Collateral Damage

In an era of antiseptic war, one fought with drones and precision weapons that limit to an amazing degree the collateral damage done by these limited strikes executed during very limited conflicts, we’ve gotten spoiled. We expect war generally to be antiseptic.

And our “leaders” in DC have gotten spoiled, too.

Several large-scale cyberattacks in recent months have prompted a number of lawmakers and policy makers to call for a more forceful response, including suggestions that the US engage in counterattacks that would disable or limit the culprits’ own networks.

But White House officials and some technology security experts remain skeptical that such “offensive” cyberattacks would work, saying they are concerned about the difficulty in targeting specific hackers without causing widespread spillover, among other things.

And so, in the face of this wide-open cyber war being waged against us, these White House officials and those “some others” insist that we do nothing, since what we would do would be imperfect and cause collateral damage.

…cybersecurity experts are mostly split on the merits of retaliation, with some saying it could distract companies from doing more to prevent breaches.

Because defense and offense cannot possibly be carried out simultaneously. Yeah.

Bob Gourley, late of the Defense Intelligence Agency:

Once the planners and everyone looks [into retaliation], it puts it on an escalation ladder we don’t want to be on. The first thing we need to do is protect our systems. Until we do that, we’re almost inviting them to attack, saying “Come on, take our stuff.”

Wait, what? You’re saying that after years of suffering cyberattacks from Russia, the People’s Republic of China, northern Korea, Iran, individuals, you still haven’t bothered to “protect our systems?” How does that work, exactly?

 

Certainly collateral damage should be limited to the extent possible, from both moral and efficiency perspectives. But this is war. Collateral damage is part of the messiness of war. If we let our fear of collateral damage paralyze us, we will lose the war, with catastrophic consequences to us, completely subsuming any collateral damage done us by this war.

It’s for those who sit in leadership chairs in DC to stop wasting their energy looking for excuses to do nothing and instead direct their energy to responding. Forcefully. As tidily as possible, but with recognition that there will be messes, sometimes big ones.

That response must include actually defending our systems, and it must include correcting this failure:

Businesses are largely prohibited by law from a practice known as “hack back,” which could either be done to punish a cyberthief or take back information that was stolen from any specific firm. That has left companies relying on the government’s response, which so far largely has come in the form of sanctions or criminal indictments.

A Journalistic View of the Importance of Truth

This is what too many journalists are saying about NBC’s Brian Williams’ lie about being on a helicopter in Iraq that was forced to land after being hit by an RPG. They’re making these statements, too, while eliding Williams’ subsequently discovered lies concerning his…reporting…in New Orleans in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina and in Israel, before that, during Israel’s 2006 war with Hezbollah. First up is Howard Kurtz, author of the piece from which the rest of the quotes below are taken:

What’s been striking to me is how many people are willing to end what has been a pretty solid career because of this one admittedly horrible mistake.

That’s because the career should end. The man has destroyed his credibility with his lie—a deliberate act, not a “mistake.”

Alan Colmes, as cited by Kurtz:

[I]t was “sad” to see this mistake “destroy a man and destroy his career.

No. Whether all of this destroys Brian Williams is up to Williams alone, what he chooses to learn from this, what he chooses to do about it. Whether it destroys Williams’ journalist career, it certainly should. He lied. At least three times.

Dan Abrams:

I am troubled by the fervor, occasional glee, and potentially disproportionate fury…. This alliance of certain capital-J journalists, conservative bloggers, and some who simply despise any rich and famous journalist are a formidable force.

No journalistic distortion there. Nope.

Joe Scarborough:

…the decision is made to judge what Brian Williams’ future should be, that that decision will be based on the entirety of his career and not on one or two or three mistakes.

Mistakes. I’m detecting a theme here. When a journalist lies, that’s just a mistake. No big deal. Nothing to see here.

Scarborough again:

If he exaggerated, if he puffed his chest out a little bit—news people do that.

Lies are just puffery. And since all news people do it, it’s OK. That Left morality, again: an act’s legitimacy comes from whether or not somebody else did it, or does it, too. Morality is not at all inherent in the act.

How can anyone ever believe what a liar says? Kurtz and his fellows apparently have chosen not to answer that one.