Information Technology Summary and Critique

Information Technology

Summary and Critique of "Strike Back: Offensive Actions in Information Warfare" by Donald J. Welch, Nathan Buchheit, and Anthony Ruocco

In their essay, "Strike Back: Offensive Actions in Information Warfare," Welch, Buchheit and Ruocco (2005) report that in the Age of Information, it is just as important to protect the nation's interests against threats and potential threats to the information highway that have emerged in recent years. In fact, the authors suggest that the need to protect the nation's information is just as important as the military obligations or social considerations that go hand-in-hand with a war on terrorism. Having made this argument, the authors proceed to explain that changes in how the country approaches these threats are needed immediately, but that these changes are going to require some fundamental shifts in how people think about information and terrorism, as well as some changes in the laws that govern these issues. They insist that they are not advocating anything "illegal" in this regard, since anything that is made legal cannot be illegal. The authors quickly resort to a Vietnam analogy to emphasize that simply reacting to threats and potential threats is no longer a viable option in the 21st century, and make the point that identifying more appropriate responses requires a better understanding of what the nation's goals are and how it should go about achieving them (1).

To win a war more effectively, Welch and his colleagues suggest that simply throwing military might at an opponent is a waste of resources; rather, a better approach is to target the enemy's so-called "center of gravity." The war in Vietnam was a defensive war in this regard, and the authors insist that such defensive measures alone are inadequate and a more proactive approach is required today wherein the United States assumes the role of aggressor (2). Given the elusive nature of most terrorist organizations today, though, traditional methods of fighting wars are no longer appropriate; therefore, gaining a clear understanding of the enemy and how it operates is an essential element in actively prosecuting an effective war on terrorism (3).

The essential principles of warfare remained unchanged, though, even in this new cyberspace, and how these principles are being applied is the only difference today. Like suicide and remote-controlled bombings, so-called "information warfare" represents a highly cost-effective tool in the hands of terrorists, and the authors emphasize that the nation's information infrastructure remains highly vulnerable to attack. By assuming a more aggressive approach to prosecuting the war on terrorism and making the enemy react instead of vice versa, the authors suggest that the traditional tools of warfare can be applied in a meaningful way by preventing the enemy from gaining an unexpected advantage of some sort. The authors also suggest "fighting fire with fire" by taking the battle to the enemy and striking when they are least prepared. In the final analysis, the authors make the point that the fundamental principles of warfare can still be relied upon to fight a new and more nebulous enemy, but the United States and its allies must take the battle to the enemy instead of waiting around to be attacked, whether in a physical sense or an attack on the nation's information infrastructure (4).

End Notes

1) Given the recent tardy but well-meaning responses by the federal, state and local officials in the Gulf Coast, it can be assumed that the nation remains relatively unprepared for a terrorist attack of September 11-proportions. The U.S. is struggling to negotiate a nuclear arms treaty with Iran and North Korea (the latter having recently agreed to forego additional nuclear weapons testing in exchange for light-water nuclear reactors, a "breakthrough" that returns the U.S. To the same position it had under the Clinton administration) and is waging a fighting war in Afghanistan and Iraq.

2) "Taking the battle to the enemy" appears to be immensely preferable, at least from the perspective of someone sitting safely at home pontificating about it, than waiting for an attack of any sort on the nation's interests.

3) Certainly, the U.S. And much of the world has increasingly come to rely on the information highway to conduct a global economy, and any disruption of this service would have profound and far-reaching implications; however, it would appear that the authors are missing an important point in their "we can use the old stuff to fight and destroy a new enemy" analogy. The terrorist organizations that are causing the problems around the world are virtually invisible, and the recent attacks in London by Islamic British citizens emphasizes just how difficult it can be in a free society to accomplish the level of aggressive warfare suggested by Welch and his associates.