WhatFinger


The problem with cyber warfare is there are ultimately no winners; the weapons change but the battle will not end

Obama, Stuxnet, and the Sony Hack



In his last press conference of the year, Barack Obama responded to questions about the Sony hack by (allegedly) North Korea.
Obama vowed to respond proportionally “in a place and time and manner that we choose.” What exactly does that mean? It is certainly reminiscent of Jimmy Carter's threats of "dire consequences" whenever the U.S. suffered another outrage - consequences that never seemed to materialize. Actually, BHO's teleprompter lifted this from George W. Bush, who, after identifying Al Qaeda as the culprit in the 911 attacks and calling for war, said it would end in a place and time of our choosing. Obama's teleprompter figured the public forgot this dramatic line, and sought to recycle it, making Obama into a war president on a par with Mr. Bush. (His favorability rating is certainly competitive enough.)

Support Canada Free Press


Mr. Bush's expression made a certain amount of sense; he was warning Al Qaeda that we were going to war against them and would be the ones choosing the battle fields. Obama has no sensible reason to make such a statement; OF COURSE we will choose where and when we will retaliate, if we retaliate at all. Since it is "proportional" it must mean we are going to launch a counter cyber attack on North Korea. If it is proportional, it means it will be directed against North Korean commerce and not the government/military establishment. If that is the case, what will be accomplished? North Korea has virtually no commerce. Maybe Obama plans to force North Korea to cancel a new movie they are making? That would be very bad for Korea; they will be hard-pressed to lose a glowing tribute to Kim Jong-Un, especially in the new year. How sad for the N. Korean peasants, to be forced to watch reruns of all the other Kim Jong-Un tribute films! If we are going to retaliate then it will require going after the N. Korean military computers. And if we do that it will not be proportional. Obama's teleprompter cannot have it both ways. And certainly Mr. Obama cannot complain about cyber-attacks from foreign powers, since he himself likely authorized just such an attack on the Iranian nuclear program. Granted, Iran has had a rogue nuclear program and our actions are certainly justifiable from any reasonable perspective, does it not smack of hypocrisy to complain about a cyber attack against the U.S. when we ourselves have indulged in cyber attacks against others? Could not North Korea argue that this was a retaliation against the U.S. for the Stuxnet attack on Iran? Iran and North Korea have a series of science and technology agreements and North Korea is pledged to mutual support for the Iranians. Would not "proportionality" then be satisfied? One wonders if Obama's teleprompter has found a way to sound tough but ultimately do nothing. The problem with cyber warfare is there are ultimately no winners; the weapons change but the battle will not end. In the final analysis it is merely a tool in another type of conflict, and that conflict can only be won by making the enemy know he is beaten. The enemy has to feel so defeated that continued resistance is futile, and he gives up. That is what has been wrong with the "war on terror" - we are not fighting the people who give succor to the terrorists, and so the enemy has every reason to continue the struggle. And that is what is going to be wrong with any Obama "proportional" response; it will leave the enemy ready to regroup and fight again. There will be no psychological sense of victory or defeat. Obama and his teleprompter are incapable of understanding this. And one wonders about the complicity of China or Russia in all this. After all, this was a commercial attack, not an attack on our national security structure. Any fool should be able to tell that the U.S. is in great economic peril, and continued pressure on the American economy could drive us into the graveyard of history. Would not cyber-attacks on American corporations be logical, especially through a proxy? The Chinese have been hacking our corporations for years, as well as U.S. government computers. But they wouldn't dare DAMAGE our corporate interests directly for fear of retaliation. And the Russians have excellent hackers; they created hostageware, for instance, that is nigh unto unbreakable (my brother Brian got such an infection and had to buy a new computer.) Russia and China have been becoming quite cozy in recent years. Russia is a strong ally of Iran, and Russia is also in serious trouble right now, thanks to low oil prices. The Russians would have an interest in helping to damage the U.S. with a cyber attack. So we have Iran, China, Russia, and North Korea with motives. Certainly China and Russia have the means; opportunity, well, there is nothing but opportunity in the modern world. Any or all of these actors could be behind this. I suspect this is the tip of a huge iceberg.


View Comments

Timothy Birdnow -- Bio and Archives

Timothy Birdnow is a conservative writer and blogger and lives in St. Louis Missouri. His work has appeared in many popular conservative publications including but not limited to The American Thinker, Pajamas Media, Intellectual Conservative and Orthodoxy Today. Tim is a featured contributor to American Daily Reviewand has appeared as a Guest Host on the Heading Right Radio Network. Tim’s website is tbirdnow.mee.nu.


Sponsored