russian influence on our democracy.  Or, conversely, our influence on Latin American countries during the Cold War.

Consider commercials for cars.  The thing is, if I'm not in the market for a car then those commercials are pretty much wasted on me.  I'm not buying a car, they're too expensive to do casually, there's not much point to it unless I'm at the point where its time for a new one anyway.  (And when it does come time, I generally look up cars by the traits I want first...and consider deals such as family or company discounts.  My last two cars were Fords, and that's mostly because I have an aunt who worked in a Ford factory and can get me a discount...and my company had a deal with Ford so I could get a discount through them.  I could go with whichever deal was better at the time.) 

This is not to say that all car commercials are useless.  For those looking to buy, they can be very useful.  You'd have to get into the statistics on how many people they want to draw in with their commercials to get some sense of why/whether the cost of advertising pays off.  Plus, even if I'm not in the market for a car, the brand or image presented might have a role in my decision when I am ready to make that purchase.  1-10 years down the road, that is. 

But do I see a commercial for a new car and immediately rush out to buy one?  Not at all.  Or only if I already know I want a new car. 

Things are slightly different with food commercials.  See, most people don't buy a new car every year...but everybody has to eat.  And we all have to eat multiple times a day.  Which means that food commercials are more likely to work, as I might see an ad and think to myself "I haven't had that in a while, okay."  Next meal I'm ordering pizza, or getting tacos, or whatever.  (Though it's not necessarily from the company doing the advertising.  Taco Bell might remind me of tacos, but then I'll go to a local Mexican restaurant instead of Taco Bell.)

The point I want to make here is that attempts to influence people are...well, complicated.  They work best when someone is already open to being influenced (i.e. if I'm not in the market for a new car the car commercials are mostly wasted on me.) 

Though it's not quite as black and white as that, either, as good salespeople can persuade us even when we don't think we're in the market for something.  (I think we've all had the experience of purchasing something we had no intentions of buying originally.)

Anyways, the same things hold true when you're trying to conduct information operations, influence operations, etc.  Russian accusations of Western meddling, for example, deny the fact that Western 'meddling' wouldn't have any sort of impact at all if there weren't disgruntled Russians with unaddressed grievances.

And vice versa - Russian meddling in the recent 2016 election would not have been possible if they weren't tapping into our own domestic fault lines.  It's like a car commercial targeting someone who's realized they kind of want a new car.

You can focus on those outside influences, I suppose.  It's not completely wrong.  Yet I think we'd all be better off focusing more on why our people are susceptible in the first place.  What problems are being unaddressed, that people would rather believe x or y or whatever?

Also - don't overestimate the threat.  Thinking you can somehow make another nation do the things you want is about as likely to lead to disaster as success.  Just consider our attempt to reinstate the Shah of Iran.  The 2016 election might make Russia think they've got a good thing going, but if they misunderstand the source of success they're just as likely to make their own mistakes - like ours in Iran - as they are to have future success.

Patriotism

I was always one of 'the smart ones', which sometimes meant I had opportunities others didn't.  For example, in middle school I participated in a field trip to a mental health hospital.  At least, I think that's what it was.  I mostly remember a magician performing various tricks (I got a deck of cards that showed all black jacks if you flipped it a certain way) and also talking about mental health.

Okay, it sounds weird when I type it out like this.  Especially as I find myself questioning the details...it was over 20 years ago now.  Despite distance and time, however, the magician said something that has stuck with me all these years.  He said that maturity was recognizing that your parents were flawed.  Imperfect.  And loving them anyway.


I would expand on that 'parents' bit, and say it applies to anyone or anything that you idolize and put on a pedestal.  See, if you love it only because you think it's perfect...then you are seeing only a partial image of what you love.  And you are at serious risk of becoming disappointed, cynical, and angry when the façade inevitably fails.


We are all...imperfect.  And there is something powerful in being able to admit our flaws, and knowing we are loved and accepted anyway.  Powerful and scary, of course.  We try so very hard to pretend they don't exist.  We don't want to be vulnerable, get embarrassed when someone sees us screw up.  And that is part of why it is so amazing, when someone does see all that, and accepts us anyway.


This view on love and relationships has it's downsides, of course.  It makes it harder for me to get swept away, since I believe/know that the initial chemistry/Eros is just that.  And in the back of my mind is the question of "what happens when we start seeing past that?"  Will this person really stand by me, even when they see me get short-tempered and curt?  And can I stand by them, in turn?  Can we expand from Eros into Agape and Phileo and Ludus and Storge kinds of love?


Still, it seems more...healthy.  Wholesome.  I think putting anyone or anything on a pedestal is a recipe for disaster.  You're just one eye-opening experience away from having it all crash down on you.  Besides, it's a lot of work living on a pedestal.  You have to be perfect, you can't make mistakes.  (It reminds me a bit of the movie The Full Monty, and the guy who couldn't admit to his wife that he'd lost his job...so he kept leaving the house every day pretending that he was gong to work.  His wife, in that case, couldn't be a comfort and support.  He was too busy keeping up appearances for her.)  Don't put them on a pedestal, but don't get cynical and go looking for flaws.  It's about accepting and loving anyway, not tearing people down for not being perfect.


But I titled this post 'Patriotism', because all of this is background for my love of country.  That is - I think putting America on a pedestal and insisting we're perfect (and awesome) is as superficial and shallow as that first stage of love.  It means acting as though any hint of criticism is an attack, as though anyone suggesting we do things different or better is somehow saying that our country is not worth supporting.


At the same time, there is a strand of exactly that in some critiques.  Yes, we have problems.  Boy, do we have problems.  And yet there's something to be said for a society where the majority of our people feel like it's safe to completely ignore politics.  Where we don't have to worry about losing our jobs or being turned in by a neighbor (or family member) if we insult Trump or Hillary.  Or Bush, or Obama, or any of our leaders. 


I struggle with my definition of love, sometimes.  I'll use work as an example.  Sure, there's always the honeymoon period.  The first year or so, where you think your work place is awesome and really enjoy being there.  When something comes to disillusion you, is it just paving the way for a more mature understanding of the company?  Or is it a true indication that something is wrong, that maybe this isn't the right fit, and maybe it's time to move on?  I thought I gave up on finding that 'perfect' place to work, you see.  And yet I find that there are still things that grow more irritating the longer I work here, to the point where I needed to make a change.


So anyways.  I'm writing this as a bit of an explanation for why I'm still taking a hiatus on national security.  It's not exactly about Trump's election.  (I'm worried about what will come, and not too thrilled he won...and yet I'm also kind of pleased at how much the DC establishment is freaking out about it.  It's complicated and I may try to explain more later.  It's like...I don't like racism, sexism, and his crude and inconsiderate behavior...but the reaction to his win seems to add weight to some long-standing conservative critiques that I'd previously dismissed.  And there are such radically conflicting perspectives that I have a hard time sorting it out.  But I'm digressing.)


I love my country.  I will shamelessly use my military service in support of that statement, because it disrupts the assumption that any criticism comes from a lack of patriotism. 


That said...there are times where I really question who we are and what we're doing.  I'm having a hard time finishing that book on Kissinger, for example, because so much of what he (and the establishment at that time.  I don't want to put it all one guy, he had support) did in Cambodia was just flat out wrong.  As in 'banality of evil' wrong.  Kind of made me sick to read it, which is sad to say about something that happened well before I was born and that I am completely unable to do anything about.  And yet he's considered a well-respected statesman!!!  Hillary was talking about how she has his support!!!  


The Wikipedia article I linked to said that "One of the key issues that prevented congressional inclusion was the embarrassing fact that five key members of both political parties had been privy to the information and had neither said nor done anything about it". 


This is the kind of thing that really bothers me, because it implies that this really isn't about one or two bad decisions.  It implies that the bi-partisan establishment consensus supported what happened.  And that even if it was only a few key players, the rest of the establishment would rather hush it up and carry on than actually do anything to prevent it from ever happening again.


It's also the kind of thing that makes me wonder if I'm naïve, in thinking that our nation is mostly a force for good in the world.  That maybe the corruption really has gone too deep.  It's the kind of thinking that, frankly, Donald Trump was able to tap into. (Even though what I just described has more in common with far left critiques.  Yes, I know.)


There's more I could get into here.  Hillary's e-mails.  Foreign policy.  Russian hacking.  The CIA and FBI and conflicting analysis thereof.  The establishment. 


A lot more.  But...I don't think I'll ever have the access to answer those sorts of questions.  Not really.  To give you one example of what I'm talking about - I posted something on Facebook about Russian hacking, as almost everything I heard indicated that the Russian government was really involved.  Only to have a friend (who has a clearance, has served at the Pentagon, and is now part of the new cyber command) say that there was reason to doubt their involvement.  I think she probably has the access to know...and if that's true, then wth is going on with all the news reports saying differently?


This happened before the election, I think it was in response to something I posted about Trump's comments during a debate.  And yet that was in the back of my mind during the more recent discussion about CIA and FBI analysis on Russian involvement.  If my friend is telling the truth, then the media and CIA are not.  Their narrative of Russian interference falls apart.  And what are the consequences of believing that narrative?  Of having a large and influential group blaming Russia?


And vice versa. If the media and CIA are telling the truth, then there's an alarmingly large and influential group of people who disagree...and what are the consequences of that?
Of course, now the news says that the FBI supports the CIA narrative of Russian interference.  So maybe there is a consensus.
Then again, my friend also said she knew members of the Secret Service who confirmed some of the negative stories about Hillary...and yet Secret Service leadership publicly discredited the book written by that ex-Secret Service guy making similar allegations.  Which says either the author was writing about second-hand accounts, or that Hillary has enough pull to make the Secret Service cover for her.  Or something.


There are a lot of things going on right now, and I'm not really sure what to say in the face of it.


So hey, I'm going back to school and studying computer science.  Maybe I can't shape the course of American national security, but I can at least learn something new and interesting and hopefully get a good (non-corporate) career out of it.

National Security, Current and Historical Events

Due to current events, I've been rethinking how I was going to write my next few posts.  It seems that (much though I was planning to avoid it) I actually have to write about some of my  underlying thought processes. 

Take the current situation with Russa, regarding Syria and the US elections.  There are some Americans arguing that we need to be firm, that Russia sees anything less as a sign of weakness and will keep pushing unless or until we do stand firm.  Others see the potential for the situation to escalate out of hand, and do not think we should risk starting World War III over Syria.

Historically, there's merit to both arguments.  For a while there, some Americans thought Saddam Hussein misinterpreted a discussion with our State Dept as an indication that the US would do nothing if he invaded Kuwait.  (Reading up on it now, clearly more information has developed since I heard about this in college...and it looks like this isn't actually what happened.)

On the flip side, historians say that Germany helped create the conditions for World War I because they had lost almost all their allies except Austria, and so had to demonstrate their firm commitment to their ally...which helped expand what could have been a much more local conflict into something global. (Otto van Bismarck allegedly believed that Germany was at risk of encirclement, and worked hard to maintain good relations with his neighbors.  Kaiser Wilhelm wasn't quite so adept at foreign policy, and managed to alienate almost everyone.) 

Given the articles I posted a couple of days ago, I decided to check around a bit online.  One article said that Russia had to support Assad, because if Assad is overthrown then Iran is the only ally they have left in the region.

What's funny is that this article is discussing the decline of Russian influence (and paints the support for Assad as a sign of that weakness, much like Germany supporting Austria), whereas a lot of other articles are basically saying that Russia is standing strong and making the United States look weak and ineffective.

I don't know enough about the situation to say what's truly going on, unfortunately.  It seems like there are two (or more) ways of analyzing the situation, and the recommended course of action for one scenario is the absolutely worst thing you could do if the second is closer to reality.  And vice versa.

Anyways.  The point of this post was to say I'm changing up what I was going to write about.  I planned to discuss our relationship with Iran - I don't think anyone can say that our policies towards Iran have made  us more secure over the past thirty or forty decades.  Our involvement with the Iranian coup in 1953 was a factor in our hostile relations since the revolution.  What's funny is that according to Wilsonian ideals we should never have done gotten involved like that. 

Were the American individuals who supported the coup the realists?  Or should they have expected and predicted the backlash we received?  After all, we were once a colony ourselves.  We fought our own revolution against imperial rule.  If any great nation should have understood how resentful a nation can be when outside powers appear to be in control, it was the United States. 

(What's funny is I came across an article that had the exact opposite take on Iran.  That it wasn't our heavy-handedness in installing the Shah that hurt, so much as our making the Shah weak by pressuring him to liberalize.  I didn't find the source very credible, especially considering they claim the West instigated the revolution against the Shah as well.  I think the United States lost out too much to justify that theory...but I'm including it because I wanted to highlight how completely different historical analysis can be.  FYI - the source has ties to the John Birch society, and I felt the article drew on the all too common 'realist' notion that ideals make us weak.)


Instead of delving into these topics more deeply, I'm considering what underlying beliefs are necessary to create a sound national security policy.  I don't have anything solid yet, so I'll either wait until the ideas develop more or start writing a stream-of-consciousness type post to see what bubbles up.  Haven't decided yet.

Russia and the US Election

I'm only going to touch on a few of the things swirling around in the news, and mostly to complain about how little I truly know.  I can't tell if I'm seeing shadows or being realistic.  Sometimes I kind of regret not being in the intelligence industry any more.


In the last 24 hours came across three really disturbing articles, when you put them all together:




First, yesterday was an article saying the Russians had asked their government officials to come back home, and bring their families with them.  Now, looking at Snopes this morning it appears it was an informal request, ostensibly because of domestic perception that officials had too many ties to the West. 




Thing is, there's a darn good reason why militaries are especially careful whenever another state is conducting 'training maneuvers' near a border.  It's hard to surprise an opponent when they know you're moving to attack, but if you can make them think something different is happening then you can gain the advantage.



So, does that mean this was something more serious than it sounds?  Who knows.  I don't have the intel access or the basic information needed to really say.  I do think that an 'informal request' from Putin would probably have the effect of a formal order, regardless of what the Russians say.  And I think the perceptions about government officials have probably been around for a while, so I don't know why this would be a major concern right now.  But who knows?  I don't know what's going on with domestic Russian politics.




So on to the second article, Russia's use of inflatable weapons and maskirovka as a strategy.  Now, the Allies used inflatable weapons during World War II to deceive the enemy, so this isn't exactly a sign that the Russians are any trickier than we are.  It does, however, mean it's wise to always look two or three times at what the Russians say they are doing.  Again, I wish I still had a clearance.  And access.




The third article is the one that really spurred writing this post...though again, it's not a direct or obvious threat.  Or rather it is...if this is Putin's roundabout and indirect way of threatening us through surrogates.  Otherwise, it's just another bit of hot air.




Basically, a Putin ally said Americans need to vote for Trump or face nuclear war.  Now, I'm not exactly a war-mongerer...but if they seriously think they can force us to vote for that jack ass all I can say is - "Bring it."

Speaking of Signals

This is pretty ominous.

http://www.dailystar.co.uk/news/latest-news/552839/russia-recalls-officials-deputies-family-children-abroad-return-fatherland-ww3-world-war-3

I won't speculate further, as I know there's information I don't have, w/regards to what's going on.