Every day for the last ten years, there have been cyber attacks mounted against American targets. Some of the attacks are by hackers or thieves here in the USA. Many of the largest and most sophisticated attacks, however, come from abroad with the bulk of those coming from foreign state actors. In other words, governments like China, Russia and Iran have large organizations of hackers who are going after American targets. These state-run attacks have two principal purposes: 1) theft of American property and secrets, and 2) probing for weaknesses in US cyber defenses so that chaos could be unleashed in the future. A good example of the first type is the theft of designs for the F-35 aircraft by the Chinese. A good example of the second type is the repeated intrusion into the American electric grid so that in any future conflict, Russia or China could literally turn off the power across the country.
This is a very dangerous situation. Every day, the USA becomes more and more dependent on the internet and devices and the like controlled across the web. If America is vulnerable to cyber attack, that vulnerability is getting worse. Our very existence as a nation could be placed at risk as a result.
The Pentagon has a Cyber Command that is tasked with handling the internet. It has been around for more than a decade. Normally, that unit has operated purely in a defensive mode. Lately, however, according to a report in the NY Times, Cyber Command has gone from pure defense to a combination of offense and defense. In other words, the US Cyber Command has launched operations to take out foreign computer networks used to hack American targets. It has also retaliated against foreign nations that attack US targets.
This move makes sense. If someone attacks you day after day for years, it is not enough to just defend yourself from these attacks. At some point, you need to try to get the attackers to stop by increasing the cost paid by the attackers for their actions. Strong retaliation should make those mounting the attacks think twice about continuing. It is a basic strategy that has been used in conflicts since the beginning of time.
That's the basic story. Then the Times adds its twist. It can't bring itself to report about these events without trying to criticize the Trump administration. As a result, we hear from the Times that this new policy was debated at the highest levels of the White House. President Trump (gasp!) gave the Pentagon the ability to make tactical changes of this sort without the need for a White House decision. Oh, the horror! The Times, you see, is still living under the delusions of the Obama years. At that time, the Pentagon could not be trusted. They were just a bunch of warmongers who wanted nothing more than to enlarge the chances for nuclear destruction. They had to be tightly controlled by the White House. That's why all targets in Iraq and Syria where ISIS fighters might be had to be approved by the White House before they could be hit. A convoy of twenty ISIS vehicles which could be taken out by US air power with quick action could not be touched because the two day turnaround for White House approval slowed down the American response.
The reality is that President Trump understands that the American military can and has properly operated within guidelines set by Washington for more than two centuries. The ridiculous strictures place on our forces by the Obamacrats accomplished nothing more than to prevent the USA from using its full power to achieve our goals. It's a good thing that policy has changed, even if it horrifies the NY Times.
This is a very dangerous situation. Every day, the USA becomes more and more dependent on the internet and devices and the like controlled across the web. If America is vulnerable to cyber attack, that vulnerability is getting worse. Our very existence as a nation could be placed at risk as a result.
The Pentagon has a Cyber Command that is tasked with handling the internet. It has been around for more than a decade. Normally, that unit has operated purely in a defensive mode. Lately, however, according to a report in the NY Times, Cyber Command has gone from pure defense to a combination of offense and defense. In other words, the US Cyber Command has launched operations to take out foreign computer networks used to hack American targets. It has also retaliated against foreign nations that attack US targets.
This move makes sense. If someone attacks you day after day for years, it is not enough to just defend yourself from these attacks. At some point, you need to try to get the attackers to stop by increasing the cost paid by the attackers for their actions. Strong retaliation should make those mounting the attacks think twice about continuing. It is a basic strategy that has been used in conflicts since the beginning of time.
That's the basic story. Then the Times adds its twist. It can't bring itself to report about these events without trying to criticize the Trump administration. As a result, we hear from the Times that this new policy was debated at the highest levels of the White House. President Trump (gasp!) gave the Pentagon the ability to make tactical changes of this sort without the need for a White House decision. Oh, the horror! The Times, you see, is still living under the delusions of the Obama years. At that time, the Pentagon could not be trusted. They were just a bunch of warmongers who wanted nothing more than to enlarge the chances for nuclear destruction. They had to be tightly controlled by the White House. That's why all targets in Iraq and Syria where ISIS fighters might be had to be approved by the White House before they could be hit. A convoy of twenty ISIS vehicles which could be taken out by US air power with quick action could not be touched because the two day turnaround for White House approval slowed down the American response.
The reality is that President Trump understands that the American military can and has properly operated within guidelines set by Washington for more than two centuries. The ridiculous strictures place on our forces by the Obamacrats accomplished nothing more than to prevent the USA from using its full power to achieve our goals. It's a good thing that policy has changed, even if it horrifies the NY Times.
No comments:
Post a Comment