Archive for May 30th, 2009

30th May
2009
written by admin

8580_image
Mike Luckovich

8583_image
Bob Gorrell

8550_image
Gary Markstein

30th May
2009
written by admin

081111-f-7823a-336-1

Wired

Earlier this month, a series of American airstrikes on a village in western Afghanistan killed dozens and dozens of people — including at least 25 civilians. Now, U.S. forces are weighing the release of a classified video, taken from a B-1 bomber involved in the battle. The military is convinced that the footage will justify American troops’ actions during the firefight — and show that the Taliban committed “human sacrifice” in the village of Garani. Human rights groups say the video may only reinforce just how questionable those airstrikes really were.

There is indeed video from a B-1 bomber,” U.S. Central Command chief Gen. David Petraeus tells National Public Radio. “What it will prove is that the targets of these different strikes were the Taliban.”

What it does not prove, is that there were not civilians killed. I think we agree, actually, that there were civilians killed in this incident along — again — with a substantial number of Taliban. This is a very tough case because this was a very significant ambush of an Afghan force that had our advisers with it, and it was in response to that force — literally rescuing that force at the request of Afghan political leaders as well as Afghan police and military leaders — that our forces then moved in a very tough fight that these bombs were dropped.

Secretary of State Clinton, President Obama, and new U.S. ambassador to Kabul Karl Eikenberry have allapologized for the civilian deaths in Garani. According to the International Committee of the Red Cross, those killed include “an Afghan Red Crescent volunteer and 13 members of his family who had been sheltering from fighting in a house that was bombed in an air strike.”

But U.S. military officials continue to defend their troops’ actions. According to them, at about 3pm on May 4th, a coalition “quick reaction force” arrived in the village of Garani to help a combined force of Afghan National Police and Afghan National Army that had been ambushed by hundreds of Taliban fighters.  An Afghan sergeant had been shot — and was trapped by heavy Taliban machine gun and rocket-propelled grenade fire.

American F/A-18 jets were sent in, to zoom up low and fast over the town. The idea was to scare off militants while coalition troops tried to rescue the sergeant.  When that failed, the coalition forces began bombing. From approximately 4pm to 6pm, the fighter planes dropped four bombs 500-lb bombs on “enemy compounds.” As the battle continued, the F/A-18s made a number of strafing runs over Garani, shooting off flares and firing its 20mm guns.

After a lull, the bombing began again. American military officials won’t say what event, specifically, caused the airstrikes to restart; they do admit, however, that at least some of the Taliban force may have left Garani during this period. Locals tell Human Rights Watch that most of the fighting had died down. Nevertheless, over the course of the next three hours, the F/A-18s dropped five more 500 pound munitions on compounds and a grove where insurgents had gathered. “It was like Judgment Day,” Habibullah, a health worker, tells Human Rights Watch. “Words cannot describe how terrible it was. Who can bear to see so many killed, from a two-day-old baby to a 70-year-old woman?”

A B-1 bomber, flying far overhead, dropped four one-ton munitions onto a pair of large mud-brick compounds. Villagers say more than 160 civilians, mainly women and children, had taken shelter inside the buildings, which were near a mosque and residential compounds. According to the military, observation from forces on the ground and the video from the B-1’s weapons sight show that the buildings were on the outskirts of the village, and packed with Taliban. The video shows two groups of fully-grown adults going inside the compounds. Radio traffic confirmed the the insurgents’ presence. Additional footage shows women and children streaming into other buildings that were not bombed, the military says.

The U.S. also claims it has intelligence showing that the “Taliban’s deliberate planning to create a civilian casualty disaster for us,” Lt. Commander Christine Sidenstricker, a spokesperson for U.S. Forces Afghanistan, tells Danger Room. The militants planned to draw U.S. fire onto buildings crammed with innocents, she says. If not enough women and children were killed, the Taliban made plans to use grenades to ensure an international outcry over civilian deaths. American intelligence also shows Taliban fighters congratulating themselves on forcing survivors to lie to doctors — and on taking American compensation money meant for the victim’s families, Sidenstricker adds. “This wasn’t collateral damage. It was human sacrifice by the Taliban. Deliberate civilian murder.”

It’s a claim U.S. officials have repeated any number of times, when civilians have been caught in firefights between coalition forces and the Taliban. Rachel Reid, Afghanistan researcher for Human Rights Watch, finds the argument unconvincing. “The U.S. military spokespeople can be quick to blame Taliban shielding for civilian deaths, even when unproven, but this does not remove their responsibility to avoid civilian harm under the laws of war. In fact they have cried foul over Taliban shielding so many times, they ought to now be anticipating the tactic,” Reid tells Danger Room.

Yes, there’s “some evidence of Taliban shielding in Garani village. To deliberately risk the lives of civilians for military gain is a ruthless tactic of the insurgents.” But even if that’s true — and even if the B-1 video shows exactly what Petraeus and Sidenstricker say it does — “there are many questions that remain to be answered by the U.S.” about the Garani incident, Reid says. “Although the U.S. had intelligence that some insurgents remained, the proportionality of such a heavy air attack must still be in doubt. If they were unaware of the civilian presence, their intelligence is cast into doubt… If they knew that civilians were still present, and dropped 8 bombs anyway, then what was the calculation of military gain versus civilian death that was made?”

Perhaps more of those questions will be answered next week, when the military hopes to show this supposedly-definitive B-1 video.

30th May
2009
written by admin

department-of-cyber-defense
NY Times

MELBOURNE, Fla. — The government’s urgent push into cyberwarfare has set off a rush among the biggest military companies for billions of dollars in new defense contracts.

The exotic nature of the work, coupled with the deep recession, is enabling the companies to attract top young talent that once would have gone to Silicon Valley. And the race to develop weapons that defend against, or initiate, computer attacks has given rise to thousands of “hacker soldiers” within the Pentagon who can blend the new capabilities into the nation’s war planning.

Nearly all of the largest military companies — including Northrop Grumman, General DynamicsLockheed Martin and Raytheon — have major cyber contracts with the military and intelligence agencies.

The companies have been moving quickly to lock up the relatively small number of experts with the training and creativity to block the attacks and design countermeasures. They have been buying smaller firms, financing academic research and running advertisements for “cyberninjas” at a time when other industries are shedding workers.

The changes are manifesting themselves in highly classified laboratories, where computer geeks in their 20s like to joke that they are hackers with security clearances.

At a Raytheon facility here south of the Kennedy Space Center, a hub of innovation in an earlier era, rock music blares and empty cans of Mountain Dew pile up as engineers create tools to protect the Pentagon’s computers and crack into the networks of countries that could become adversaries. Prizes like cappuccino machines and stacks of cash spur them on, and a gong heralds each major breakthrough.

The young engineers represent the new face of a war that President Obama described Friday as “one of the most serious economic and national security challenges we face as a nation.” The president said he would appoint a senior White House official to oversee the nation’s cybersecurity strategies.

Computer experts say the government is behind the curve in sealing off its networks from threats that are growing more persistent and sophisticated, with thousands of intrusions each day from organized criminals and legions of hackers for nations including Russia and China.

“Everybody’s attacking everybody,” said Scott Chase, a 30-year-old computer engineer who helps run the Raytheon unit here.

Mr. Chase, who wears his hair in a ponytail, and Terry Gillette, a 53-year-old former rocket engineer, ran SI Government Solutions before selling the company to Raytheon last year as the boom in the military’s cyberoperations accelerated.

The operation — tucked into several unmarked buildings behind an insurance office and a dentist’s office — is doing some of the most cutting-edge work, both in identifying weaknesses in Pentagon networks and in creating weapons for potential attacks.

Daniel D. Allen, who oversees work on intelligence systems for Northrop Grumman, estimated that federal spending on computer security now totals $10 billion each year, including classified programs. That is just a fraction of the government’s spending on weapons systems. But industry officials expect it to rise rapidly.

The military contractors are now in the enviable position of turning what they learned out of necessity — protecting the sensitive Pentagon data that sits on their own computers — into a lucrative business that could replace some of the revenue lost from cancellations of conventional weapons systems.

Executives at Lockheed Martin, which has long been the government’s largest information-technology contractor, also see the demand for greater computer security spreading to energy and health care agencies and the rest of the nation’s critical infrastructure. But for now, most companies remain focused on the national-security arena, where the hottest efforts involve anticipating how an enemy might attack and developing the resources to strike back.

Though even the existence of research on cyberweapons was once highly classified, the Air Force plans this year to award the first publicly announced contract for developing tools to break into enemy computers. The companies are also teaming up to build a National Cyber Range, a model of the Internet for testing advanced techniques.

Military experts said Northrop Grumman and General Dynamics, which have long been major players in the Pentagon’s security efforts, are leading the push into offensive cyberwarfare, along with the Raytheon unit. This involves finding vulnerabilities in other countries’ computer systems and developing software tools to exploit them, either to steal sensitive information or disable the networks.

Mr. Chase and Mr. Gillette said the Raytheon unit, which has about 100 employees, grew out of a company they started with friends at Florida Institute of Technology that concentrated on helping software makers find flaws in their own products. Over the last several years, their focus shifted to the military and intelligence agencies, which wanted to use their analytic tools to detect vulnerabilities and intrusions previously unnoticed.

Like other contractors, the Raytheon teams set up “honey pots,” the equivalent of sting operations, to lure hackers into digital cul-de-sacs that mimic Pentagon Web sites. They then capture the attackers’ codes and create defenses for them.

And since most of the world’s computers run on the Windows or the Linux systems, their work has also provided a growing window into how to attack foreign networks in any cyberwar.

“It takes a nonconformist to excel at what we do,” said Mr. Gillette, a tanned surfing aficionado who looks like a 1950s hipster in his T-shirts with rolled-up sleeves.

The company, which would allow interviews with other employees only on the condition that their last names not be used because of security concerns, hired one of its top young workers, Dustin, after he won two major hacking contests and dropped out of college. “I always approach it like a game, and it’s been fun,” said Dustin, now 22.

Another engineer, known as Jolly, joined Raytheon in April after earning a master’s degree in computer security at DePaul University in Chicago. “You think defense contractors, and you think bureaucracy, and not necessarily a lot of interesting and challenging projects,” he said.

The Pentagon’s interest in cyberwarfare has reached “religious intensity,” said Daniel T. Kuehl, a military historian at the National Defense University. And the changes carry through to soldiers being trained to defend and attack computer and wireless networks out on the battlefield.

That shift can be seen in the remaking of organizations like the Association of Old Crows, a professional group that includes contractors and military personnel.

The Old Crows have deep roots in what has long been known as electronic warfare — the use of radar and radio technologies for jamming and deception.

But the financing for electronic warfare had slowed recently, prompting the Old Crows to set up a broader information-operations branch last year and establish a new trade journal to focus on cyberwarfare.

The career of Joel Harding, the director of the group’s Information Operations Institute, exemplifies the increasing role that computing and the Internet are playing in the military.

A 20-year veteran of military intelligence, Mr. Harding shifted in 1996 into one of the earliest commands that studied government-sponsored computer hacker programs. After leaving the military, he took a job as an analyst at SAIC, a large contractor developing computer applications for military and intelligence agencies.

Mr. Harding estimates that there are now 3,000 to 5,000 information operations specialists in the military and 50,000 to 70,000 soldiers involved in general computer operations. Adding specialists in electronic warfare, deception and other areas could bring the total number of information operations personnel to as many as 88,700, he said.

30th May
2009
written by admin

Obama US Mideast

Found on Infidels Are Cool

From Foreignpolicy.com

Last night, shortly after U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton told journalists that the Obama administration “wants to see a stop to settlements – not some settlements, not outposts, not natural growth exceptions,” Israeli Prime MinisterBenjamin Netanyahu called a confidante. Referring to Clinton’s call for a settlement freeze,Netanyahu groused, “What the hell do they want from me?” according to his associate, who added, “I gathered that he heard some bad vibes in his meetings with [U.S.] congressional delegations this week.” 

Obama is treating Israel as if they need to stop “oppressing” the victims in Gaza & the West Bank,  putting all the political pressure on them to make a two-state solution possible, as if that would make any difference whatsoever in what the manifesto of Hamas says or the rhetoric of Mahmoud Abbas that says a sovereign Israeli State will never be recognized.  

Obama needs to start dealing with the radical Islamists and their lack of recognition of Israel before ANYTHING can happen.  Obama doesn’t care though.  The problem here is that Obama sees himself as the one who can bring peace to the region, when in reality, the hand of peace has been extended time and time again to the Pali’s and they’ve NEVER accepted anything but Isaeli anihilation. Obama talks as if Jimmy Carter is his special advisor on this issue.  If nothing gets done it’s surely because Israel refused to stop building settlements in the West Bank.  Once again, it’s all on Israel to make peace when that is close to, if not impossible.

What a disgrace our government has become in supporting one of our closest and most important allies.

Robert Spencer can say it better than I can:

“The official said that the basis of the Obama White House’s resolve is the conviction that it is in the United States’ as well as Israel’s interest to end the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.”

Does it not ever occur to anyone in the Obama White House that however much it might be in the interests of the United States and Israel to “end the Israeli-Palestinian conflict,” it may not be within the power of the United States or Israel to “end the Israeli-Palestinian conflict”? The Obama White House seems to be unshakably committed to the proposition that the Palestinians are just passive reactors to Israeli aggression, and that peace will come as soon as the Israelis decide to get on with it.

The Obama White House does not ever seem to consider the proposition that the Palestinians might fight on until they achieve the total destruction of Israel, and that the jihad doctrine of Islamic supremacism mandates that they pursue no other course.

Previous