Rise Of The Machines (Delayed If Not Terminated)

The NY Times reports on a triumph of common sense from the Bush Adminstration:

It would have been the most far-reaching case of computer sabotage in history. In 2003, the Pentagon and American intelligence agencies made plans for a cyberattack to freeze billions of dollars in the bank accounts of Saddam Hussein and cripple his government’s financial system before the United States invaded Iraq. He would have no money for war supplies. No money to pay troops.

“We knew we could pull it off — we had the tools,” said one senior official who worked at the Pentagon when the highly classified plan was developed.

But the attack never got the green light. Bush administration officials worried that the effects would not be limited to Iraq but would instead create worldwide financial havoc, spreading across the Middle East to Europe and perhaps to the United States.

Well, yes, and in any case, why should the Defense Department be causing financial chaos with Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac standing by? (Mission Accomplished!).

This is also a dangerous boundary for the US to cross, since we are a much more "wired" target than any of our likely adversaries.

ALWAYS TRUST CONTENT FROM NEWSMAX:  The Times includes this plug:

These missions, which remain highly classified, are being scrutinized today as the Obama administration and the Pentagon move into new arenas of cyberoperations. Few details have been reported previously; mention of the proposal for a digital offensive against Iraq’s financial and banking systems appeared with little notice on Newsmax.com, a news Web site, in 2003.

Here's a link; props to Charles Smith,who shoulda made that layup.

RULES?  IN A KNIFE FIGHT?  Cecil Turner hangs a big No Sale on my "dangerous boundary":

Not buying this one. The idea that nobody will launch a cyber attack on the US unless we do it first generally parallels the contention that they won't mistreat our prisoners unless we mistreat theirs. Clearly this is faulty reasoning. (And just as clearly the propaganda gain has little to do with the facts of the matter).

Fair enough, but I had two idea in mind.   I don't think North Korea or Iran would show any forebearance with respect to the US in a cyber-attack just because the US had shown earlier restraint, but maybe they would be a bit less inclined to launch an attack that would annoy third parties (such as Britain or China) if the US had never undertaken a similar attack.

But there is also a proof-of-concept issue - if a US cyber-attack was wildly successful that would validate the concept and spur other countries to put a maximum effort into developing their own capabilities.  Would that have been worth it in an attack on Iraq?

Comments

[So where is Schumer in all this?]

Jennifer Rubin at the Weekly Standard, writing about the politicization of the Holder Justice Department.

[Cecil Turner]

This is also a dangerous boundary for the US to cross, since we are a much more "wired" target than any of our likely adversaries.

Not buying this one. The idea that nobody will launch a cyber attack on the US unless we do it first generally parallels the contention that they won't mistreat our prisoners unless we mistreat theirs. Clearly this is faulty reasoning. (And just as clearly the propaganda gain has little to do with the facts of the matter).

And speaking of "crossing the boundary," I was going to take Markoff to task for neglecting to mention the Russia-Georgia cyber attacks, where that Rubicon was well and truly forded . . . but he probably considered he'd already covered it well in its own article . . . which he had. Also very interesting is the selection of targets: we choose financials, the Russians chose propaganda organs. I suspect they have the better grasp of the fundamentals.

[boris]

Clearly this is faulty reasoning

Well the version (even from our side) is more along the lines of "How can we criticize them if we do it too".

Which IMO is part of the "hypocrisy is the worst sin" mindset.

[Wretchard, if you please.]

The Russians hit the blogs, too, over Georgia. Richard Fernandes and others there wrote about it, and there were a few 'gastarbeiten' on his blog.

[PeterUK.]

It struck me,that the recent economic collapse got a little nudge from somewhere.May no be state actors,but perhaps someone with something o gain.
There have bee a few instances where the hair trigger "sell" mechanisms of computerised dealing got triggered and plunged the whole market.Could be a bug,could be a design feature.

[Did he short Lehman?]

Soros may as well be a cyberfinancial double agent for the Roosians. How differently would he act if he were one than he is doing now?

[PeterUK.]

WIYP,
Yes,there were a host of posting from the literate to the insane.

[Chris]

No mention of China or North Korea? Nothing to see there, I guess.

[Dave (in MA)]

We should have intalled song-sharing software on Saddam's machines and then tipped off the RIAA.

[Jack is Back!]

I have, like PeterUK, often wondered how out of the blue we got into the financial mess so capriciously without someone hitting a button or two. My suspicion has always fallen on Soros and a band of Ukranian hacker-hitmen. But that is too simple. Why would the Chinese want to sabotage their income stream? But then the Russians would love to level the playing field a little but then it didn't help them, did it. Funny, that it panicked Paulson to save his beloved Goldman from AIG default but it has played into Obama's grand design. Someone needs to connect the dots and flow chart the whole episode much like the Bohner Obama-care illustration just to show where all the players and money has evolved or disappeared depending on your perspective, I guess.

[RichatUF]

Jack is Back-

The uncurious media and the uncurious Congress have never pinned down exactly why Soros took a 9.5 million share stake in Lehman about 6 weeks before it collapsed (or what he did with the shares in the period up to the collapse) nor have we gotten any clarity on the Vitol oil spike around the same time (June-July 2008).

FWIW, any sort of state sponsored activity to crater our markets, dislocated markets abroad even greater. If one were to think it was Russia, they were so bad off their capital markets sold off nearly 75%, and the trade volume so great and panic so broad, they had to close the market multiple times (for days at a time) in August and September. If one were to look at it as a Middle East sponsored event, it would have to get around the hit oil and sovereign wealth funds took. Iran is a possibility because they had significant inflows from oil in the period leading up to the event and about a year prior two stories that didn't get much play in the US media but broke in the blogs: a. Iran moved 70 billion of capital out of Europe and into Asia and b. an audit of the oil company showed that upwards of 30 billion dollars was missing.

[May Palin put the Tranzis beyond our pale.]

Good point, Rich. 'Roosian' was an inapt word. If not for himself, and notice that he's bragged of profiting nearly a billion dollars, then it was to advance the cause of international socialism and transnationalism. Thanks for the reminder that Roosia is no longer the main driving force of those movements.

[Rob Crawford]

There are frequent reports of attacks on US sites -- defense, infrastructure, finance -- coming from China, FSB, etc. This attack on Saddam was held back because no one could guarantee plausible deniability, not because it would be crossing a line that had never been crossed.

[matt]

when they decide to move, they will hit us as hard as they can. The internet is terribly vulnerable. North America depends on 5-6 trunk lines that route all traffic not only for us but for a better part of the world. Take 1 or 2 down, and there goes the whole shooting match.

The cell networks are just as vulnerable, and land lines are next. The military has satcom and hardened land lines, but regardless, you could see us back in the late 19th century very quickly in terms of communications. Our enemies are doing plenty of work to take those systems out as well. That is the reality of asymmetrical warfare.

What we have seen to date have been probes and DOS attacks, I think to prove principles and tactics. Funny how we don't hear about the same in Rooshia or China and yet we have more computer weenies than anyone except perhaps China and India.

[Crimso]

"Would that have been worth it in an attack on Iraq?"

A moot point. I'm quite certain they're working on the capability anyway, and have been since the dawn of computer networking.