17 September 2016

Gradually burying non-alignment


New Delhi is showing signs of pursuing strategic autonomy separately from non-alignment under Narendra Modi

In a move of great significance, Prime Minister Narendra Modi is not attending the 17th Non-Aligned Movement (NAM) summit, currently taking place in Venezuela’s Margarita Island. Instead, India is likely to be represented by vice-president Hamid Ansari on 17-18 September. NAM was founded in Belgrade in 1961 by Jawaharlal Nehru, Indonesia’s first president, Sukarno, Egypt’s second president, Gamal Abdel Nasser, Ghana’s first president, Kwame Nkrumah, and Yugoslavia’s president, Josip Broz Tito. This will be only the second time an Indian prime minister will give the summit a miss since the country co-founded the movement. The only other case was of Charan Singh in 1979; he was then a caretaker prime minister.

Modi’s explicit shift away from the legacy of Nehru is a significant departure from the traditional foreign policy approach of New Delhi. Indian policymakers’ fixation with non-alignment has remained a central component of Indian identity in global politics that is manifest in continuities: Since independence in 1947, India has been in pursuit of strategic autonomy, a quest that in practice has led to semi-alliances fashioned under the cover of non-alignment and shaped by regional dynamics. In this setting, the rise of China now raises an interesting conundrum for Indian policymakers as New Delhi seeks to balance the benefits and risks of an increasingly assertive neighbour and a network of alliances with like-minded countries.

The ‘Lost’ Operation Against Pakistan in Chorbat La

Sep 14, 2016

After Kargil, India secured an important peak and outwitted Pakistan. But officially, this operation never happened

When the Line of Control was demarcated after the Shimla Agreement, it was done with a “thick pen” on a small scale map – 1/4 inch to a mile or one centimetre to 2.5 kilometre scale. Once interpreted on a large scale map – one inch to a mile or one centimetre to 500 meters – the differences become glaring, with claims and counter claims by both sides on the ground. This problem came to the fore post-Kargil War as most of the area that was being secured now, was earlier not physically held by both sides.

In the Batalik-Yaldor-Chorbatla Sector, which was under the command of my brigade, we had four such tactical features that needed to be secured. All of them were on the formidable Ladakh range and heights varied from 5,200-5,300 meters or 17,000 to 17,500 feet. Post the Kargil War, these features were not secured by either side due to initial errors of judgment and the onset of winter. Out of the four, three features that were in the Batalik and Yaldor Sub Sectors were not a cause for concern as the approach from our side was easy and extremely difficult from the Pakistani side. Chorbat La Sub Sector had one feature, Point (Pt) 5310, which posed a peculiar problem. Pt 5310 was covered by the ‘thick pen’ used while demarcating the LOC, but the approach to it (particularly in winter) was arduous. The LOC beyond Pt 5310 took a ‘U’ turn of two kilometer towards us.

After that, the LOC ran along the base of the ‘U’ for six kilometres before turning north towards the Pakistani side for two kilometres. The area of the ‘U’ was known as Karubar Bowl (a nullah is known as a ‘bar’ in this area and a ‘bowl’ is the military term for a small valley) and a road from its northern end connected it to Siari on the Shyok River, opening an avenue to cut off Pakistani defences opposite the Turtok Sector. The feasible approach for us was over a glacier at the southern end of Karubar Bowl, but it involved a movement of two kilometres through Pakistani territory. Whoever controlled Pt 5310 also controlled the 12 square kilometres of Karubar Bowl – which meant that if we secured Pt 5310, we would also ‘tactically’ control 12 square kilometres of Pakistani territory. Domination of this area also threatened the Pakistani posts opposite Turtok Sector from the rear.

India’s growing federal fault lines


Inter-state disparities may set up a struggle between centrifugal and centripetal forces

In the year 1960, the per capita gross domestic product (GDP) of Maharashtra, then India’s richest state, was twice that of Bihar, the poorest. By the year 2014, the gulf between the richest state (now Kerala) and Bihar, still the poorest, had doubled. In a recent briefing paper, Vivek Dehejia and Praveen Chakravarty, two senior fellows at the think tank IDFC Institute—the former also a Mint columnist—have thrown into sharp relief India’s inter-state income disparity.

The per capita incomes of the 12 largest states of India, the paper shows, have been diverging instead of converging, as would be predicted by the neoclassical models of economic growth. India’s experience is at odds with those of states/provinces in the US and China, and the member states of the European Union. The incomes of constituent units in the US, China and EU have either converged or at least have not diverged.

In India too, the level of divergence, the authors find, remained static between 1960 and 1990 and only began to increase after the economic liberalization of 1991. The two, however, do not blame the liberalization and justifiably so, as more evidence would be required to make a tenable claim.

India’s inter-state disparity is not just confined to income levels. The states diverge on several other economic, social and demographic indicators. But one particular indicator needs to be mentioned. That is total fertility rate (TFR)—or the average number of children a woman bears during her entire reproductive period. Interestingly, the three poorest states in the Dehejia-Chakravarty analysis are also the three with the highest TFR in India, and in the same order. The culprits, Bihar, Uttar Pradesh and Madhya Pradesh, with 2013 fertility rates of 3.4, 3.1 and 2.9, respectively, are behind the lower middle-income countries’ average, according to World Bank data.

Even The Supreme Court Agrees, NGOs Have Become A Problem


September 14, 2016

There is no love loss between the current government and the Non-Governmental Organisations (NGOs).

Foreign funding of the NGOs has been a particular area of concern for the government as it believes that the NGOs run the agenda of those who bankroll them. And these foreign funders have no skin in the game or stake in India’s progress, so when the NGOs backed by them try to stall development projects, this further helps validates the government’s suspicions.

Prime Minister Narendra Modi has had many run-ins with these NGOs, the most infamous being the row over his pet project, Sardar Sarovar Dam, when he was the Gujarat chief minister.

Last year, his government cancelled the registrations of over 10,000 NGOs under the Foreign Contribution Regulation Act (FCRA) which governs foreign funding of NGOs. Recently, it fired a Joint Secretary in the Home Ministry for the online renewal of FCRA license of Islamic preacher Zakir Naik’s NGO.

The government has been heavily criticised for its high-handedness in dealing with the NGOs. But today, it has received the endorsement of none other than the highest court in the country.

Singur: A Sad Tale Of Lost Opportunities


September 14, 2016

Bengal Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee visits Singur today (14 Sept.).

No matter what promises she makes to them, the ‘Singur stigma’ will weigh heavily both on her and the locals there.

Singur could have been what today’s prosperous Sanand in Gujarat is. But thanks to Mamata’s fight against the Tatas, it remains beset by problems.

When Bengal Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee goes to Singur, about 38 kilometres north-west of Kolkata, today (14 Sept.), she will see a sea of faces that will reflect both remorse and hope. Remorse over their monumental mistake in supporting Mamata’s stir against the Tata small car project on their land a decade ago, and hope that Mamata will bring industry back where they will find employment.

But their collective hopes are bound to be dashed. The ‘Singur stigma’ weighs heavy on Mamata, whose continued pursuance of street politics keeps reinforcing her anti-industry and mercurial image. And despite all that she claims and promises to the people of Singur today, bringing industry back to Bengal will be tough, if not impossible, for her.

Though Mamata shed “tears of joy” when she learnt of the Supreme Court verdictat the end of last month, quashing the allotment of land at Singur to Tata Motors, there was really nothing for either Mamata, the people of Singur or the rest of Bengal to cheer about. Because at the end of the day, the land that was given to the Tatas is now hardly cultivable and the holdings are so small that growing crops on them will barely bring two square meals a day to the cultivators.

China ramps up military modernization with new logistics force

September 14, 2016

The online news portal of TV5

China's military has set up a new logistics support force as part of efforts to reform and modernize the world's largest armed forces, state media has reported.

President Xi Jinping's push to reform the military coincides with China becoming more assertive in its territorial disputes with Asian neighbors in the East and South China Seas.

China's navy is investing in submarines and aircraft carriers and its air force is developing stealth fighters.

In January, China created three new military units, including a missile force that controls its nuclear deterrent.

The new joint logistics force would better support military operations, the official Xinhua news agency said late on Tuesday.

The move "is a strategic decision by the Communist Party's Central Committee and Central Military Commission to comprehensively deepen national defense and military reform," Xinhua cited Xi as telling a ceremony in Beijing.

"It is of far-reaching significance to establishing a modern joint logistics support force with Chinese characteristics and building a world-leading military," he said.

*** China Is Still Really Poor

By Jacob L. Shapiro 
Sept. 15, 2016 

A daily explanation of what matters and what doesn't in the world of geopolitics. 

China says it has lifted 700 million people out of poverty. What does that really mean? 

If you go to the World Bank’s country overview page for China, you will find a striking comment in the first paragraph: “Since initiating market reforms in 1978, China…has lifted more than 800 million people out of poverty.” Speaking at the G-20 summit in Hangzhou at the beginning of this month, Chinese President Xi Jinping said that China has lifted “more than 700 million people out of poverty” and improved the living standards for 1.3 billion people overall. So China and the World Bank agree, give or take a hundred million people.

Xi also noted in his remarks that this success is unprecedented in human history. He happens to be correct about that – no country has ever made the sort of developmental leaps that China has made in the last 38 years since opening up its economy, or in the last 67 years since the Communist Party came to power. The problem is that the World Bank’s definition of poverty in this case is extremely narrow, and the 800 million figure obscures, rather than reveals, that poverty is still a significant problem in China and one of the most important drivers of our forecast for the country. 


The World Bank began tracking poverty in China in 1981. In that year, 88.3 percent of China’s population lived on less than $1.90 a day (roughly 870 million people). Push the threshold up a little bit and poverty in China was even more striking: 99.1 percent of China’s population lived on less than $3.10 a day (over 980 million people). The last year for which the World Bank has official data is 2010, and the transformation, as you can see in the line graph above, is extraordinary. In 2010, only 11.2 percent (almost 150 million people) lived on less than $1.90 a day. Not shown above is that 27.2 percent (almost 360 million people) lived on less than $3.10 a day.

‘We Misled You’: How the Saudis Are Coming Clean on Funding Terrorism On his latest trip, a former senior U.S. official finds a new attitude in Riyadh. But will it stick? Read more: http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2016/09/saudi-arabia-terrorism-funding-214241#ixzz4KG0l2A2t Follow us: @politico on Twitter | Politico on Facebook

By ZALMAY KHALILZAD 
September 14, 2016 

On my most recent trip to Saudi Arabia, I was greeted with a startling confession. In the past, when we raised the issue of funding Islamic extremists with the Saudis, all we got were denials. This time, in the course of meetings with King Salman, Crown Prince Nayef, Deputy Crown Mohammad Bin Salman and several ministers, one top Saudi official admitted to me, “We misled you.” He explained that Saudi support for Islamic extremism started in the early 1960s as a counter to Nasserism—the socialist political ideology that came out of the thinking of Egypt’s Gamal Abdel Nasser—which threatened Saudi Arabia and led to war between the two countries along the Yemen border. This tactic allowed them to successfully contain Nasserism, and the Saudis concluded that Islamism could be a powerful tool with broader utility.

Under their new and unprecedented policy of honesty, the Saudi leadership also explained to me that their support for extremism was a way of resisting the Soviet Union, often in cooperation with the United States, in places like Afghanistan in the 1980s. In this application too, they argued, it proved successful. Later it was deployed against Iranian-supported Shiite movements in the geopolitical competition between the two countries.

But over time, the Saudis say, their support for extremism turned on them, metastasizing into a serious threat to the Kingdom and to the West. They had created a monster that had begun to devour them. “We did not own up to it after 9/11 because we feared you would abandon or treat us as the enemy,” the Saudi senior official conceded. “And we were in denial.”

Cyber Command leader: ISIS is 'most adaptive


September 13, 2016 

The head of Cyber Command told senators on Tuesday that the Islamic State group is "the most adaptive target" he's seen during his time in the intelligence community. 

“ISIL remains the most adaptive target I’ve ever worked in 35 years as an intelligence professional,” Adm. Michael Rogers told the Senate Armed Services Committee, using an alternative acronym for the group. 

ISIS has proven adept online using the internet and encrypted communications platforms to push propaganda, recruit and communicate. The use of encrypted applications, such as the German company Telegram, allows terrorists to communicate securely with fighters deployed outside the group’s traditional battlefield in the Middle East, as well as new recruits without fear of being monitored by government snooping. 

This encryption challenge has amplified the age-old security versus privacy debate. Rogers offered a different outlook on the problem noting that rather than focus on specific applications and users, applying a broad approach could expose vulnerabilities to generate intelligence. 

“The argument I’m trying to make from both the [National Security Administration] and the Cyber Command side is: 'Guys, we’re dealing with a whole new ecosystem out there,' ” said Rogers, who also directs the NSA. “Don’t focus on just one particular application as used by one particular target, think more broadly about the host of actors that are out there. … If we look at this more as an ecosystem — and we will find vulnerabilities — that we can access to generate the insights that the nation and our allies is counting on.” 

The Top U.S. Universities For International Students

by Felix Richter, Statista.com
13 September 2016

Which U.S. university can boast the most international flair?

974,926 international students were enrolled in U.S. universities last year, accounting for just under five percent of the total undergraduate population. NYU hosted the most of them, 13,178, according to Institute of International Education data published by the Wall Street Journal. It was followed by the University of Southern California (12,334) and Columbia University (11,510).

This chart shows the number of international students at U.S. universities in 2014/15.



You will find more statistics at Statista

Syrian Refugees, Who Is Taking Their Fair Share

by Felix Richter, Statista.com

-- this post authored by Niall McCarthy

Just over a year ago, images of a drowned Syrian boy who washed up on a Turkish beach shocked people across the world.

Britain pledged to take 20,000 refugees since then but so far, only 2,800 have been resettled in the UK. The following infographic is based on an Oxfam report showing how countries are progressing at taking in refugees in relation to the size of their economy. Britain is doing quite badly while Norway and Canada are progressing extremely well.

This chart shows pledged places as a percentage of 'fair share' based on size of economy.



You will find more statistics at Statista.

In overvaluing confidence, we’ve forgotten the power of humility


September 14, 2016

There's a lot we can learn from each other. (AP Photo/Mel Evans) 

“If I only had a little humility, I’d be perfect,” the media mogul Ted Turner supposedly said sometime in the 1990s, in a moment of narcissistic exuberance. While Turner has been much humbler since, today’s breed of tech entrepreneurs often display a similar arrogance.

Why be humble? After all, Aristotle said: “All men by nature desire to know.” Intellectual humility is a particular instance of humility, since you can be down-to-earth about most things and still ignore your mental limitations. Intellectual humility means recognizing that we don’t know everything—and what we do know, we shouldn’t use to our advantage. Instead, we should acknowledge that we’re probably biased in our belief about just how much we understand, and seek out the sources of wisdom that we lack.

The internet and digital media have created the impression of limitless knowledge at our fingertips. But, by making us lazy, they have opened up a space that ignorance can fill. On the Edge website, the psychologist Tania Lombrozo of the University of California explained how technology enhances our illusions of wisdom. She argues that the way we access information about an issue is critical to our understanding—and the more easily we can recall an image, word or statement, the more likely we’ll think we’ve successfully learned it, and so refrain from effortful cognitive processing. Logical puzzles presented in an unfriendly font, for example, can encourage someone to make extra effort to solve them. Yet this approach runs counter to the sleek designs of the apps and sites that populate our screens, where our brain processes information in a deceptively smooth way.

Can the vote really be hacked? Here's what you need to know

SEPTEMBER 14, 2016 

The Democratic National Committee breach and FBI warnings of hackers tampering with election boards has some officials on edge. But simple fixes could further safeguard the vote.

Recent cyberattacks on state voter databases and the Democratic National Committee are raising fresh concerns that hackers could manipulate the upcoming presidential election.

In Washington on Tuesday, Rep. Barry Loudermilk (R) of Georgia said, "Rightly, we should be concerned about the integrity of our election system," during a congressional hearing in which lawmakers quizzed officials about the potential flaws at US polls. 

Indeed, the DNC hack and data dump, which cybersecurity experts andunnamed US officials have blamed on Russian operatives, and the recent FBI warning that unknown hackers tampered with state board of elections in Illinois and Arizona have surfaced troubling questions about the mechanics and processes that underpin American democracy. 

But should Americans really be concerned that hackers could tamper with – or even tip – the upcoming presidential vote? And if that's even possible, what are the precautions that election officials and law enforcement are taking to protect the vote?

"When people hear how the Russians have infiltrated political parties or state election sites, they immediately jump to, 'Oh, they can flip votes and change the result of an election,' " said Lawrence Norden, deputy director of the Democracy Program at New York University’s Brennan Center for Justice.

A Response to “Cyber Proficient Force 2015 & Beyond”: Why We Will Continue to Lose the Cyber War

September 13, 2016 

A Response to “Cyber Proficient Force 2015 & Beyond”: Why We Will Continue to Lose the Cyber War

The United States is losing the cyberwar. We are losing the cyberwar because cyber defenses apply the wrong philosophy to the wrong operating environment. In order to be effective, future cyber defenses must be viewed in the context of an engagement between human adversaries.[1]

There is strong evidence indicating the cyber intrusion of the DNC was the work of hackers working on behalf of Russian intelligence, US officials said this week.

Background

Cyberattacks fill the news. The story is always the same. Something bad happens, cybersecurity experts are brought in. After their investigation, an attribution is made.

The first wave of cyber security was focused on perimeter controls with tools such as firewalls, gateways and anti-virus protection. The second wave of security brought Security Information Event Management (“SIEM”) to bear. The volume of SEIM information which must be processed is driving the third wave of cyber security, termed “cyber threat intelligence,” in which analytic tools are used to observe data in real time and report deviations from known patterns. IBM is now promoting the next wave of cyber security, which it dubs “cognitive security.”[3] According to IBM, “Whereas the current generation of systems are reactive—detecting and responding to anomalies or attacks—cognitive security is proactive. Forward focused and continuously multi-tasking, cognitive systems scour for vulnerabilities, connect dots, detect variances and sift through billions of events to build upon a base of actionable knowledge.”

With national privacy debate unsettled, US intelligence officials back encryption


The debate over encryption on smartphones and messaging apps is poised to heat up again on Capitol Hill after it peaked last winter when Apple denied an FBI request to help unlock a terrorist's iPhone.

Senate Intelligence Committee leaders Dianne Feinstein (D) and Richard Burr (R) are apparently working on another push for their bill to compel companies to give law enforcement access to encrypted data if presented with a court order. When the senators initially circulated a draft bill earlier this year, however, privacy advocates and tech industry groups alike roundly criticized their proposal.

On Tuesday, senators returned to the issue of encryption, which many politicians and law enforcement officials such as FBI Director James Comey complain helps terrorists and criminals mask their communications, in an Armed Services Committee hearing with National Security Agency Director Adm. Michael Rogers and Undersecretary of Defense for Intelligence Marcel Lettre.

Sen. John McCain (R) of Arizona said that if the military and intelligence agencies didn't act to address potential security blind spots when it comes to the Islamic State (known as both ISIS or ISIL) using private messaging apps to recruit and plan attacks, Congress would likely pursue legislation to regulate encryption.

"Ignoring the issue, as the White House has done, is also not an option," he said. "ISIL has utilized encrypted communications that just a few years ago were limited to a select few of the world's top intelligence services."

Someone Is Learning How to Take Down the Internet

September 13, 2016

Over the past year or two, someone has been probing the defenses of the companies that run critical pieces of the Internet. These probes take the form of precisely calibrated attacks designed to determine exactly how well these companies can defend themselves, and what would be required to take them down. We don't know who is doing this, but it feels like a large a large nation state. China and Russia would be my first guesses.

First, a little background. If you want to take a network off the Internet, the easiest way to do it is with a distributed denial-of-service attack (DDoS). Like the name says, this is an attack designed to prevent legitimate users from getting to the site. There are subtleties, but basically it means blasting so much data at the site that it's overwhelmed. These attacks are not new: hackers do this to sites they don't like, and criminals have done it as a method of extortion. There is an entire industry, with an arsenal of technologies, devoted to DDoS defense. But largely it's a matter of bandwidth. If the attacker has a bigger fire hose of data than the defender has, the attacker wins.

Recently, some of the major companies that provide the basic infrastructure that makes the Internet work have seen an increase in DDoS attacks against them. Moreover, they have seen a certain profile of attacks. These attacks are significantly larger than the ones they're used to seeing. They last longer. They're more sophisticated. And they look like probing. One week, the attack would start at a particular level of attack and slowly ramp up before stopping. The next week, it would start at that higher point and continue. And so on, along those lines, as if the attacker were looking for the exact point of failure.

The attacks are also configured in such a way as to see what the company's total defenses are. There are many different ways to launch a DDoS attacks. The more attack vectors you employ simultaneously, the more different defenses the defender has to counter with. These companies are seeing more attacks using three or four different vectors. This means that the companies have to use everything they've got to defend themselves. They can't hold anything back. They're forced to demonstrate their defense capabilities for the attacker.

DIU(X) Funds Brain-Hacking Headset; Boston Branch Opens

July 26, 2016 

Defense Secretary Ashton Carter (left) and DIU(X) director Raj Shah (right) speak to reporters at the opening of DIU(X) Boston.

CAMBRIDGE, MASS.: Special operations troops will test a high-tech headset that “uses noninvasive electrical stimulation” to help the brain learn better marksmanship and hand-to-hand combat skills, Defense Secretary Ashton Carter said here today. This cutting edge example of “enhanced human operations” — a highly controversial field — is just the first commercial project funded by Carter’s recently reorganized Defense Innovation Unit (Experimental), DIU(X).

Carter overhauled the original Silicon Valley DIU(X) 75 days ago, politely replacing the entire leadership and bringing the organization under his personal control. Today he’s in Cambridge — just blocks from MIT and 15 minutes from Harvard Yard — to formally open a long-awaited DIU(X) branch on the East Coast. He also announced new luminaries joining the Defense Innovation Advisory Board, including Amazon CEO (and Washington Post owner) Jeff Bezos and pop science superstar Neil deGrasse Tyson.

Both the Silicon Valley and Boston branches of DIU(X) will fall under F-16 pilot turned tech entrepreneur Rajiv Shah, the man Carter tapped to lead in June. DIU(X)’s role, Shah told reporters after Carter’s public remarks, is to work with the country’s most innovative companies “at the speed they are used to and are comfortable with.”

“DIU(X) is supposed to be a pathfinder here,” Carter added at the press conference. Ultimately, he said, it’s supposed to work itself out of business as its more agile, innovative approach spreads throughout the Pentagon.

Obama to be urged to split cyberwar command from NSA


September 13 2016

Adm. Michael S. Rogers is the head of the National Security Agency and U.S. Cyber Command. 

The Pentagon and intelligence community are expected to recommend soon to President Obama that he break up the joint leadership of the National Security Agency and U.S. Cyber Command to create two distinct forces­ for electronic espionage and cyberwarfare. 

The potential move is driven by a sense that the two missions are fundamentally different, that the nation’s cyberspies and military hackers should not be competing to use the same networks, and that the job of leading both organizations is too big for one person. 

Obama was on the verge of ending the “dual-hat” leadership in late 2013 but was persuaded to hold off when senior officials, including then-NSA Director Keith B. Alexander, argued against it on the grounds that the two organizations needed one leader to ensure that the NSA did not withhold resources from Cyber­Com. 

Three years later, Defense Secretary Ashton B. Carter and Director of National Intelligence James R. Clapper Jr. are pressing for the split, with Carter seeking to build Cyber Command into a full-fledged fighting force that has its own network accesses to conduct attacks. Clapper, officials said, supports the idea in part to reduce tension over which force gets to use the networks — the spies or the war­fighters. 

Navy Information Warfare — What Is It?

September 14, 2016

Defining a warfare area’s mission and function is the foundation for all activities required to conduct mission area analysis to determine requirements, develop doctrine and tactics, and structure, train, and equip the fleet to accomplish the mission.

Within the U.S. Navy, the terms Information Warfare (IW),Information Operations (IO), and Information Operations Warfare are widely used but not well defined. Nor are they linked to provide coherent definitions from joint and service perspectives that are essential to successful communication regarding IW’s relationship to other warfare areas and supporting activities. The result is confusion and a lack of progress in structuring, training, and equipping the U.S. Navy to perform this emerging predominant warfare area.

The following are examples of how these terms mean different things to different groups:

Reference: Station Hypo, 14 Jul 16, “CWOBC, a Community’s Course“: “The Cryptologic Warfare Officer Basic Course (CWOBC) formerly known as the Information Warfare Basic Course (IWBC) is an entry level course for all officers, regardless of commission source, who are coming into the Cryptologic Warfare Officer (CWO) community. Six weeks in length with an average annual throughput of 154, the course focuses on Signal Intelligence (SIGINT), Electronic Warfare (EW), Cyber Operations, as well as security fundamentals and community history.” Inasmuch as the content of the basic course remained the same, the terms “Information Warfare” and “Cryptologic Warfare” appear to mean the same thing for this group.
PENSACOLA, Fla. (Aug. 28, 2015) Officers attending the Information Professional Basic Course at Center for Information Dominance Unit Corry Station listen to Rear Adm. Daniel J. MacDonnell, commander of Information Dominance Corps Reserve Command (IDCRC) and Reserve deputy commander of Navy Information Dominance Forces (NAVIDFOR). Macdonnell spoke with them about career opportunities in the Information Dominance Corps and active and reserve integration. (U.S. Navy photo by Carla M. McCarthy/Released)

UK moves to ‘active cyber-defence’

By Gordon CoreraSecurity correspondent, BBC News
13 September 2016 

Image copyrightTHINKSTOCKImage captionThe National Cyber Security Centre (NCSC) aims to protect the public and the nation

Britain is moving towards more active defence in cyberspace, the head of the UK's new National Cyber Security Centre (NCSC) has said.

Speaking in Washington, Ciaran Martin was giving his first public comments as the chief executive of the NCSC.

The centre, which launches next month, will absorb existing roles such as protecting government and critical infrastructure.

It will also look at new ways of engaging with business and the public.

Among its plans are developing automated defences to offer protection from high-volume but relatively unsophisticated cyber-attacks.

The NCSC will take a lead on protecting government networks and those of national level importance, but Mr Martin also outlined ways in which it would be more ambitious in improving the UK's overall cybersecurity.
Digital economy dependence

One-eighth of the UK's gross domestic product (GDP) comes from the digital economy, the highest in the G20 group of industrialised economies, and Mr Martin said retaining public confidence in online transactions and ensuring economic growth was a priority in the same way as protecting national security.

Last year, twice as many "national-security-level cyber-incidents" were detected compared with a year before, amounting to about 200 per month.

The attacks are not always highly sophisticated.

Military Victory is Dead

Posted by ML Cavanaugh
Sep 11, 2016

A few weeks back, Colombian President Juan Manuel Santos and Harvard Professor Steven Pinker triumphantly announced the peace deal between the government of Columbia and the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Columbia (FARC). While positive, this declaration rings hollow as the exception that proves the rule – a tentative treaty, however, at the end, roughly 7,000 guerrillas held a country of 50 million hostage over 50 years at a cost of some 220,000 lives. Churchill would be aghast: Never in the history of human conflict were so many so threatened by so few.

One reason this occasion merited a more somber statement: military victory is dead. And it was killed by a bunch of cheap stuff.

The term “victory” is loaded, so let’s stipulate it means unambiguous, unchallenged, and unquestioned strategic success – something more than a “win,” because, while one might “eke out a win,” no one “ekes out a victory.” Wins are represented by a mere letter (“w”); victory is a tickertape with tanks.

Which is something I’ll never see in my military career; I should explain. When a government has a political goal that cannot be obtained other than by force, the military gets involved and selects some objective designed to obtain said goal. Those military objectives can be classified broadly, as Prussian military theorist Carl von Clausewitz did, into either a limited aim (i.e. “occupy some…frontier-districts” to use “for bargaining”), or a larger aim to completely disarm the enemy, “render[ing] him politically helpless or military impotent.” Lo, we’ve arrived at the problem: War has become so inexpensive that anyone can afford the traditional military means of strategic significance – so we can never fully disarm the enemy. And a perpetually armed enemy means no more parades (particularly in Nice).

Never in the history of human conflict were so many so threatened by so few.

Leaving the “Gray Zone”: The U.S. Need to Fight Aggression Below Conventional War

September 14, 2016

Leaving the “Gray Zone”: The U.S. Need to Fight Aggression Below Conventional War

The Commander-in-Chief Forum featuring Secretary Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump’s thoughts on national security missed an opportunity to engage the candidates on the gray zone tactics China and Russia are using to advance their agendas. Gray zone tactics represent asymmetric actions of many forms that do not trigger a robust adversarial response while still generating strategic gains. These states have acquired territory and expanded their influence, both politically and the physical range of their advanced weaponry, using “salami slicing” in recent years. Deterring these tactics requires comprehensive strategies. Gray zone tactics will be one of the most daunting policy challenges facing the next President of the United States. The next President, regardless of party, must have a plan.

Increasingly, Russia and China are making major strategic shifts using incremental gains without triggering conflict. Russia’s annexation of Crimea demonstrates their effective use of gray zone tactics, to include incremental paramilitary advances and political messaging. Chinese land fortifications in the South China Sea also followed a pattern of incremental advance, and responses after the arbitration ruling will be critical in setting precedents. The fielding last month of Russia’s modern S-300 air defense system (sold to Iran in 2007 but initially cancelled in 2010) to Iran’s Fordow nuclear siteand in Syria demonstrates similar piecemeal advances that could become a headache for the United States in the future. Both states have increased their military aggression, recently conducting dangerous air and sea maneuvers close to, and at times directly over, U.S. planes and ships.

U.S. Special Operations Forces at 9-11, Today, and for the Future

LTG CHARLES CLEVELAND AND COL DAVID MAXWELL
SEPTEMBER 11, 2016

Following the tragic attack on 9-11, U.S. Special Operations Forces (SOF) and the CIA, supported by airpower, conducted a punitive expedition that resulted in the Taliban and al Qaeda being routed from Afghanistan. In 2003, working with the Kurds, U.S. SOF conducted operations in northern Iraq, accomplishing the mission intended for a U.S. infantry division that was not allowed to deploy through Turkey. U.S. SOF were already advising and assisting Colombian military and police operations as part of Plan Colombiathat contributed to the peace agreement in 2016. And in Asia, U.S. SOF supported thePhilippine security forces in degrading and destroying terrorist organizations linked to al Qaeda while supporting peace negotiations with Moro insurgent groups. 

U.S. SOF were well positioned and ready in 2001 to execute their fundamental doctrinal missions for which they were organized, trained, equipped, educated, and optimized: unconventional warfare and foreign internal defense or Special Warfare. However, counterterrorism and counterinsurgency operations soon came to dominate the U.S. military campaigns for both special operations and regular forces in Afghanistan and Iraq, and later in Yemen and throughout Africa. 

What emerged after 9-11 was a special operations Surgical Strike capability that combined exquisite intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance (ISR) capabilities with precision strikes from unmanned aerial systems and the unparalleled special operations ground and maritime capability to capture or kill high value targets at the time and place of our choosing, including killing Osama bin Laden in 2011. The development of such concepts asF3EAD – find, fix, finish, exploit, analyze, and disseminate – allowed the U.S. national mission force, often supported by regular forces, to take down enemy networks by operating at a tempo that paralyzed terrorist organizations. Counterterrorism direct action operations were raised to a high art form.

16 September 2016

*** THE CASE FOR REVISING INDIA’S COUNTERINSURGENCY STRATEGY IN KASHMIR

SEPTEMBER 14, 2016

India’s Kashmir Valley has been the scene of a Pakistan-backed insurgency since the 1990s. The Indian army and its associated security forces have been engaged in fighting this insurgency and assisting the civil administration in maintaining law and order. On July 8, the Pakistani terrorist group Hizb-ul-Mujahideen’s commander in Kashmir,Burhan Wani, was killed in an encounter with security forces in Kashmir’s Anantnag district. Wani’s death plunged the state into deep turmoil, pitting Indian security forces against a large number of disenfranchised Kashmiri youth sympathetic to Wani’s anti-India resistance movement and calls for jihad. A full-blown confrontation between incensed youth and Indian security forces followed that resulted in 68 civilian deaths and over 2000 injured protestors, leaving an embarrassed Indian state facing a crisis of governance with no clear plan to prevent escalating violence. Exposing the fragility of the Indian state further, the Indian military publicly declared its frustration with political directives. In an unprecedented step, a strict curfew imposed in the Kashmir valley during Eid celebrationshas renewed a fresh cycle of violence between protestors and security force, killing two protestors and injuring several more. New Delhi appears to be running out of options to de-escalate levels of violence.

This precarious turn of events and the cyclical waves of violence affecting the Kashmiri state indicate that the Indian counterinsurgency approach in Kashmir is failing. New Delhi must conduct a fundamental reappraisal of its counterinsurgency strategy in Kashmir, as a predominantly military approach is unlikely to mitigate future violence. To prevent Kashmiri youth from becoming easy tools of radicalization by the Pakistani state, India should reduce its military presence in the valley, clearly separate the roles of its police and military, reformulate its military laws, and develop a robust political strategy that grants Kashmiris more autonomy and favors engagement over detachment.

Seeds of Unrest

Why Modi Govt’s Assaults On Pakistan Are Empty And Only Verbal – OpEd

By Manoj Joshi 
SEPTEMBER 14, 2016

The Modi government’s Pakistan policy remains intriguing.

We have seen the flip-flops of 2014 and 2015, ranging from border bombardments to hearty embraces and cold vibes.

But the direction it is taking now is baffling. In international meeting after meeting, the prime minister has attacked Pakistan’s support of terrorism and the need to sanction Islamabad.

Take the past week for instance.

On September 4, in Hangzhou, addressing fellow BRICS leaders, Modi said that there was need to intensify joint action against terrorism which had become the primary source of instability and biggest threat to the world.

Alluding to Pakistan he said, “Clearly someone funds and arms them.”

On September 5, Modi intensified the attack saying that “one single nation” in South Asia was spreading terror and that there was need for that nation to be sanctioned.

On September 7, addressing the ASEAN summit in Vientiane, Modi declared “one country has only one competitive advantage: exporting terror”. And again reiterated the need to “isolate and sanction” the country which was a threat to everyone.

Kashmir: The Soldier Betrayed

By Danvir Singh
14 Sep , 2016

As per the media reports, “in the next 48 hours, thousands more soldiers will be deployed in south Kashmir, with an emphasis on rural areas. The military is moving back into areas that it vacated in the last two years as they were considered militant-free”(TOI).

Ironically all those voices that said AFSPA was draconian and should be removed are keeping silent.

Probably they are waiting for that opportune moment to strike back and blame the soldier, curse him, redicule him and demonise him.

Finally put the complete burden of continued insurgency in the valley as a direct fallout of the soldier’s misdeeds.

Elide the truth by questioning his medals and citations; gross human rights violation as they killed the innocent civilians for professional gains. Well! Such a moment may take many many months.

The Left leaning Lutyenati is also quiet. While the Maharaja who could not be is giving interview to a Kashmiri daily, claiming to be holding a lasting solution, but waiting for a right moment.

Omar Abdullah is talking of pre 1950 autonomy status in an effort to revive his fortunes.