How to Enhance the United States' Electronic Defenses

Wesley K. Clark and Peter L. Levin | Foreign Affairs | November/December 2009, Vol 88, No 6

Authors: WESLEY K. CLARK, a retired four-star General, was Supreme Commander of NATO from 1997 to 2000, led the alliance of military forces in the 1999 Kosovo War, and is a Senior Fellow at the Ron Burkle Center for International Relations at UCLA. PETER L. LEVIN was the founding CEO of the cybersecurity company DAFCA and is now Chief Technology Officer and Senior Adviser to the Secretary at the Department of Veterans Affairs. The views expressed in this article do not necessarily represent the views of the U.S. government.

During the July 4 holiday weekend, the latest in a series of cyberattacks was launched against popular government Web sites in the United States and South Korea, effectively shutting them down for several hours. It is unlikely that the real culprits will ever be identified or caught. Most disturbing, their limited success may embolden future hackers to attack critical infrastructure, such as power generators or air-traffic-control systems, with devastating consequences for the U.S. economy and national security.

As Defense Secretary Robert Gates wrote earlier this year in these pages, "The United States cannot kill or capture its way to victory" in the conflicts of the future. When it comes to cybersecurity, Washington faces an uphill battle. And as a recent Center for Strategic and International Studies report put it, "It is a battle we are losing."

There is no form of military combat more irregular than an electronic attack: it is extremely cheap, is very fast, can be carried out anonymously, and can disrupt or deny critical services precisely at the moment of maximum peril. Everything about the subtlety, complexity, and effectiveness of the assaults already inflicted on the United States' electronic defenses indicates that other nations have thought carefully about this form of combat. Disturbingly, they seem to understand the vulnerabilities of the United States' network infrastructure better than many Americans do.

It is tempting for policymakers to view cyberwarfare as an abstract future threat. After all, the national security establishment understands traditional military threats much better than it does virtual enemies. The problem is that an electronic attack can be large, widespread, and sudden -- far beyond the capabilities of conventional predictive models to anticipate. The United States is already engaged in low-intensity cyberconflicts, characterized by aggressive enemy efforts to collect intelligence on the country's weapons, electrical grid, traffic-control system, and even its financial markets. Fortunately, the Obama administration recognizes that the United States is utterly dependent on Internet-based systems and that its information assets are therefore precariously exposed. Accordingly, it has made electronic network security a crucial defense priority.

But networks are only the tip of the iceberg. Not only does Washington have a limited ability to detect when data has been pilfered, but the physical hardware components that undergird the United States' information highway are becoming increasingly insecure.

Obama Must Learn from Vietnam

BY WESLEY CLARK | New York Daily News | Monday, August 17th 2009

Much has been done in six months to deal with the ongoing war in Afghanistan. We have restated that our aim is to eliminate the threat of Al Qaeda; built a new leadership team, including Special Representative Richard Holbrooke; reinforced our troop strength and adjusted our tactics; and have begun augmenting our force with synchronized diplomatic, political and economic efforts.

But can we explain how all of this adds up to an effective strategy that will sustain American engagement in one of the world's least accessible regions?

The American people are growing increasingly wary. In a new CNN/Opinion research poll, fully 54% of respondents now say they oppose the U.S.-led fight against the Taliban and their Al Qaeda allies. Those are striking numbers, and a serious warning to the Obama administration.

The difficulty here lies less in PowerPoint presentations and more in the complexities of the war itself. Our real enemy, Al Qaeda, may now be more entrenched in Pakistan than in Afghanistan. Taking the fight directly into Pakistan with ground forces risks expanding the conflict and undercutting a fragile Pakistani civilian government.

The similarities to Vietnam are ominous. There, too, an insurgency was led and supported from outside the borders of the state in which our troops were fighting. There, too, sanctuaries across international borders stymied U.S. military efforts. There, too, broader political-strategic considerations weighed against military expansion of the conflict and forecast further struggles in the region.

And there, too, American public support slid away over time as our engagement ratcheted up and casualties mounted.

Our Vietnam experiences provide powerful lessons in how to explain strategy and retain public support, so we can ultimately succeed.

More at the New York Daily News

General Wesley Clark on Morning Joe

February 4, 2009

Transcription by RegNYC

(on tape)

Hillary Clinton: It is clear that, as the Foreign Secretary said, Iran has an opportunity to step up and become a productive member of the international community. As President Obama said, we are reaching out a hand, but the fist has to unclench.

(end tape)

Joe Scarborough: Alright.

Mika Brzezinski: Mmm.

Joe Scarborough: Let's bring in right now former NATO Supreme Allied Commander, retired General Wesley Clark and President of the Council on Foreign relations, Richard Haass.

Mika Brzezinski: Very nice.

Joe Scarborough: Richard, let's start with you with this stimulus package. There's a portion of it that a lot of people, a lot of our allies in the European Union are concerned about.

Richard Haass: For good reason. The House version of the stimulus package basically says that any iron and steel that's used in projects that are funded by the stimulus project have, have to be used- have to be produced from the- in the United States. Senate's even broader. Anything manufactured has to be manufactured in the United States. If we pass this in that form, the Europeans will retaliate, and whatever jobs we save here through the stimulus package will be more than offset by the jobs we will lose when American exporters lose their markets in Europe.

General Wesley Clark, Karl Rove faceoff at Univ. of Buffalo (Video)

Debate date: September 26, 2008 | Transcript by RegNYC

Article excerpts from The Buffalo News | Jay Rey | NEWS STAFF REPORTER

It wasn’t Obama-McCain, but Western New York had a pretty good debate of its own Friday night at the University at Buffalo. On one side was Karl Rove, Republican strategist and former White House deputy chief of staff.

On the other side was retired Army Gen. Wesley K. Clark, who had sought the Democratic Party’s nomination in 2004.

The two launched this year’s Distinguished Speakers Series in Alumni Arena with a bang, by debating some of the same contentious issues the presidential candidates faced, such as the economy, a $700 billion government bailout, health care and the war in Iraq.

Each started with five minutes for opening comments on his party’s slant.

“We are blessed to be citizens of this country,” Rove said. “There is something called the American Dream and people around the world want to share in it. Never lose sight this is the greatest country in the history of the world.”

“We’re a nation in trouble,” Clark said. “We need new ideas, and we need new leadership for America.”

Links to the Video of the Debate after the Jump

General Wesley Clark on the Ed Schultz Show

November 26, 2008
transcript by Reg NYC

Ed Schultz: 1-877-943-6833. Great friend of the program, General Wesley Clark. General, Great to have you back with us.

GENERAL WESLEY CLARK: Great to be with you, Ed.

Ed Schultz: And Happy Thanksgiving to you. Looking forward to it?

GENERAL WESLEY CLARK: Oh, I certainly am. I'm out with my family out in the Los Angeles area, and we're having a great time.

Ed Schultz: Fantastic. Secretary of Defense Mr. Gates, looks like he's going to stay in that position. What are your thoughts on that?

GENERAL WESLEY CLARK: I think it's a, it's a good move. I think he's been a very effective, pragmatic Secretary of Defense. He's only been on the job a couple of years. There's some big issues that are going to be coming up for this administration right away, including both Iraq and Iran as well as a new strategy for Afghanistan. The President's clearly going to be in charge. Hillary's going to be the Secretary of State working the overall policy directions. Why not have an experienced guy who's got his, his feet on the ground for a few more months in the Secretary of Defense's position?

Ed Schultz: Has he been a good Secretary of Defense?