Cybersecurity! Themes, Trends and Proposals at the 2013 RSA Conference

I’ve been meaning to do a write up on some of the topics at the most recent RSA Conference on cybersecurity issues for a while, and it’s certainly overdue. Sure, a lot of the presentations are oriented towards private companies, but the issues matter to all entities – individuals, law firms, defense contractors, corporations, and governments. Let’s take a look at some of the big ideas:

Know Thine Enemy! 

We don’t know the enemy, but the enemy knows us. Art Gillibrand of HP referred to Sun Tzu’s  Art of War when articulating the current security climate. Defenders are at a real disadvantage these days, and it’s not going to change anytime soon. Gillibrand presented some rather depressing statistics: 94% of breaches are not detected by in-house IT. Meanwhile, between 2010 and 2011, the time spent to repair a breach had increased by 71%, while the cost of repairing a breach also increased by 41%. So, defenders are spending more time, and more money on fixing breaches, and haven’t gotten any better at detecting them in the first place. So, why are we losing ground, and what do we do about it?

We don’t understand cyberattackers. We don’t know how they work, we don’t know who they are, and as a result, we don’t know much about how to stop them. Meanwhile, cyber attackers have specialized, through the very same principles that organize companies. Almost every Hollywood movie with a hacking element in the plot depicts one guy who is single-handedly capable of breaching a system and exploiting the system for profit. Spoiler alert: Hollywood isn’t accurate. Criminal attacks generally operate in a market with a “distinct process”, and tasks are allocated to different actors within that market. Some individuals within the market are responsible for collecting data on suitable targets through various open-source opportunities, such as Facebook or Linkedin. These profiles are then sold to cyber attackers, who determine vulnerable access points and map the network. This information is then sold to the larger black market. This is of course, a simplification. A great resource on the how the market is organized and operates is a 2010 Panda Security Report, available here.

Gillibrand argues persuasively that there needs to be a new cyber strategy, one which acknowledges that cyber threats have been so effective in part, because they rely on a huge network of intelligence. Another statistic? 86% of total cyberdefense expenditures are oriented around infiltration blocking. It’s a losing battle. Instead, those with stakes in cyber defense need to figure out an efficient method to identify threats from individuals, organizations and markets, and communicate these threats to the broader community. This isn’t just something for private companies to figure out – policymakers should be taking note. Private organizations may not be the best equipped to handle the intelligence capabilities that the cyber environment requires on their own.

Authentication, Hostile Toasters, and Pseudonymity

This was a big topic at RSA. When Google devotes its time at an RSA conference to a topic, it’s worth it to pay attention. How do you ensure that people are who they say they are, but only to the entities that need to know? Can we also associate devices with their owners? Vint Cerf attempted to issue that very challenge to conference attendees, with the following requirements: a device must be constructed to generate unique key-pairs, the private key must not be extractable unless it destroys the pair, the private key cannot be computed from the public key, and either key must be able to encypt or de-encrypt on demand. It’s a tall order. It becomes a bigger problem when we consider the current and future scope of authentication needs. Cerf noted that internet-capable refrigerators, picture frames, and yes, even toasters, are entering the market and providing more opportunities for compromise than ever before. If you thought protecting your credit card was the big priority, just wait until hackers figure out how to burn your toast. Joking aside, the proliferation of devices associated with an individual are creating big problems for existing authentication measures.

In 2002, LG introduced a $17,000 internet-capable refrigerator. 

Another conference attendee sought to address the problem. Paul Summers of the Jericho Forum and CEO of the Global Identity Foundation was also there to drum up support. “Right now, with the system we have in place, we don’t have any connection to the person.” Bingo. Biometric readers, DNA links, and iris reading are great new technologies. That doesn’t mean they’ve fixed the end-user issue. Summers’ proposal is interesting: assign a single crypto to an individual, which has several pieces of data - some of which are publicly available, some of which are privately held, and neither of which can be used to complete the full crypto. Each entity may only request and receive a certain number of crypto components for any given request. It’s an interesting premise, that’s been alluded to in other cybersecurity discussions elsewhere. It’s a nice idea, that may eventually transform the way we interact online, but there’s definitely a lot that still needs to be fleshed out. How does a bank make sure that the two components received are the right ones? Will it be one private crypto component, and one public crypto component? Can it be ensured (in this day and age), that all components of the crypto could not be found through some online research? The proposal reminds me a bit of the security questions often used to authenticate identity. Name of my first pet? Chances are, you could probably find that out on Facebook or by calling my mother under false pretenses. No, the name of my first pet is not on Facebook, but for a lot of people, that information probably is. Also, please don’t call my mother. 

And My Personal Favorite: “Lessons from Stuxnet” (for Defenders) – William Cheswick (Cheswick.com)

You really can’t have any serious discussion about cyber attacks without at least acknowledging Stuxnet. Stuxnet is one of the most visible examples of a remote cyber attacks which resulted in actual physical damage. There are just so many interesting components worth discussing. So, what makes Stuxnet so scary?

            -How easy it is. Okay, it’s not actually really easy to design a highly specific bit of code that only affects one particular kind of hardware, put it into a USB drive, and then make sure it gets into one of the most secure places in Iran. But what is scarily easy about it – is that it only takes one USB stick. That’s right, just one. Cheswick highlighted the problem perfectly: if you put a flash drive in an organization’s parking lot, it only takes one person to pick it up, and plug it in at work. Humans are naturally curious, and in a room of a few dozen people, one person is going to try to plug the thing in. We’re not sure if that’s precisely the scenario that happened, but the problem would still be the same. Defenders have to make sure ALL employees know not to play with foreign USBs.

            -How damaging it can be. Estimates vary as to how much damage the Stuxnet worm actually did in terms of Iran’s nuclear program. However, Stuxnet wasn’t just about “hard damage”. It was also about soft damage. In the Stuxnet case, it was engineered to overwhelm centrifuge components, but it was also about decreasing overall confidence in the venture. Soft damage can also simply be the erasure of data. A cost and labor intensive project could potentially be shelved simply on the basis of soft damage.

            -If you’re not actively looking for the threat, you won’t find it. There’s a lot of ways for a Stuxnet-style attack to happen undetected for a long time. Apparently, there are a lot of people in IT who just don’t bother updating their network maps regularly enough. Network maps should (but often don’t) include everything from printers to industrial controllers. Bought a new printer and forgot to add it? Mistake. Printer firmware is fabulous for hiding all sorts of things. Also, network maps typically have notes about exactly what is on there. Centrifuge locations on there? That’s just reduced time and effort for attackers to know exactly where they need to go on their shopping spree. Meanwhile, this attack doesn’t even need the internet to tell its creators that it’s working. It just needs to create a live link, perhaps through a VPN, using STP headers to release small chunks of information. Only a small amount of information is necessary, as in just one or two packets per day, making it even more difficult to detect. A Stuxnet-style attack could also use a cell network to exfiltrate information. So, not only can your employees only use work-issued USBs, they may also not be able to bring their cell phones to work. 

But there’s hope. This presentation was geared towards (primarily) private industry. Cheswick raised some interesting points though that will probably have to be (or already have been) put in place in law firms, defense contractors, and government agencies. The new rules in a post-Stuxnet era: keep your network maps updated, don’t allow foreign USB drives, be discriminatory about cell phone access, and monitor low TTL packets. For those interested in the technical details about Stuxnet, here's the Symantec report. Fair warning, don't expect a Live Free, Die Hard action sequence in there.

Now that we've covered all the good stuff, I'm looking forward to hearing about the DEFCON conference in August. I bet there will be a lot of complaining over the recent conviction of Andrew "Weev" Auernheimer under the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, for his exploitation of AT&T back in 2010.  If the RSA conference was any indication, the FBI isn't going to be the only one collecting information on guys like Weev. Hackers may very soon have profiles on them distributed throughout the security community. It's about time.

Drones at Home

A handful of seriously cool domestic applications

Last Wednesday (20 March) the Senate Judiciary Committee held a hearing on possible privacy abuse--pertaining to drones, of course. Targeted killings overseas have made drones controversial and often suspect among average Americans and the impending reality of extensive drone use at home raises understandable suspicion. The concerns shouldn't be understated. Use of drones in the US is practical; they're "cheap, able and ubiquitous," and, as far as the greater public is concerned, likely to be snooping on you in the near future.   I don't mean to belittle any concerns related to drones and privacy issues, because those concerns are legitimate, well founded, and--in my opinion--wholly appropriate. Any new technology demands policy keep pace--and at the moment, legislation seems to be inadequate. 

That's an issue for another blog post. Here, I want to outline some of the seriously awesome things that drones could potentially do--and things that they're already doing--all of which have little to nothing to do with privacy concerns or targeted killings.

Journalism

To be fair, I realize that Drone Journalism easily translates into a little UAV hovering directly outside the Kardashians' bathroom window. Again, privacy concerns. But paparazzi aside, drones have some interesting applications for the field of journalism. A few universities have picked up on this as well. The University of Nebraska-Lincoln offers a course in Drone Journalism, and the University of Missouri offers a similar program. Below is a video showing one of UNL's test flights. 

Both the University of Nebraska-Lincoln and the University of Missouri register their UAVs with the FAA and are following their strict guidelines. Most news stories developed using this application are, understandably, about the environment and conservation. But the potential of using drones to report on traffic and to provide bird's eye views of natural disasters and crime scenes is well understood and anticipated. One can easily appreciate how this application would effortlessly extend to disaster relief. Drones could easily go into places too dangerous for rescue workers, and efficiently search for survivors across large swathes of territory. 

Also, just imagine how drones could be used to photograph non-arena sporting events, such as extreme sports. Instead of attaching a camera to clothing, an athlete could have a drone companion--providing up close and personal footage of the athlete's performance. 

Infrastructure monitoring 

The United States has a lot of roads and a lot of bridges, you may have noticed.  These roads and bridges require a fair amount of upkeep and monitoring to stay safe for public use. Consider this, there are roughly 4 million miles of roadway in the United States, that's something like 500x the diameter of earth. Who's watching all these roads? Who's making sure they stay in working order? 

The easy answer for the future? Drones. Drones are cheap, cheaper than sending out actual human beings to squint at a stretch of blacktop. Drones would monitor highways and other forms of infrastructure (dams, bridges, etc.), survey land with laser mapping technologies, and automatically alert officials to things like traffic jams and accidents. In fact, the Georgia Department of Transportation recently received a grant from the Federal Highway Administration to do just that. 

Environmental research, conservation, and compliance 

The US Geological Survey (USGS) was been testing Raven A, a frankly adorable (and US Army decommissioned) 3 foot long drone, equipped with a camera to see if it can be repurposed to conduct aerial counts of an endangered species: the sandhill crane--a species that is notoriously skittish. Here's a video of the Raven A in action:

 

The wildlife perspective easily extends to hunting applications. Take the story from the end of this New York Times article, for example:  a Cy Brown of Bunkie, La., began hunting feral pigs nocturnally by outfitting a basic model airplane with a heat-sensing camera. The plane, dubbed Dehogaflier, was piloted around his brother's rice farm (where the pigs were gorging themselves on the crop) feeding live images of the pigs to Cy on the ground. A friend with a shotgun took care of the rest--no sloughing through the muck in search of the errant pigs for hours necessary. Handy.  The other side of the coin, poaching, are also easily addressed. Use of drones would make it much easier for US Fish and Wildlife and even game wardens to pick up on and shut down illegal hunting. 

Use of drones would also assist the efforts of environmental law enforcement officials. Suddenly, midnight dumpings and other nefarious activities would be much harder to get away with. Also, the great news? Using a drone to monitor suspect companies is cheaper and more effective than sending a representative to do an on site inspection.

Atmospheric research

NASA is, of course, completely comfortable and experienced using drones. And now they're sending a drone into the stratosphere to probe ozone loss.

NASA Global Hawk, Credit: J. Zavaleta/NASA

The flights were scheduled to start in January of 2013, and they're only the first of a multiyear campaign to study how changes in water vapor in the stratosphere can impact global climate. The Airborne Tropical Tropopause Experiment (ATTREX) relies on a Global Hawk drone (pictured)--a type of aircraft also used by the U.S. Navy and the Air Force. NASA anticipates that  ATTREX will provide "unprecedented measurements of the tropical tropopause." Which, in its own way, is pretty cool.

There are, of course, more applications--such as drones securing the border and drones being used in provide aid and support during natural disasters. I've tried to provide some possible uses that aren't quite as obvious.  Simply put, there's more to drones than blowing up terrorists and spying on American citizens. Drones have some pretty impressive civilian applications that will only serve to improve our quality of living. Legitimate concerns kept in mind, drones are worth getting excited about.  

Ten Year Commemoration: Iraq Revisited

For many of us at the Patterson School, the War in Iraq was the most prominent foreign policy issue (debacle?) that defined our formative years.  I remember watching the TV in my bedroom during my junior year of high school as reports surfaced of stealth fighters providing the opening bombs that ultimately led to "Shock and Awe."  Although the 1990s saw its fair share of violent conflicts (Rwanda, the Balkans, etc.), nothing like this new round of war had occupied our attention since Desert Storm.  Since we just commemorated the ten-year anniversary of our invasion, I thought I'd provide a little context.

The New York Times has nice synopsis of the War in Iraq.  The LA Times has a great timeline, some of which I've copied here:

Oct. 11, 2002 -- Force authorized
Congress au­thor­izes the use of force against Ir­aq. End­ing a somber de­bate that pushed past mid­night, the Sen­ate votes, 77 to 23, for the res­ol­u­tion. The ac­tion came hours after the House gave its ap­prov­al on a 296-133 vote.

Nov. 8, 2002 -- U.N. ultimatum
United Na­tions Se­cur­ity Coun­cil passes Res­ol­u­tion 1441 call­ing on Ir­aq to co­oper­ate with weapons in­spect­ors. The show of in­ter­na­tion­al unity sends a strong mes­sage to Ir­aqi Pres­id­ent Sad­dam Hus­sein that he is without al­lies if he con­tin­ues to defy the United Na­tions, am­bas­sad­ors said.

Jan. 28, 2003 -- ‘Imminent threat’
Speak­ing to a skep­tic­al world, Pres­id­ent Bush in his State of Uni­on ad­dress gives a force­ful and de­tailed de­nun­ci­ation of Ir­aq. He prom­ises new evid­ence that Sad­dam Hus­sein’s re­gime poses an im­min­ent danger to the world and de­mands the United Na­tions con­vene in just one week to con­sider the threat.

Feb. 5, 2003 -- Colin Powell at U.N.
Sec­ret­ary of State Colin Pow­ell ar­gues be­fore the Se­cur­ity Coun­cil that the U.S. has evid­ence of weapons of mass destruction in Ir­aq, based on in­form­a­tion provided by source code­named “Curve­ball,” who later ad­mit­ted to ly­ing.

March 17, 2003 -- Bush’s ultimatum
Pres­id­ent gives Sad­dam Hus­sein a 48-hour dead­line to leave Ir­aq or face sure de­struc­tion “at a time of our choos­ing.”

March 20, 2003 -- U.S. Forces Enter Iraq
U.S. and Brit­ish troops sweep in­to south­ern Ir­aq in an in­va­sion aimed at Bagh­dad, where a new wave of mis­siles and bombs struck a pres­id­en­tial com­pound hous­ing sev­er­al gov­ern­ment de­part­ments at the heart of Sad­dam Hus­sein’s power.

April 9, 2003 -- Baghdad falls
U.S. troops break Sad­dam Hus­sein’s 24-year grip on Ir­aq. With help from the Mar­ines, Ir­aqis topple a four-story statue of the pres­id­ent. Loot­ing of gov­ern­ment and pub­lic build­ings, in­clud­ing mu­seums and ar­mor­ies, en­sues un­checked amid mass dis­order.

May 1, 2003 -- ‘Mission accomplished’
Aboard USS Ab­ra­ham Lin­coln, Pres­id­ent Bush tells a cheer­ing crew that U.S. forces have brought about a ‘turn­ing of the tide’ against ter­ror­ism. Un­der­neath a ban­ner read­ing “Mis­sion Ac­com­plished,” the pres­id­ent says the con­flict with Ir­aq marked the be­gin­ning of “a new era” in wa­ging war.

Dec. 13 2003 -- Hussein caught
Saddam Hussein was captured by American forces at a farmhouse in ad-Dawr near Tikrit in a hole in Operation Red Dawn.

June 28, 2004 -- Iraqis take power
Led by Prime Min­is­ter Iy­ad Allawi, an in­ter­im Ir­aqi gov­ern­ment takes power from U.S. ad­min­is­trat­or L. Paul Bremer III after a furt­ive ce­re­mony meant to pree­mpt in­sur­gent at­tacks that could have dis­rup­ted the hand-over.

Jan. 30, 2005 -- Iraqis vote
Mil­lions of Ir­aqis defy vi­ol­ence, calls for a boy­cott and a leg­acy of des­pot­ism to cast bal­lots in the na­tion’s first mul­ti­party elec­tions in half a cen­tury.

Dec. 30, 2006 -- Hussein executed
A de­fi­ant Sad­dam Hus­sein is hanged at dawn in a secret con­crete death cham­ber. Be­fore his ex­e­cu­tion, he de­nounces the West and Ir­an.

Jan. 10, 2007 -- Troop surge
Pres­id­ent Bush ac­know­ledges that his pre­vi­ous strategy has failed and an­nounces the U.S. needs to add more than 20,000 troops in or­der to avert de­feat.

Aug. 19, 2010 -- Combat troops leave
The last of U.S. com­bat troops with­draw from Ir­aq. The move comes amid a deep polit­ic­al crisis that many think could turn in­creas­ingly vi­ol­ent, and Ir­aqis are deeply ap­pre­hens­ive.

Despite our substantial military success in the initial invasion, the United States was unprepared to execute the occupation needed to reunify the country.  Moreover, we had no plan in place to guide our efforts.  According to then Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, "Our exit strategy in Iraq is success; it's that simple.  The objective is not to leave [but] to succeed in our mission."

President Bush tapped Lieutenant General Jay Garner to lead the transition in Iraq.  His strategy -- which quickly led to his ouster -- was to maintain the same state institutions that operated under Saddam, although many (including many Iraqis) wanted a clean slate.  The problem was "Excluding all 1.5 million party members from the new government would mean shutting out virtually every public servant, precisely the people who know how to get things running again."[1]  Garner's logic was:  "As in any totalitarian regime, there were many people who needed to join the Baath Party in order to get ahead in their careers. We don't have a problem with most of them."  American forces would work to identify the nefarious elements within the state and bring them to justice.  To prepare Iraq for a quick American exit, Garner pushed ahead with a plan to have national elections as soon as possible (within as ninety days of the fall of Saddam) that would install a new Iraqi government.  The general was swiftly replaced by L. Paul Bremmer.  After his ouster, reports stated Garner said "he fell out with the Bush circle because he wanted free elections and rejected an imposed programme of privatisation."[2]

The resulting policy of de-Ba'athification proved disastrous.  The the International Center for Transitional Justice's:

research and interviews with the official body that led de-Baathification initiatives for much of this period showed that these wholesale dismissals, combined with a lack of due process, badly undermined Iraq's government and military structures and fuelled a sense of grievance among those affected - not just employees, but also their families, friends and communities. It is unsurprising that the process became a significant contributing factor in widespread social and political conflict.[3]

The Iraqi military was especially affected by de-Ba'athification, which resulted in the dismissal of up to 500,000 soldiers.  Ultimately, the decision to disband the army fueled a growing insurgency.

In the aftermath of CPA Orders 1 and 2, Ba’ath officials became natural allies to the angry and financially troubled ex-soldiers of the Iraqi Army after the Army was disbanded, with no effort made to recall those former soldiers who may have remained interested in serving. The ability of senior Ba’ath leaders to obtain and provide funding to the insurgency was particularly important in helping to organize it into an effective force able to include unemployed and desperate Iraqis willing to strike at U.S. forces for money.[4]

As of March 2007, the Sunni insurgency stood at 70,000 fighters.  There were approximately 1,300 foreign mujahedeen fighters.  The sectarian conflict broke out into fullon civil war in Iraq in which almost   The violence prompted President Bush to commit an additional 20,000 troops in the so-called "surge."  The surge was ultimately successful because it took advantage of a new dynamic within Sunni tribes in western Iraq:  the Anbar Awakening.  "The Awakening movement, a predominantly Sunni Arab force recruited to fight Sunni Islamic extremists like Al Qaeda in Mesopotamia, has become a great success story after its spread from Sunni tribes in Anbar Province to become an ad-hoc armed force of 65,000 to 80,000 across the country in less than a year."[5]

Seven years, over 130,000 civilians, and more than $2 trillion dollars spent, the last american combat troops left Iraq in August 2010.[6]  And for all that blood and treasure, the United States gained little.  A study conducted by the Costs of War Project by the Watson Institute for International Studies at Brown University:

concluded the United States gained little from the war while Iraq was traumatized by it. The war reinvigorated radical Islamist militants in the region, set back women's rights, and weakened an already precarious healthcare system, the report said. Meanwhile, the $212 billion reconstruction effort was largely a failure with most of that money spent on security or lost to waste and fraud, it said. [Ibid]

Given the traumatic experience we've had in Iraq, it's worthwhile to ask:  How has Iraq changed us?  And for that analysis, I defer to Dan Drezner:

Here's the thing: Deep down, the American people are pretty realist. The legacy of Operation Iraqi Freedom is that this realist consensus has cemented itself further in the American psyche. The American public has an aversion to using force unless the national interest is at stake, and a deep aversion to using force to do things like promote democracy or human rights. . . .

It took a generation and the end of the Cold War for the lessons of Vietnam to fade away. I'd wager that it will take at least a generation for the legacy effects of the Iraq War. 

Indeed, in American history, the war that Operation Iraqi Freedom reminds me of isn't Vietnam -- it's the War of 1812. That was another war of choice that was launched in no small part because of War Hawks in the halls of Congress. It went disastrously for the United States save the Battle of New Orleans, which allowed politicians to put a gloss of victory on an otherwise calamitous conflict. The long-term political effects on some of the War Hawks were pretty severe however (see:  John C. Calhoun). 

Operation Iraqi Freedom's effects on the international system were minor at best. The effects on American foreign policy, however, are significant and will be with us for some time to come. 

That conclusion is all the more instructive given the the number of conflicts around the globe in which the United States could become involved:  North Korea, East and South China Sea disputes, Taiwan/China, Syria, Iran's nuclear program.  The list goes on.

[1] Brian Bennet, et al. Sorting The Bad From The Not So Bad. Time. May. 19, 2003; available at:  http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1004842,00.html
[2] David Leigh. General sacked by Bush says he wanted early elections. The Guardian. March 18 2004; available at:  http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2004/mar/18/iraq.usa
[3] Iraq's de-Baathification still haunts the country. Al-Jazeera. March 12, 2013; available at: http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/2013/03/201331055338463426.html
[4] W. Andrew Terrill. Lessons of the Iraqi de-Ba'athification Porgram for Iraq's Future and the Arab Revolutions. Strategic Studies Institute. May 2012; available at:  http://www.strategicstudiesinstitute.army.mil/pdffiles/PUB1106.pdf
[5] Alissa J. Rubin and Damien Cave. In a Force for Iraqi Calm, Seeds of Conflict. The New York Times. December 23, 2007; available at:  http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/23/world/middleeast/23awakening.html?pagewanted=all
[6] Daniel Trotta. Iraq war costs U.S. more than $2 trillion: study. Reuters. March 14, 2013; available at:  http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/03/14/us-iraq-war-anniversary-idUSBRE92D0PG20130314

Israel and the USA: a love story on the rocks

Obama, Netanyahu and the future of the Two State Solution

---
Edit 3/18/2013:
Also, this is...relevant. And hysterical.

---

Right now, things between Israel and her perpetual ally, the United States, are a bit chilly. Obama, who is going to Jerusalem this week, knows full well that Israelis do not regard him as a friendly president. Personal relations between President Obama and recently re-elected Israeli Prime Minister, Netanyahu, are decidedly frigid. They have been for the past four years. Netanyahu openly preferred Obama's opponent (Mitt Romney, in case you've already forgotten) during the last election.  

Netanyahu and Obama coexisting.

Romney and Netanyahu enjoying each other's company excessively in October 2012.

Needless to say, there's not exactly any lost love between Barack Obama and Benjamin Netanyahu and that'll make the task before Obama only that much more difficult. The task being pushing for that two-state solution, the death of which more and more people are constantly bemoaning. 

According to a lot of people (the Economist) that's a dream Barack Obama should fight to keep alive. 

The United Nations, the White House, and most influential actors around the world believe that "any solution ending that strife [between Israel and Palestinians], must be based on two separate states:" a mainly Jewish one, Israel; and a mainly Arab one, Palestine. In this vision, the border between the two states should be based on the border that existed before the 1967 ("Six Day") war. This border is known as the "green line." Of course some adjustments and land swaps should be made to reflect the current situation. Jerusalem itself would be a shared, but divided capital. 

That's one vision--which, of course, is not without its flaws, but is perhaps more palatable, and more likely, than other visions for the future of the region floating out in the ether.

Blame for the failure during Obama's first administration to advance the cause of peace between Israelis and Palestinians falls upon both parties. Obama and Netanyahu shared "gross mistakes" in efforts to further the cause. Obama failed to persuade the Israelis of their need to strike a deal with the Palestinians, Netanyahu went behind the president's back to Congress and persisted in expanding Jewish settlements on Palestinian land. Talks, naturally, have stagnated; further negotiations seem unlikely as "the Palestinians are as inept as the Israelis are unyielding."  It falls, therefore, to Barack Obama (scheduled to arrive in Israel on 20 March) and new Secretary of State John Kerry to detail a peace plan on their own.

Obama's mission in the upcoming trip to the Israelis, the Economist argues, is to "convince Mr Netanyahu and ordinary Israelis that he believes making peace is in their interest and he is determined to get involved." This, of course, means making it clear that a two state solution is simply the only solution. This will be a hard sell; presently the cause is in tatters--the one state solution is gaining supporters of, impossibly, both supremacists and romantics--those idealists who dream, starry-eyed, of Arabs and Jews coexisting peacefully in a bi-national state. It's a good dream, but not a plausible one--at least not at this point. Of course, the one state solution is also supported by the presence of Jewish settlements on the West Bank who have become so great in numbers that they make "a contiguous, viable Palestine hard to construct."

The Economist argues that a one-state solution could end in tragedy for the interests of Israel. The Economist briefing this week: "The Middle East peace process: Could two become one?", argues that the one-state option is a dangerous distraction, for Israel in particular.  Palestinians are out-breeding the Jewish Israelis, and if they were confronted by a single state where Palestinians have a voting majority, may find things going south for them very, very quickly.  They'd eventually face a harsh decision: "give up the idea of a Jewish state or deprive Palestinians of their rights as citizens." Apartheid Israel?  Furthermore, Israeli prospects would turn ugly before that decision manifested. With the rest of the Arab world embracing democracy (sort of) Israel could not afford to continue suppressing "millions of surly Palestinians" under occupation--certainly not "without risking both international anger and another Palestinian uprising" which no one wants, really. 

Obviously, this would best be avoided entirely, bringing us directly back to the two state solution and what the Economist, at least, regards as Obama's responsibility to it.  Obama, and the United States, wants a two state solution as much as anyone; it remains a core national security interest to the US.  Obama's venture to Israel on March 20th will mark the first visit to the country since he's taken office.  Making Israel a stop on his first overseas trip during his second term, shows Obama's intention to demonstrate support to Israel--support that will be publicly reaffirmed this week. He will profess his love for the Jewish state, he will reaffirm the unbreakable bond between the US and Israel, he will reassure Israelis that he will stop Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapon.  Netanyahu will make responding overtures, and they will try to "move past the friction of the last few years now that both have won re-election." Maybe the frost between the  two leaders will thaw now that their political futures are more secure; maybe they will feel greater freedom to act belligerently towards the other. As the Economist pointed out: "America's support for Israel in international organisations such as the UN will not be infinite. This president is not running again. If Mr Netanyahu tries to outflank [Obama] in Congress, he can expect a fight." 

Returning to peace talks will be difficult. Israel is busy with fiscal concerns (including the need for budget cuts) and this may preoccupy the government in the short-to-mid term. The formation of the new coalition places endorsement of the two state option in political limbo, at least for now. Some worry that a "surge" in settlement building is on the horizon, which will, naturally, push hope for talks firmly in the opposite direction. 

There is the question of whether talks should continue at the present time at all. Both parties are exceedingly frustrated with the other and it seems unlikely that any ground will be made. Also, considering Palestinian frustration at their own government's failure, "it's possible that the Palestinian Authority could not survive another round of failed negotiations." Regardless, many feel that the United States could do a lot behind the scenes to push the process along in the absence of formal talks. These activities include working with Israel on issues regarding the possible cessation of settlement construction and Palestinian prisoners held in Israeli prisons---pursuit of these issues would bolster the Palestinian Authority's credibility. The Palestine Authority, for its part, should use "every opportunity" to express their desire to commit to a two state solution. President Mahmoud Abbas's speech at the 2012  UN General Assembly was regarded by Israelis as inflammatory--it wasn't exactly helpful in advancing the process. 

Nevertheless, Palestine and the Palestinian Authority cannot sustain indefinitely in the limbo of the current status quo. In turn, neither can Israel itself. The United States should work with both parties in order to guarantee the eventual return to negotiation, when appropriate, in order to continue towards the final goal: end of occupation and conflict in the region. The United States, as Obama should remind his hosts this week, is vital to guaranteeing the success of this process. 

Sec. Hagel announces implementation of missile interceptors

This last Friday, Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel announced the US intent to strengthen its missile defenses. This statement is in response to North Korea’s ongoing provocations of an impending nuclear strike against the US.

The Department of Defense (DoD) will add 14 new anti-missile interceptors at For Greely, Alaska. This action moves the deployment of a second missile-defense radar in Japan. All of these actions contradict earlier decisions made by the Obama administration. DoD hopes these implementations will strike down incoming missiles, in addition to the creation of a site on the East Coast. The 14 anti-missile interceptors will cost approximately $1 billion and will need congressional approval.

Sec. Hagel hopes these new interceptors will strengthen defense and maintain the US commitment to regional allies and partners.

With all of this being said, North Korea continued to make threats of a preemptive nuclear attack against the US. At the same time, the United Nations (UN) is preparing new sanctions against North Korea due to the February 12^th nuclear test. It is important to note, nuclear experts say North Korea is not a legitimate threat to the sovereignty of the US because it still lacks the capability of connecting a nuclear weapon to an intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM).

The announcement and actions by the DoD are justifiable because it is important to stay ahead of the threat from North Korea. Both the December rocket launch and the nuclear test elevated the risk or potential threat from a nuclear ICBM. Moreover, these actions should not be considered a balance to the ICBM arsenals in China or Russia (or Iran), and the US should clearly and diplomatically communicate with regional actors that these missile defense systems are solely for threat from North Korea.

Before the missile interceptors are implemented, the missiles should (obviously) be tested because the proposed interceptors have not hit a target since 2008. There are three contractors involved with these interceptors: Boeing Co., Raytheon Co., and Orbital Sciences Corp.

Overall, the implementation of these interceptors will present a clear message to Kim Jung-un (leaders of North Korea) and should make him think twice before continuing his current rhetoric and actions. The missiles will impose real costs for North Korea if they every decide to utilize their nuclear arsenal.

Even though the 14 interceptors fall short of the Bush administration recommendations of 44 interceptors, the strategy is a step in the right direction.

The auditing challenges for Sec. Hagel

Chuck Hagel, former US senator and current Secretary of Defense, faces daunting challenges within the first weeks of starting his post. Since he gained confirmation, Congress failed to pass a deal that would have avoided automatic spending cuts, and the tasks of winding down the military presence in Afghanistan and maneuvering the 'Asian Pivot' are daunting, to say the least. In addition to these challenges, the DoD continues to struggle with auditing its budget.

The Defense Department is presently not able to be audited in its entirety. As shocking as this information may be, it actually gets worse. The DoD is required by law to provide annual financial statements since 1990. It has yet to comply. At first, it planned to be ready for audit by 1996, then by 2007. Now, the projected year is 2017. This history of failure has been particularly disappointing for members of Congress, who fear that the Pentagon's complex budget conceals corruption, waste, and bloat. With pressure mounting on the DoD to slim down, a budget ready for audit will make it more likely that cuts will prudently be made and less likely that well-run programs will be cut while wasteful departments prosper.

As of right now, Hagel can begin the process with a public promise that he'll hand a complete audit of the DoD to the chairman of the Armed Services Committee before the next president takes the oath of office in Janurary 2017. He can push for more of the Pentagon to be ready for audit before that date.

To call out those who resist his philosophies, Hagel can then use his public presence to promote his efforts, and a new hard-charging comptroller will be key to finalizing a proper audit. I also recommend that Hagel should also warn subordinates that if they cannot deliver budgets for audit on his timeline, he'll find people who can.

If Sec. Hagel successfully pulls this off, he will win the support and respect of the Armed Services Committee. He'll also get support beyond the Beltway. That will give him room to operate, room that he currently doesn't have.

China’s Falcon Eagle (J-31) Sends Couple Messages about Chinese Military Industry

A successful 10-minute test flight of China’s Falcon Eagle was a surprise to many observers of Chinese military industry. The new project was first unveiled just a few months ago, in November 2012 and demonstrated significant advancement in the Chinese production capabilities. This advanced multi-functional fighter jet is also referred to as F-60 or J-31 and is described as the smaller version of more famous J-20. J-31 is compared to both American F-35 and Russian Yak-141. Its external appearance and design is similar to F-35, but it’s powered by Russian produced Klimov RD-93 turbofans, as is J-20 and most other Chinese planes.    

Despite the successful test flight and the fact that Beijing is publicizing this project much more than any other military projects underway, J-31 is still rather mysterious. Details of the aircraft performance such as effectiveness of its sensors, radar-absorbing coating, production plan and many others are still unknown. All we know is that it’s a fifth generation stealth fighter jet with vertical takeoff and landing capabilities. This leaves lots of room for speculations about its function and capacities. The following are some of the major assumptions:

J-31/F-60 fifth generation stealth fighter jet  

•         Whereas J-20 is larger and intended for ground attack missions, J-31 will have both air-to-air and air-to-surface attack capacities and will most likely serve as the cover for J-20. Thus, these two fighters will be complementing each other.
•         J-31’s enhanced double-wheeled nose and two big tail wings indicate its vertical takeoff and landing capability, which leads to the assumption that J-31 is intended for aircraft carriers, specifically for the newly built Liaoning. This theory was backed up by the reports of the Military-Industrial Courier (Russian language Defense newspaper) saying that J-31 project was funded by the PLA Navy directly.
•         Military-Industrial Courier also noted that during the November 2012 Zhuhai Airshow, PLA was much willing to present and advertise J-31 than J-20, which makes analysts think that Falcon Eagle is intended for international markets, while J-20 is for Chinese military and remains secretive. It is expected that J-31 will be much cheaper and cost-effective than its American counterpart. 

Falcon Eagle reminds us of several important things about Chinese military production capabilities. First of all, growth of Chinese military industry has undeniably accelerated in the last decade or so. It is already capable of sustaining multiple overlapping advanced programs – in addition to J-31 Shenyang Aircraft Corporation (SAC) is working on several other projects such as J-11B and carrier-based J-15. Further, competition between two major Chinese military producers is becoming more vivid. SAC’s main challenger, Chengdu Aircraft Industry Group is producing the J-20 fighter jet. This competition undoubtedly encourages development of the industry. That said, it will still take at least two more years until J-20 and J-31 projects are ready to enter the production.

Engines remain the Achilles heel of Chinese military industry. Most of Chinese planes are still powered by Russian engines, which account more than 90 percent of all Russian aerospace exports to China. Moscow and Beijing are further deepening cooperation in the transfer of Russian knowledge and expertise in combat aviation and its after-sales in the format of Sino-Russian interstate committee for military-technical cooperation. Sides expect that agreements reached in this format will ease and legitimize the process of intellectual property transfer. China hopes to develop her own engines sooner rather than later and reduce her dependence on Russian aerospace industry. 

Lifting the 1994 Combat Exlcusion Policy

What makes the US military so overwhelmingly dominant by international standards? 3 things: Preponderance (sheer size of the force), Technology (most advanced tools of warfare), and force employment (the capability and effective employment of our individual service men and women).  How will admission of women into combat arms affect force quality?  By direction of the Secretary of Defense every position that is currently closed to women will be reviewed and opened unless an exception to policy is requested and approved based upon the 5 Guiding Principles established by the joint chiefs of staff.
By these guidelines the arguments against inclusion of women based upon degraded social dynamics within units (fraternization, sexual tensions, expanded considerations in billeting or field operations) will have difficulty overcoming the SECDEF's standards for accepting gender based exclusion.  Arguments against inclusion based upon the idea that force quality is necessarily degraded, however may hold if (1) lower standards for physical capability are applied to combat arms postions in order to facilitate the integration of women and (2) the lower standards necessarily diminish force quality within that particular field due to the nature of the position.
If lower standards are not applied to positions within the combat arms and the existing male only standards for physical ability are observed, then gender exclusion simply won't have a leg to stand on.  If lower standards are applied to facilitate gender diversity in the combat arms positions currently excluded to women, then those fields that can best demonstrate a diminished level of force quality due to a fundamental dependency upon the physical ability of the individuals within that field will be best postioned to make an argument for gender based exclusion.
I would hypothesize that the spectrum for the strongest case for gender exclusion would begin with specialized forces ( Rangers, SEALS, RECON, PARARESCUE, etc.) and Infantry. This spectrum would likely end with the most mechanized combats arms fields (Tanks (the first five minutes is enough to get the idea), artillery) having the weakest case for gender exclusion...That is not to say that these fields cannot make a case at all but rather that physical capability is further from the core group of compentencies that determine force quality in the latter fields relative to the former.
 

The Cyberdragon

Unit 61398 and Chinese Cyber Belligerence 

In certain ways, this whole cyber craze isn't exactly new--though it may certainly seem that way to the average individual watching the news over the past year or so. For years, security experts (both public and private) and western intelligence agencies have indicated that Chinese hackers have been trying to steal Western corporate secrets.  Recently, evidence of Chinese hacking has outraged American politicians and has lead to backlash against Chinese firms. 

Outside the building alleged to be the home of Chinese military Unit 61398 by 

American cyber security firm Mandiant. 

The Chinese government has always vehemently denied these accusations. In January of 2013 the Chinese Defense Ministry asserted that "it is unprofessional and groundless to accuse the Chinese military of launching cyber attacks without any conclusive evidence."  That all changed on Feb 19th when Mandiant, an American cyber-security firm, released a report detailing the activities of a particular group of hackers. That group of hackers was a Chinese military outfit known as Unit 61398 and they, according to the Mandiant report, were probably behind attacks launched against more than one hundred companies and government agencies the world over.The Mandiant report itself is the result of nearly six years of investigation and tracks individual members of one Chinese hacker group (with charming aliases like "Ugly Gorilla" and "SuperHard") to what the Economist describes as a "nondescript district in residential Shanghai that is home to Unit 61398) f the People's Liberation Army."

 The report (which dubs the Unit as APT1) indicates that the Chinese did not employ particularly ground-breaking methods in their endeavors. What makes them unique is the "duration of the attacks and the range of the group's "ecosystem" of remote-control software." These factors combined allowed the hackers to steal terabytes of data from their victims. For the the less than tech savvy among us, that is literally trillions of bytes of information from the hapless, hacked organizations they targeted. And as for duration of the attacks, some have dates imprinted on them which suggests that they were initially programmed as early as 2004. What we are seeing now is clearly the fruition of what might be nearly a decade of planning and premeditation. They've been at this for some time. So no, this cyber thing isn't remotely new. Not at all.  The report indicates that most of the companies and organizations hacked were in fact American, and while it does not name victims, a relates New York Times investigation (Mandiant was also the company NYT hired to look into their own cyber-attacks) sheds some light: including that the hackers managed to gain access to an American defense contractor as well as the networks of a company that helps run American pipelines and power grids. Needless to say, that in itself is cause for alarm. 

The day after this report was released,  February 20th, the United States government announced plans to combat the theft of trade secrets. Cybercrime costs businesses billions upon billions of dollars. No one seems to be able to put a firm number on it--but one thing is apparent: China is easily the most outrageous offender. 

Now, stones and glass houses taken into account, America is by no means innocent in our current world of cyber-spying. But what's unique to the Chinese, at least in comparison to America, is that the Mandiant report shows that China's definition of national security pretty much includes outright theft. This, of course, highlights the need for America as a government and a conglomeration of private companies to get itself in gear to deal with cyber threats. Barack Obama has recently announced measures to ensure greater cooperation between American firms and government agencies--especially in the realms of sharing information. He's supplicating Congress to take similar, more permanent steps. Hopefully this will put America on the path of greater cyber security. That aside--America (and the rest of the world) need to show the Chinese that state sponsored crime is unacceptable. It's time to move the complaints out from behind closed door discussion with Chinese officials and onto the world stage, or at least into the world media.

China should consider this too. How long will brazen cyber belligerence continue to work in their favor? China's new leader, Xi Jinping, came into power suggesting that China "must embrace reform and show more respect for the rule of law." This is a perfect opportunity, which may be missed in light of Chinese hot protests against the Mandiant report. Chinese economic benefits of cyber-theft are obvious, but what do they risk by persisting? Chinese companies will be regarded with consistent suspicion while seeking business abroad. Within the United States they already are, and those attitudes will only persist. China will also not be taken seriously when it protests to the West's talk of a "China threat." Chinese cyber belligerence will not be able to proceed unchallenged for long, and it will be interesting to see how the Chinese will handle the inevitable increasing resistance.

Dictatorships and Photoshop, A Love Story

Dictators hold a very interesting position in world society for a number of reasons. For the time being, we will ignore the loftier and less playful of these reasons, and instead focus on the lighter things. Chief among these lighter things is the privileged position dictators occupy among the ranks of humanity as being one of the few groups of people that routinely get to live their lives doing much closer to whatever the heck they want than most people can manage. Between the money they've stolen, the dissenters and detractors they've killed, and the power they have leeched out of their governments and concentrated in themselves, they've really got nothing holding them back. In theory even the most unchecked, overindulged of imaginations must eventually hit a wall--and, of course, pesky little realities like the laws of physics do eventually put a damper on things--but for all intents and purposes, they've basically been given carte blanche to do as much of whatever they please as they can. Until the revolution, of course, but as previosly mentioned, we're keeping things light for the moment.

Despite all of this power, privilege, and general exceptionalism, there are some things that these people seem to be comically incapable of accomplishing without seeming as intelligent or competent as, well, something very unintelligent and incompetent. Unfortunately, no comparison came to mind that didn't seem incredibly childish, so I'm opting not to include one. Forgive me.

Moving on, despite the capabilities despotism has afforded them, there have been a spate of recent examples of dictators being woefully [for them], delightfully [for us] inept at crafting propaganda.

We'll start with the most recent one of which I am aware. I say we'll start, because depending on my level of interest in continuing this (and possibly popular response), this may become an ongoing research endeavor of mine. Anyway, this particular story was mentioned in class during our little current events chat at some point in the past couple weeks, possibly even by me. The charming establishment that presumes to be leading/governing Iran (which may or may not be considered a dictatorship, but it will be here for simplicity's sake) has this homegrown fighter jet referred to as a Qaher 313. It's attractive enough as a fighter jets go, I suppose, but for a variety of mildly amusing technical reasons, no amount of aesthetic appeal will get this blob off the ground. Ever. Or, at least not while the current laws of physics have anything to say about it, and it is my understanding that they have rather a lot to say about the matter. But what is physics to the Iranian powers-that-be? Not much, it seems. They felt it appropriate to release the following image to the world at large:



For starters, when last I checked, the sun did not have a tendency to shine directly on the center of the back of an object of any sort while simultaneously shining in a presumably even fashion on absolutely everything else around said object.

Second, it was suggested to me that if you know anything about perspective (which I don't), for this "picture" to make any sense (and I don't think any rational human being really wants it to, but let's say there are one or two of them out there), that jet would have to either be extremely close to the "photographer" or absolutely monstrous in size. It is my belief that neither condition can be met.

What I find most interesting is the picture over which the Qaher 313 is superimposed. It is a quite nice stock photo of  Mount Damavand, a very attractive volcano in northern Iran. If nothing else, I'll give them partial credit for not having their jet flying over Mount Everest or Disneyland Paris or something. Sad thing is, the Iranians couldn't be prevailed upon go and take their own picture of their own mountain. The one they used was a computer wallpaper image they took (without asking, no doubt) from pickywallpapers.com.

For your viewing pleasure, here is the pickywallpaper image with and without the intrusive jet:



Granted, some presumably underpaid Iranian computer "wiz" spent a solid 4.8 seconds playing with the colors, but it is absolutely, unquestionably the same image. In theory, we as Americans/America should be taking the Iranian government somewhat seriously. Their nuclear program is cause for some concern, among other things. But it would be much easier to do so if they could manage to exist and function (or pretend to function) without behaving more and more like an SNL parody of themselves.

Se • ques • tra • tion: The action of taking legal possession of assets until a debt has been paid

My college SweetB has done a great job laying out the details of the impending budget cuts.  Here's a little more:

Our debt crisis (exacerbated by Washington myopathy) is a reoccurring phenomenon with which we have become all too familiar.  The 2011 debt ceiling debacle, which produced the 2012 fiscal cliff fiasco, which produced the 2013 sequester, many believe, will no longer be kicked down the road again.  And the Pentagon will be among the hardest areas of the federal government.  The Department of Defense is staring at $42.7 billion in defense cuts (a 9.4 percent cut).  The sequester will force defense officials to put 800,000 civilian employees on unpaid leave.  More importantly, it would result in permanent defense job losses of roughly 325,000 -- including 48,147 civilian employees at the DoD.  The repercussions of such sweeping cuts will likely harm our military and our global respect.

National security leaders are speaking up.  Outgoing Secretary of Defense, Leon Panetta, told his employees in a memo "the rigid nature of the cuts forced upon this department, and their scale, will result in a serious erosion of readiness across the force."  For his part, Secretary of State John Kerry warned that "we can’t be strong in the world unless we are strong at home.  My credibility as a diplomat working to help other countries create order is strongest when America at last puts its own fiscal house in order, and that has to be now."

And the cuts would harm our forces around the world.  "For the U.S. Navy, the rising crescendo of warnings now hits at the heart of the fleet’s activities — the deployed carrier strike groups (CSGs) and amphibious ready groups (ARGs) that project naval power around the world, and that underpin U.S. military activities in the Middle East and the Pacific."  Adm. Jonathan Greenert, chief of naval operations, warns that CSGs and ARGs will be un-deployable because the cuts will stop “nearly all non-deployed operations."  Sequester will also prevent the Navy from training units to replace the two carrier groups in the Middle East and Pacific.  (Similarly, Gen. Raymond Odierno, the Army chief of staff, said the cuts would delay training and that the Army would be forced to send unprepared troops or extend the tours of those already in-country).


While testifying at congressional hearing on behalf of the Navy, Vice Chief of Naval Operations, Adm. Mark Ferguson said:

The immediate impact will be to our fleet operations and depot maintenance. . . .  We anticipate reducing flight operations and underway days for our deployed forces, cancelling deployments . . . suspending most non-deployed operations such as training and certifications, along with other cost-cutting measures. . . .  We will immediately erode the readiness of the force. Over the long term the discretionary budget caps under sequestration will fundamentally change our Navy. We will be compelled to reduce our force structure - our end strength.

Moreover, such immediate austerity will negatively impact our ability to project power in Asia, the region where we have recently renewed our efforts with our strategic "pivot."  Writing in 2012 about the potential impacts of future sequestration, Michael C. Horowitz, Associate Professor of Political Science at the University of Pennsylvania, wrote:

Decisions about defense spending are integrally linked to the United States’ overall strategy in the Asia-Pacific. Given ongoing uncertainty surrounding North Korea, China’s continuing development of anti-access/area-denial (A2/AD) capabilities, and disputes over the East and South China seas, maintaining a robust presence in the region will be a high priority for any future administration. However, sequestration or other major defense cuts could undermine perceptions of U.S. resolve in the Asia-Pacific and make core U.S. allies such as Japan and South Korea doubt Washington’s willingness to invest appropriately in relevant capabilities. Concretely, such cuts could make it more difficult for the United States to maintain its current presence.

The recent North Korea nuclear test and the fears of ongoing Iranian uranium enrichment have once again highlighted the threat of global nuclear proliferation.  While sanctions have so far failed to prevent Pyongyang from pursuing its nuclear ambitions, a credible deterrent threat that might succeed in keeping a nuclear North Korea in its box requires the U.S. to project power well beyond its borders -- and that requires a well financed navy.  In anticipation of the recent nuclear test, "South Korean and U.S. troops began naval drills Monday in a show of force partly directed at North Korea."

Meanwhile, Iran is upping its naval capabilities in the Persian Gulf, which will allow it to continue to endure or evade U.S. sanctions aimed at forcing Iran to give up its nuclear program.  They are building a new naval base in the Sea of Oman near Pakistan's border.  Iran’s Navy Commander Rear Admiral Habibollah Sayyari said "[t]he Iranian navy has so far had no military presence in the area, but now, we will be present in the region to defend the interests and maritime resources of our country and exercise a tighter control over the traffic in the region."  Iran is already able to evade sanctions.  "[T]he most common trick Iran uses to dodge sanctions is ship-to-ship transfers (STS), in which large tankers leaving Iran’s ports offload Iranian oil to smaller vessels.  Then, the Iranian oil is blended with that of another country to disguise it. After that, new shipping documents are issued, giving the blended oil shipment a new identity."  The next step for the U.S. would be to use naval presence to prevent oil tankers from leaving Iranian ports, which would dramatically escalate tensions and risk military confrontation as Iran continues to expand its naval presence outward.  Iran is also becoming more belligerent towards its neighbors by increasing its naval presence near Iranian-occupied islands that are also claimed by the United Arab Emirates.  "The islands sit near oil shipping routes at the mouth of the strategic Strait of Hormuz and the challenge over their sovereignty is a constant threat to Iran's fragile relations with its Arab neighbors."

The U.S. Navy is also going through a technological transition amid calls for austerity.  Overcoming a dwindling naval fleet (let's bring back 1916!)  through superior technological improvements will be important in the future.  But so will making strategic decisions that enhance our capabilities rather than waste money ineffective procurements.  The Littoral Combat Ship, designed to be quick and maneuverable and flexible for diverse naval action in shallow coastal waters, has become a funding black hole that Congress keeps filling.  The program has ballooned to $37 billion, and questions remain as to its combat effectiveness.  With fewer armaments and limited armor than other ships, the LCS will be vulnerable to attack from air, sea, or ground forces despite its faster speed.  (Even at 40 knots, the LCS can't outrun cruise missiles.)

How the sequester shakes out will influence our ability project power.  Brains need to be used.

US Navy and Air Force test and implement laser weapons

Laser technology, more specifically laser weaponry, is one of the dreams for a science-fiction enthusiast like because I have always imagined seeing the US military, one day, using laser weapons. Well, immergence for laser weaponry is definitely near. Over the last few years and months, the US military and its many contractors, i.e. Raytheon Co., have started implementing laser technology on surface and air vehicles. This once object of science fiction is now our science reality. This advancement in military technology is another response to the rapid changes that happen all the time. Mostly, laser technology is a direct response and defense against unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs). Even though the majority of the US public only knows of UAVs from major news sources, they often forget or do not know that other countries are also acquiring and implementing UAVs against the US military. So, in order to counter this revolution of UAVs, the US and its allies are already testing the effectiveness of laser weaponry against UAVs. It is important to note, the US military has used Phalanx for decades to shoot down mortars and rockets. The weapon combines a 20-millimeter Gatling gun that fires at a rate of either 3,000 or 4,500 shots per minute, with radar to search for and track targets. The US Navy has used a land-based version of Phalanx in Iraq since 2005. Mounting a laser cannon beside the Gatling gun should extend the range at which incoming ordinance and UAVs can be eliminated. How the laser weaponry works: The laser weapon system, with a power output of 150 kilowatts, uses a combination of radar and optical systems to detect and track incoming drones. Radar provides an approximate location of the targets, and the optical system takes over to pinpoint the drone's position. Also, the high-energy laser system is able cut through a steel girder almost two-thirds of a mile away. The US Navy and Air Force of the next decade could be equipped with laser weaponry that’s small enough to outfit fighter jets, considerably bolstering U.S. defense capabilities. The significance is this: The 150-kilowatt lasers are an entirely new class of weapon — 10 times smaller and lighter than current laser technology — and would enable a speedier response by fighter jets to threats. These weapons typically defend the United States against rockets, surface-to-air missiles and other weapons that threaten aircraft. However, the new lasers also could go on the offense against certain types of ground targets. The Navy is hoping to test the 150-kilowatt laser against surface ship targets. Raytheon Co. says ground-based training on the new laser is scheduled for 2014. By the way, this guy is definitely not in charge: Dr. Evil