Glenn Greenwald: Pentagon’s new massive expansion of ‘cyber-security’ unit is about everything except defense / Cyber-threats are the new pretext to justify expansion of power and profit for the public-private National Security State — from UK Guardian

As the US government depicts the Defense Department as shrinking due to budgetary constraints, the Washington Post this morning announces “a major expansion of [the Pentagon's] cybersecurity force over the next several years, increasing its size more than fivefold.” Specifically, says the New York Times this morning, “the expansion would increase the Defense Department’s Cyber Command by more than 4,000 people, up from the current 900.” The Post describes this expansion as “part of an effort to turn an organization that has focused largely on defensive measures into the equivalent of an Internet-era fighting force.” This Cyber Command Unit operates under the command of Gen. Keith Alexander, who also happens to be the head of the National Security Agency, the highly secretive government network that spies on the communications of foreign nationals – and American citizens.

The Pentagon’s rhetorical justification for this expansion is deeply misleading. Beyond that, these activities pose a wide array of serious threats to internet freedom, privacy, and international law that, as usual, will be conducted with full-scale secrecy and with little to no oversight and accountability. And, as always, there is a small army of private-sector corporations who will benefit most from this expansion.
Disguising aggression as “defense”

Let’s begin with the way this so-called “cyber-security” expansion has been marketed. It is part of a sustained campaign which, quite typically, relies on blatant fear-mongering.

In March, 2010, the Washington Post published an amazing Op-Ed by Adm. Michael McConnell, Bush’s former Director of National Intelligence and a past and current executive with Booz Allen, a firm representing numerous corporate contractors which profit enormously each time the government expands its “cyber-security” activities. McConnell’s career over the last two decades – both at Booz, Allen and inside the government – has been devoted to accelerating the merger between the government and private sector in all intelligence, surveillance and national security matters (it was he who led the successful campaign to retroactively immunize the telecom giants for their participation in the illegal NSA domestic spying program). Privatizing government cyber-spying and cyber-warfare is his primary focus now.

McConnell’s Op-Ed was as alarmist and hysterical as possible. Claiming that “the United States is fighting a cyber-war today, and we are losing”, it warned that “chaos would result” from an enemy cyber-attack on US financial systems and that “our power grids, air and ground transportation, telecommunications, and water-filtration systems are in jeopardy as well.” Based on these threats, McConnell advocated that “we” – meaning “the government and the private sector” – “need to develop an early-warning system to monitor cyberspace” and that “we need to reengineer the Internet to make attribution, geolocation, intelligence analysis and impact assessment – who did it, from where, why and what was the result – more manageable.” As Wired’s Ryan Singel wrote: “He’s talking about changing the internet to make everything anyone does on the net traceable and geo-located so the National Security Agency can pinpoint users and their computers for retaliation.”

The same week the Post published McConnell’s extraordinary Op-Ed, the Obama White House issued its own fear-mongering decree on cyber-threats, depicting the US as a vulnerable victim to cyber-aggression. It began with this sentence: “President Obama has identified cybersecurity as one of the most serious economic and national security challenges we face as a nation, but one that we as a government or as a country are not adequately prepared to counter.” It announced that “the Executive Branch was directed to work closely with all key players in US cybersecurity, including state and local governments and the private sector” and to “strengthen public/private partnerships”, and specifically announced Obama’s intent to “to implement the recommendations of the Cyberspace Policy Review built on the Comprehensive National Cybersecurity Initiative (CNCI) launched by President George W. Bush.”

Since then, the fear-mongering rhetoric from government officials has relentlessly intensified, all devoted to scaring citizens into believing that the US is at serious risk of cataclysmic cyber-attacks from “aggressors”. This all culminated when Defense Secretary Leon Panetta, last October, warned of what he called a “cyber-Pearl Harbor”. This “would cause physical destruction and the loss of life, an attack that would paralyze and shock the nation and create a profound new sense of vulnerability.” Identifying China, Iran, and terrorist groups, he outlined a parade of horribles scarier than anything since Condoleezza Rice’s 2002 Iraqi “mushroom cloud”:

“An aggressor nation or extremist group could use these kinds of cyber tools to gain control of critical switches. They could derail passenger trains, or even more dangerous, derail passenger trains loaded with lethal chemicals. They could contaminate the water supply in major cities, or shut down the power grid across large parts of the country.”

As usual, though, reality is exactly the opposite. This massive new expenditure of money is not primarily devoted to defending against cyber-aggressors. The US itself is the world’s leading cyber-aggressor. A major purpose of this expansion is to strengthen the US’s ability to destroy other nations with cyber-attacks. Indeed, even the Post report notes that a major component of this new expansion is to “conduct offensive computer operations against foreign adversaries”.

It is the US – not Iran, Russia or “terror” groups – which already is the first nation (in partnership with Israel) to aggressively deploy a highly sophisticated and extremely dangerous cyber-attack. Last June, the New York Times’ David Sanger reported what most of the world had already suspected: “From his first months in office, President Obama secretly ordered increasingly sophisticated attacks on the computer systems that run Iran’s main nuclear enrichment facilities, significantly expanding America’s first sustained use of cyberweapons.” In fact, Obama “decided to accelerate the attacks . . . even after an element of the program accidentally became public in the summer of 2010 because of a programming error that allowed it to escape Iran’s Natanz plant and sent it around the world on the Internet.” According to the Sanger’s report, Obama himself understood the significance of the US decision to be the first to use serious and aggressive cyber-warfare:

“Mr. Obama, according to participants in the many Situation Room meetings on Olympic Games, was acutely aware that with every attack he was pushing the United States into new territory, much as his predecessors had with the first use of atomic weapons in the 1940s, of intercontinental missiles in the 1950s and of drones in the past decade. He repeatedly expressed concerns that any American acknowledgment that it was using cyberweapons – even under the most careful and limited circumstances – could enable other countries, terrorists or hackers to justify their own attacks.”

The US isn’t the vulnerable victim of cyber-attacks. It’s the leading perpetrator of those attacks. As Columbia Professor and cyber expert Misha Glenny wrote in the NYT last June: Obama’s cyber-attack on Iran “marked a significant and dangerous turning point in the gradual militarization of the Internet.”

Indeed, exactly as Obama knew would happen, revelations that it was the US which became the first country to use cyber-warfare against a sovereign country – just as it was the first to use the atomic bomb and then drones – would make it impossible for it to claim with any credibility (except among its own media and foreign policy community) that it was in a defensive posture when it came to cyber-warfare. As Professor Glenny wrote: “by introducing such pernicious viruses as Stuxnet and Flame, America has severely undermined its moral and political credibility.” That’s why, as the Post reported yesterday, the DOJ is engaged in such a frantic and invasive effort to root out Sanger’s source: because it reveals the obvious truth that the US is the leading aggressor in the world when it comes to cyber-weapons.

This significant expansion under the Orwellian rubric of “cyber-security” is thus a perfect microcosm of US military spending generally. It’s all justified under by the claim that the US must defend itself from threats from Bad, Aggressive Actors, when the reality is the exact opposite: the new program is devoted to ensuring that the US remains the primary offensive threat to the rest of the world. It’s the same way the US develops offensive biological weapons under the guise of developing defenses against such weapons (such as the 2001 anthrax that the US government itself says came from a US Army lab). It’s how the US government generally convinces its citizens that it is a peaceful victim of aggression by others when the reality is that the US builds more weapons, sells more arms and bombs more countries than virtually the rest of the world combined.
Threats to privacy and internet freedom

Beyond the aggressive threat to other nations posed by the Pentagon’s “cyber-security” programs, there is the profound threat to privacy, internet freedom, and the ability to communicate freely for US citizens and foreign nationals alike. The US government has long viewed these “cyber-security” programs as a means of monitoring and controlling the internet and disseminating propaganda. The fact that this is all being done under the auspices of the NSA and the Pentagon means, by definition, that there will be no transparency and no meaningful oversight.

Back in 2003, the Rumsfeld Pentagon prepared a secret report entitled “Information Operations (IO) Roadmap”, which laid the foundation for this new cyber-warfare expansion. The Pentagon’s self-described objective was “transforming IO into a core military competency on par with air, ground, maritime and special operations”. In other words, its key objective was to ensure military control over internet-based communications:
dod cyber

It further identified superiority in cyber-attack capabilities as a vital military goal in PSYOPs (Psychological Operations) and “information-centric fights”:
dod cyber

And it set forth the urgency of dominating the “IO battlespace” not only during wartime but also in peacetime:
dod cyber

As a 2006 BBC report on this Pentagon document noted: “Perhaps the most startling aspect of the roadmap is its acknowledgement that information put out as part of the military’s psychological operations, or Psyops, is finding its way onto the computer and television screens of ordinary Americans.” And while the report paid lip service to the need to create “boundaries” for these new IO military activities, “they don’t seem to explain how.” Regarding the report’s plan to “provide maximum control of the entire electromagnetic spectrum”, the BBC noted: “Consider that for a moment. The US military seeks the capability to knock out every telephone, every networked computer, every radar system on the planet.”

Since then, there have been countless reports of the exploitation by the US national security state to destroy privacy and undermine internet freedom. In November, the LA Times described programs that “teach students how to spy in cyberspace, the latest frontier in espionage.” They “also are taught to write computer viruses, hack digital networks, crack passwords, plant listening devices and mine data from broken cellphones and flash drives.” The program, needless to say, “has funneled most of its graduates to the CIA and the Pentagon’s National Security Agency, which conducts America’s digital spying. Other graduates have taken positions with the FBI, NASA and the Department of Homeland Security.”

In 2010, Lawrence E. Strickling, Assistant Secretary of Commerce for Communications and Information, gave a speech explicitly announcing that the US intends to abandon its policy of “leaving the Internet alone”. Noting that this “has been the nation’s Internet policy since the Internet was first commercialized in the mid-1990s”, he decreed: “This was the right policy for the United States in the early stages of the Internet, and the right message to send to the rest of the world. But that was then and this is now.”

The documented power of the US government to monitor and surveil internet communications is already unfathomably massive. Recall that the Washington Post’s 2010 “Top Secret America” series noted that: “Every day, collection systems at the National Security Agency intercept and store 1.7 billion e-mails, phone calls and other types of communications.” And the Obama administration has formally demanded that it have access to any and all forms of internet communication.

It is hard to overstate the danger to privacy and internet freedom from a massive expansion of the National Security State’s efforts to exploit and control the internet. As Wired’s Singel wrote back in 2010:

“Make no mistake, the military industrial complex now has its eye on the internet. Generals want to train crack squads of hackers and have wet dreams of cyberwarfare. Never shy of extending its power, the military industrial complex wants to turn the internet into yet another venue for an arms race”.

Wildly exaggerated cyber-threats are the pretext for this control, the “mushroom cloud” and the Tonkin Gulf fiction of cyber-warfare. As Singel aptly put it: “the only war going on is one for the soul of the internet.” That’s the vital context for understanding this massive expansion of Pentagon and NSA consolidated control over cyber programs.
Bonanza for private contractors

As always, it is not just political power but also private-sector profit driving this expansion. As military contracts for conventional war-fighting are modestly reduced, something needs to replace it, and these large-scale “cyber-security” contracts are more than adequate. Virtually every cyber-security program from the government is carried out in conjunction with its “private-sector partners”, who receive large transfers of public funds for this work.

Two weeks ago, Business Week reported that “Lockheed Martin Corp., AT&T Inc., and CenturyLink Inc. are the first companies to sign up for a US program giving them classified information on cyber threats that they can package as security services for sale to other companies.” This is part of a government effort “to create a market based on classified US information about cyber threats.” In May, it was announced that “the Pentagon is expanding and making permanent a trial program that teams the government with Internet service providers to protect defense firms’ computer networks against data theft by foreign adversaries” – all as “part of a larger effort to broaden the sharing of classified and unclassified cyberthreat data between the government and industry.”

Indeed, there is a large organization of defense and intelligence contractors devoted to one goal: expanding the private-public merger for national security and intelligence functions. This organization – the Intelligence and National Security Alliance (INSA) – was formerly headed by Adm. McConnell, and describes itself as a “collaboration by leaders from throughout the US Intelligence Community” which “combines the experience of senior leaders from government, the private sector, and academia.”

As I detailed back in 2010, one of its primary goals is to scare the nation about supposed cyber-threats in order to justify massive new expenditures for the private-sector intelligence industry on cyber-security measures and vastly expanded control over the internet. Indeed, in his 2010 Op-Ed, Adm. McConnell expressly acknowledged that the growing privatization of internet cyber-security programs “will muddy the waters between the traditional roles of the government and the private sector.” At the very same time McConnell published this Op-Ed, the INSA website featured a report entitled “Addressing Cyber Security Through Public-Private Partnership.” It featured a genuinely creepy graphic showing the inter-connectedness between government institutions (such as Congress and regulatory agencies), the Surveillance State, private intelligence corporations, and the Internet:

Private-sector profit is now inextricably linked with the fear-mongering campaign over cyber-threats. At one INSA conference in 2009 – entitled “Cyber Deterrence Conference” – government officials and intelligence industry executives gathered together to stress that “government and private sector actors should emphasize collaboration and partnership through the creation of a model that assigns specific roles and responsibilities.”

As intelligence contractor expert Tim Shorrock told Democracy Now when McConnell – then at Booz Allen – was first nominated to be DNI:

Well, the NSA, the National Security Agency, is really sort of the lead agency in terms of outsourcing . . . . Booz Allen is one of about, you know, ten large corporations that play a very major role in American intelligence. Every time you hear about intelligence watching North Korea or tapping al-Qaeda phones, something like that, you can bet that corporations like these are very heavily involved. And Booz Allen is one of the largest of these contractors. I estimate that about 50% of our $45 billion intelligence budget goes to private sector contractors like Booz Allen.

This public-private merger for intelligence and surveillance functions not only vests these industries with large-scale profits at public expense, but also the accompanying power that was traditionally reserved for government. And unlike government agencies, which are at least subjected in theory to some minimal regulatory oversight, these private-sector actors have virtually none, even as their surveillance and intelligence functions rapidly increase.

What Dwight Eisenhower called the military-industrial complex has been feeding itself on fear campaigns since it was born. A never-ending carousel of Menacing Enemies – Communists, Terrorists, Latin American Tyrants, Saddam’s chemical weapons, Iranian mullahs – has sustained it, and Cyber-Threats are but the latest.

Like all of these wildly exaggerated cartoon menaces, there is some degree of threat posed by cyber-attacks. But, as Singel described, all of this can be managed with greater security systems for public and private computer networks – just as some modest security measures are sufficient to deal with the terrorist threat.

This new massive expansion has little to do with any actual cyber-threat – just as the invasion of Iraq and global assassination program have little to do with actual terrorist threats. It is instead all about strengthening the US’s offensive cyber-war capabilities, consolidating control over the internet, and ensuring further transfers of massive public wealth to private industry continue unabated. In other words, it perfectly follows the template used by the public-private US National Security State over the last six decades to entrench and enrich itself based on pure pretext.

About Thom Prentice

"Thom Prentice? Well, he planted a lot of trees." We are a part OF Nature — not apart FROM Nature. Lennonist. Poet and Naturalist. Living life of the mind. Journo. thom prentice [at] (g) male dot com *****Someone just "followed" me on twitter, a "corporate trainer". How can a corporation be trained? Is a corporation a person? A person that can be trained? I am a teacher, I have never "trained" anyone nor would I even think of it let alone think of assembling those words. I taught people, not subjects. Most doctors treat diseases, not people. The subject areas in which I facilitated learning for people were journalism, English, Limited Proficient English, history, government, and a variety of Teacher Education and Learning Theory and Practice (praxis) courses where there were people -- human beings -- Homo sapiens sapiens -- seeking to learn.***** Noam Chomsky. Poet. Naturalist. Philosophe. Albert Schweitzer. Seeker. Prizes wisdom and truth. Likes to drive with the windows down and sunroof open/No A/C. Diogenes looking for an honest person. Deborah Tannen. Knowledge pusher. Mindfulness. Urban Hermit. Eschews language which obscures the humanity of human beings, causality, and the sentience of all beings: "staffing," "collateral damage," "decedent," "the poor," "targeting," "'pure'/'impure'," "customer care center," "casualties," "working class", "audience", "original sin". Diogenes looking for an open-minded person. Derrick Jensen. Longtime Global Warming Alarmist. Declasse Intellectual. Avec sans culottes. Urban Anchorite. Wakefulness. Longtime Global Capitalism-Ain'tWorking alarmist. Naomi Klein. Longtime pro-Democracy, pro-civil rights and pro- human rights activist/Alarmist. ***** Did the revolutionary Mae West rattle the Puritan fascist American teacups or what? ***** IS IT NOT TIME TO GET OUT OF THE RESTLESS AMNESIA OF THE NEWS CYCLE WHICH DISTRACTS FROM ONGOING, SYSTEMIC, STRUCTURAL DEFECTS OF KAPITALISM/QAPITALISM, MILITARISM, FASCISM, EMPIRE AND INDUSTRIAL HIGH TECH SURVEILLANCE/POLICE STATE CIVILIZATION***** The role of public intellectuals is to question accepted dogmas, conceive of new methods of analysis, and expand the terms of public debate. (The New Yorker) Like Thomas Piketty, when I start reading and thinking, collecting data and making observations, I have no idea where it will go. Historical Conceptualist, Not Minute Detailist (Francois Furet) A Texas Public Intellectual: Public Intellecty'all ***** Journalist/former teacher/prof. Trying to live counterculturally, limiting travel, living with less stuff, using less electricity and natural gas, Turned the TV Off in 2011... Anti-Fascist. Jeffrey St. Clair. Egalitarian. Robert Frost. Humanist. Naturalist. Earthist. Absolutely Pro-Democracy/Democracies. Afflicting the comfortable and comforting the afflicted in a civilization which comforts the comfortable and afflicts the afflicted.***** Undermining assumptions. Poet. Essayist. Photographer. Writer. George Lakoff. Authentic Journalist. FreeThinker. CriticalThinker. Controversialist.*****Either capitalism carries fascism in its DNA or fascism carries capitalism in ITS DNA. It is clear that capitalism and democracy cannot co-exist. Democracy should rule capitalism but capitalism should Not rule democracy. John Michael Greer. Capitalism is in catastrophic failure as we speak. Chris Hedges. It is time to talk about ***** a Socialista alternative? a Mixed Economy alternative? *****. Gorbachev of the Soviet Union: glasnost, perestroika, democratizya and the Evil US Empire could use a big dose of all three. Richard D. Wolff. POLITICAL democracy is USELESS without ECONOMIC democracy. ***** I carry a cosmic perspective with me per Neil deGrasse Tyson. Public Intellecty'all. Ally Fogg. Authentic Journalist. Pro-Democracy Advocate. Anti-Stalinist/Fascist. bell hooks. Ralph Ellison. Human Rights Activist. GWM. Contrarian. Howard Zinn. ***** CounterNarratives and CounterForces (checks and balances against societal power structures) are required for a society to be free and democratic. ***** Atomist. Epicurean. Lucretius: “De Rerum Natura” or "On The Nature of Things"Liere Keith.***** I do not trust a single institution in this society from the ground up. Asker of awkward and inconvenient questions. Turn off the TV. I like Bonobos (the animals, NOT the pants), dogs and elephants. Failed parallel parking. Post-partisan and post-ideological. People First. Democracy First. Used to dance with his shirt off. *****Carl Sagan. If more people would have more sex more often -- even if self-inflicted -- the world would be a much happier place***** WhistleBlower from the ground up. Speaking Truth to Power/Truth for People. "I think it is primarily getting TRUTH into discussion" -- stolen from my friend Chuck. Arundhati Roy.***** Gay White Male, educated, comfortably middle class [but now poor], and born in the United States—in short, “a privileged citizen of a predatory imperial nation-state within a pathological capitalist economic system.” (Direct steal from Dr. Robert Jensen, UT-Austin)***** WhiteGuy, Intellecty'all, James Baldwin. Symbologist [for those who like Dan Brown and The DaVinci Code], Deconstructioneer, Scribbler, Scrivener, Authentic Journalist, Reader, Thinker, Lifelong Learner, 14 year cancer fighter/survivor (it keeps coming back) just finishing yet another year of chemo, former high school teacher, editor, and college prof, Ph.D. - UT-Austin - 1995. Elizabeth Kolbert. "Dr. Democracy", Return to 'The Customer Is Always Right' Capitalism Advocate. Shameless flirt. "The Ruin".*****24601***** “The sleep of reason breeds monsters.” - Francisco Goya***** The more we learn about animals, the more we learned about ourselves.***** Curtis White. It is time for Direct Non-Violent Resistance, Rebellion, Revolt against the entire system, except that I find it credible that the entire system is collapsing on itself and we might not have to do anything except think about how we want our society organized after the collapse. Henry Giroux. ***** Facebook Page: Thomas Prentice***** There is no conscience in Capitalism. Democracy should rule Capitalism but Capitalism should NEVER rule Democracy. Without Economic Democracy, political democracy is useless and worthless and even deranged.***** Barrington Moore. Our economic and social arrangements need to be changed but not just from one bad, rigid, closed, arbitrary, bureaucratic, Stalinist/Fascist or State Capitalist ideology to another. Let’s talk about and create new social arrangements, new democracies. Douglass Kellner. Les Miserables.***** Karl Marx was accurate and correct about how Industrial Capitalism causes people to become alienated from each other. He was also accurate and correct about his 'labor theory of value' which shows why/how Capitalist thieves steal the value of a person's labor. A person works so many hours or days for s/himself and the rest of the labor is "free" and therefore that “free labor value” goes to the Capitalist One Per Centers as profit. And Marx was also accurate and correct in a whole lot of other things, principally his critique of capitalism and his analysis of society. We don't know anything about Marx -- who was a sociologist and not an economist btw -- and neither do we know anything about Adam Smith and capitalism -- except to bow down and worship the "wisdom of the (monopoly controlled) market". That is because neither capitalism nor socialism nor plain basic economics is a graduation requirement for any high school or university in the US Empire. White Rock lake park in Dallas. Lake Travis. Lady Bird Lake in Austin. The San Marcos River. Yosemite. Yellowstone. *****Mars Attacks.***** The United States was founded on the pillars of genocide; slavery; racism; white supremacy; male supremacy; christian supremacy; compulsory heterosexuality; abuse of humans and nature; exploitation of humans and nature; and especially full-blown hypocrisy. And Jesus did not like hypocrisy or hypocrites. ***** Chris Hedges, Rimbaud, Thomas Piketty, Rumi, Glenn Greenwald. Lewis Mumford, Richard Hofstadter, Derrick Jensen, Chris Hedges, Jesus/Yehsua and Buddha, Paul Krugman, David Foster Wallace, Henry A. Giroux, Christopher Lasch, Horkheimer and Adorno, Chris Hedges, Douglass Kellner, Max Weber, Jurgen Habermas, Jeffrey St. Clair, Dietrich Bonhoeffer, JFK, Normon Solomon, Richard Wolff, Jacques Derrida, Michel Foucault, Albert Camus, Federico Garcia Lorca, John Lennon, Bruce Springsteen, Willie Nelson, Voltaire, Evidence is everywhere indicating the looming apocalypse.***** People tell me that I "pull no punches": and I agree. But as I try to avoid racist and misogynist words and phrases and thinking, I also try to avoid masculinist terms and thinking, especially terms of violence and sports terms, military terms. In high school my newspaper column was called "Like it Is" and I prefer to think of myself in those terms -- telling it "Like It Is".*****TURN OFF THE TV NEWS! INDEED TURN OFF THE TV! It is the very MEDIUM of television that is so toxic, hypnotizing, and mind-numbing. Canadian theorist Marshall McLuhan, ins a time of black and white TV and only three channels said that "the medium is the message". In other words, it doesn't matter WHAT programming you watch on TV, the very MEDIUM is the REAL MESSAGE. The MEDIUM of TV is a MASS DRUG used by the capitalist and state power to turn people numb and dumb. TV is a mind transducer, keeping watchers from even thinking let alone engaging in reflection and achieving self-awareness as engaging in human interactions. What matters is if the TV is ON or if it is OFF. TURN OFF THE TV!

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>