“Finally, in recognition of the fact that this war is not only being fought on the ground in Iraq but also in cyberspace, it also notes the need to contest the enemy’s growing use of that important medium to spread extremism.”
This will no doubt fuel the fires of those who seek the destruction of Jihadist sites, though as I have mentioned before, that’s a short-sighted view.
Disruption is certainly warranted, but I’m not aware of a coherent, unified picture of the online Jihadist environment from which such decisions can be made. I’m sure SITE, Internet Haganah, etc. have their snapshots, but that’s not good enough for a well thought out strategic campaign.
Uncle Sam has his efforts as well (that’s all I’m going to say about that) but if my own experience is any indication, there is no agreement at the highest levels of the community about how to proceed (or if we should at all) much less how to do it.
The 800 lb gorilla in the room: How do we leverage the sites that stay up without violating US law, international law, Smith-Mundt, etc.?
This is something that should be done, it is entirely do-able, but I’ve yet to see the strategic glue or the political will necessary to make it happen.
Comments (5)
It is too late in the game to expect a well thought out strategic communications campaign from Uncle Sam. Uncle Sam is paralyzed by sectarian gridlock. Volunteer civilian irregular cyber guerrillas may be the last line of defense.
Posted by Cannoneer No4![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://haftofthespear.com/nav-commenters.gif)
|
September 10, 2007 8:52 PM
Posted on September 10, 2007 20:52
I think it is less a question of lateness (got plenty of war left to fight) as it is will. Even providing broad guidance, a template, themes others (read: irregulars) can work from is beyond them. Too many real or perceived equities to defend (against budget cuts, not an actual shooting enemy).
Sad, really.
Posted by Michael Tanji![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://haftofthespear.com/nav-commenters.gif)
|
September 11, 2007 4:27 PM
Posted on September 11, 2007 16:27
My friend Pat agrees with you and says we should phish them.
http://angryguywhodontknowmuch.blogspot.com/2007/09/coming-cyberwar.html
Also this is a question I plan on asking a couple different panels at my upcoming conference - or perhaps you should show up and ask yourself!
http://a517dogg.blogspot.com/2007/09/come-to-my-conference.html
Posted by Adrian Martin![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://haftofthespear.com/nav-commenters.gif)
|
September 11, 2007 8:33 PM
Posted on September 11, 2007 20:33
Russian hackers and American bot-herders vs. AQ.com - I’d pay to see that! ;-)
I tried to make conference attendance work, but I had a couple of other plates in the air and couldn’t get things to sync. I try to have at least two birds to kill for a flight back east. Regretful.
There will be proceedings, right?
Posted by Michael Tanji![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://haftofthespear.com/nav-commenters.gif)
|
September 12, 2007 2:49 PM
Posted on September 12, 2007 14:49
I’ll post some comments about the conference, but since everything’s not-for-attribution, I don’t feel comfortable going in to much detail. I think some powerpoint briefing might be available on the web, however.
Posted by Adrian Martin![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://haftofthespear.com/nav-commenters.gif)
|
September 13, 2007 9:22 AM
Posted on September 13, 2007 09:22