How to Lose a Cyberwar

Why is America still letting online jihadists run amok?

BY JOHN ARQUILLA | DECEMBER 12, 2009

The five young men detained in Pakistan this week -- like a whole new generation of jihadis -- appear to have made considerable use of the Internet in their alleged approach to al Qaeda. Their story points out that, more than eight years after 9/11, terrorist networks are still not only able to stay in touch via cyberspace, but that they are even extending their reach thanks to our giving them a free ride in the virtual domain.

U.S. President Barack Obama often speaks about his central strategic objective of denying al Qaeda its haven in Waziristan, but he says nary a word about taking away its "virtual haven" in cyberspace. This omission is more than his alone, as none of the key military, intelligence, and law-enforcement arms of the U.S. government have done much to curtail terrorist use of the Net.

Those who do try to keep an eye on terrorism in cyberspace often argue that they learn a lot about enemy networks by monitoring their narratives on jihadi websites. But if this made a real difference, we would have already won the war on terror.

Related

Instead of thinking of cyberspace principally as a place to gather intelligence, we need to elevate it to the status of "battlespace." This means that we either want to exploit terrorists' use of the Web and Net unbeknownst to them, or we want to drive them from it.

We need to think of gaining an information edge, like the one enjoyed by the Allies in World War II. In that conflict, the first high-performance computing capability was created, and broke German and Japanese codes, enabling a series of victories to be won -- from the Mediterranean to Midway -- long before Allied material advantages could be brought to bear.

A similar capability fielded today against al Qaeda would do much more than just catch confused young men on their journey to the jihad. It would also intercept the messages that guide the movement of terrorist money, identify existing cells and nodes and enable us to go after them in the physical world, and allow us to preempt new attacks.

The officials I try to lobby in favor of creating this new "Magic" (the American name for the World War II code-breaking capability) always argue that, once the enemy realizes we have this capability, they will go to ground and we will know even less about where they are and what they intend to do next.

John Moore/Getty Images

 SUBJECTS:
 

John Arquilla is professor of defense analysis at the U.S. Naval Postgraduate School and author of Worst Enemy: The Reluctant Transformation of the American Military.

NAZIA

1:23 PM ET

December 12, 2009

Eye wash

It is surprise that US and its all officials are through out denying the illegal presence of armed US and black water marines in Pakistan territory and when ever our officers and security men tried to arrest them for keeping fire arms or movement in restricted areas, all of sudden US consulate come along with military officers and take them back in enclosed houses.Officially they deny all charges and never accept presence of such armed people from US side.
These immigrant citizens took visa from Pakistan embassy, cleared all strict hurdles of US immigration department in at least three airports and reached safely in small city of Pakistan.
Interestingly US demanding its people back who are not found with a single fire arm and just on the basis of few emails, are being declared as part of terrorists groups
I think only Americans watching CNN only can believe on such eye wash stories.

 

SMOKE FILLED ROOMS

6:13 PM ET

December 13, 2009

I know you address the whole

I know you address the whole "underground" argument but terrorism can still be incredibly effective (and more difficult to monitor) without the internet. Thousands of years of history prove this point. Terrorism will never be dependent on cyberspace because it hasn't been for 99% of the time in which it has existed.

So, I do believe that we need to be doing as much as possibly to monitor the use of the internet by jihadists, but we don't need to be taking any action to actually shut these networks down. Observe and act when necessary, yes, but don't shut the sites down and let them register more domain names and move their information around when they think we're on to them. Like you said, make them think they have traitors in their own ranks.

I'm not sure if you agree with this point or not, just thought it was worth mentioning.

 

STIENNON

11:37 AM ET

December 14, 2009

What do you mean "we?"

Your stance seems to imply that the Internet has somehow been created by the United States and that access to it was granted to, in this case, youths that were interested in joining a terrorist group.

The Internet, of course, is not owned or controlled by the US. Access to the Internet is granted by service providers in exchange for a nominal fee. Some countries do indeed restrict that access but they are not democratic countries.

Have no fear the US Intelligence Community use many tools available to them to ferret out terrorist organizational activity. They do not need any urging from you.

You are going to have to become more comfortable with bad guys having access to free and open communications. Restricting that would destroy the power for good that the Internet represents.

 

PETERINDC

6:55 PM ET

December 14, 2009

Two Options

I think that global jihadists will be faced with a couple options. First, they can do what the Germans, Japanese, and the rest of the world did in face of Magic: Innovate. Eventually everyone began developing computers to break code and make code so it became a game of cat and mouse. The second option, of delinking, will have its advantages as a larger portion of our scarce intelligence/defense resources shift to computer network defense/offense. It will be about diversifying their communications strategy.

 

NMOUTINHO

8:33 PM ET

December 15, 2009

More excuses to regulate the internet

The thought of upgrading cyberspace to "battlespace" sends Big Brother chills down my spine. I guess because I'm a Ron Paul supporter (although not a fervent one), I'm technically considered an "extremist" by homeland security. I don't want the government busting down my door because I wish they actually enforced the 10th Amendment!

When the Jihadists are gone the government will find new monsters to battle, or else it will lose some of its funding! The government cant lose funding! What would we do?! Actually produce things and have minds of our own?! PREPOSTEROUS!!