Nova • September 5, 2014 9:16 PM

@nobody@localhost, on that article

Security bugs — niche industry. There are distinctly different levels of experience there. You have the lower level of being capable of finding security vulnerabilities in the web applications of smaller companies… and the higher level of being able to find critical security vulnerabilities in major applications where the companies have strong security qa teams.

Demand is above supply, but demand is nowhere near where it should be. Companies don’t even know very often they should have people who can find security bugs in their products, or who can lead a secure development program.

And even when they do, they often under employ.

But, most good bugfinders remain employed as demand is much higher then supply. The governments hire, directly and via defense contractors. Software companies hire. Not many major zero days are created by rogue hackers, and this is why the presence of even one such zero day says to investigators, “This is state based” in more then a few cases.

Intelligence — far from perfect, and the “intelligence community” is extremely diverse. People usually do not hear about their flaws and compromises however because of counterintelligence needs — to keep such things secret. Snowden is one of those exceptions to that rule. Some cases being leaked are exceptions. Some cases where prosecution is decided to be pursued are exceptions. Very often, they do not make these things public, instead they spy on the spies who compromised their systems and organizations which is far more valuable then sending someone back to Russia with a slap on the wrist.

Vast difference in intelligence between law enforcement focused, terrorism focused, local focused, foreign focused, technical focused, human focused… between analysts and cover agents (and agents themselves)… between top rung guys who get deals with major telcos made or countries… versus invisible ghosts who wear disguises as a regular part of their job.

I think the main danger there everyone is worried about is seeing intelligence undermine the freedom of free nations. So, obviously, support of whistleblowers is critical.

Nova • September 6, 2014 10:20 AM

On fake cell towers (& @Benni)

That is probably the NSA wanting to grab content, since from a provider, they only would get metadata on americans. The article mentions that most of these towers are on us military facilities. Apparently they want to monitor every call around there in order to find terrorists who try to attack domestic military bases

When I read it is near us military facilities, I was thinking military counterintelligence or fbi counterintelligence. Or just military security, as military base areas can be havens for foreign spies. Of course, it could also be foreign intelligence. But, most likely local counterintelligence looking for spies, and moles… and extremist or other illegal activity with the soldiers.

It would be interesting if more information on this was given, and I could see people starting to make maps of these fake cell towers. I would not be surprised if these towers are not up where they believe there may be hotbeds of foreign spies and or extremists. (Justifiably, or not.)

Nova • September 6, 2014 11:39 AM

Silk Road was taken down (allegedly) by CAPTCHA…

http://krebsonsecurity.com/2014/09/dread-pirate-sunk-by-leaky-captcha/

Nova • September 8, 2014 10:27 AM

@Thoth

Thoth, whatever the case, please note that it is highly dangerous for you to state such things on a forum you frequent. I even know someone in the government there (though everyone has to serve). Even if you were using Tor all the time, if you plan to be a regular poster it is just too easy to track a person back. (Natural language processing, befriending someone, state based analysis of ip address tied to times, leaks in trivial seeming data that lead to you, idiosyncrasies…. )

I am assuming here you are not doing anything which may hurt anyone else and it is of conscience. I work with the underground church, so have helped people in countries where what they are doing is lawful and of good conscience.

I would suggest since you are very interested to figure out how to read the raw disk programmatically. It is actually quite easy, and you can learn a lot from doing so.

Nova • September 8, 2014 11:27 AM

@anyone
On, is the US Mostly doing good in the world, and has it set the stage for ISIL:

Iraq was a failure of intelligence of an unprecedented magnitude. You can further gauge the health of the US intelligence services by the Snowden & Manning leaks. I am talking here from a sheer “business” angle. They are tasked as a core part of their duties to keep secrets, but these leaks show they are failing at that. Likewise, their intelligence led the US into war in Iraq, and it was faulty intelligence. Further, it was faulty in deliver of intelligence product.

I put this simply: intelligence is the eyes and ears of a country, and the US – the most powerful nation on earth – is blind & deaf.

Another major indicator of US intelligence health is ‘how they dealt with these issues after the fact’. If an organization is found with errors – like as with individuals – a key indicator of health is how they turn around and fix those errors. These indicators are all very bad for the US.

Political viewpoints… left, right, middle — whatever. Point is security here.

The consequences of the Iraq invasion were known from the beginning, and were very easy even for laypeople to understand. Cheney himself had advised against ‘going all the way’ in the first Gulf War for the very same reasons: Iraq was a nation which, like most ME nations, very divided. It was held together by a strongman, Saddam Hussein. Remove that strongman and you have a serious problem because the nation is so divided.

What is happening now is by no means a mystery to anyone. One could argue it is political sabotage. The Democrats wanted to get out. The Republicans knew if you pull out disaster would follow. For the Republicans it was win-win. This was foreseeable. It is nothing like “seeing seven moves ahead in chess”. It was trivially predictable.

They knew this when going in… as clearly as if they pulled the pin from a grenade – held the handle so it would not explode – and then handed it off to the Democrats. One can wonder if they were not snickering while doing so.

Morally, I think the Democrats had the right idea. Pull out and leave that mess to the Iraqis.

Point is: there are consequences to having a sick intelligence services. There are consequences to having as a business model one of conflict. You are making money from creating hell on earth, eventually you have to reap that hell. People are very right who understand this is something nations should flee from.

In another sense, the US has made a lot of crack addicts. They want more dope. Of course they would. So, technically, it may be true that they enjoy the US intervening again.

The US has been arming multiple sides in these conflicts. They are not the only nation doing this. But we do know they make enormous money from doing so. Defense contractors, weapons dealers — these guys pay intelligence and political leaders. It is a sick system, and there is no way to stop the wheels of it.

What will happen is anyone’s guess. Maybe there will be a major terrorist strike that then turns the “free” nations full blown totalitarian. The infrastructure is very well setup to allow that. This includes the moral system and politics of the people involved.

Is or has there been any good done by “free” nations? I definitely think so. Such things are hard to calculate. The freedom and lifestyle of people in first world nations is amazing. This is the way things should, and far moreso. Where there is good. But there remains much bad. And it is the bad here which is the topic, and how and where security fails.

Nations are wasting trillions on defense and intelligence they do not need. That money comes from somewhere. It comes from the people and the economy. Some defense and some intelligence is good. But nothing like what is happening. And this destabilizes these countries. It also sets up a perfect precedent for totalitarianism. The poor become more abused, policing agencies become more well armored…

Nova • September 8, 2014 2:58 PM

@Gerard van Vooren

“”Iraq was a failure of intelligence of an unprecedented magnitude.”

I don’t think so. They wanted to invade Iraq.

Hans Blix reported that there were no WMD in Iraq. And besides that, if the only reason they invaded Iraq was WMD, then why didn’t they left right after they discovered there were no WMD?

You are not contradicting me…

Intelligence services are not supposed to tell their “consumers” what they want to hear.

This is a major intelligence service failure.

They are supposed to give as accurate of data as they can.

Another major factor in this failure is that they did not have good intelligence on Iraq. Sure, Hans Blix could have told them. The rest of their intelligence infrastructure would have done well to have stayed home and relied on Hans Blix.

I am not even saying, “They were able to lie about it because they had such horrible intelligence”. But, this is one inference a person could make.

The US is horrible at some forms of intelligence. At some other forms of intelligence they are very good. But, they really had very bad intelligence as for what was going on in Iraq. They even admitted their human intelligence, ground coverage was abysmal. And this is very evident in their actions.

The US relies on other countries and networks of informants (called “agents” — the real agents of the CIA) for human intelligence. They have some deep cover operatives, of course, and then lighter cover. They also contract out. The problem with relying on informants and other countries is: bias.

With these informants you have all the problems cops have: everything from the fact that they are paid for their work… that they may work for adversaries.

Now a big problem with human intelligence inside Iraq is they did not have any cover agents (agent handlers) that they could use. Unlike most countries, they did not have an embassy where they could run light cover cover agents.

(Of course, maybe they had a few, I believe they may have had their agents meet them in a third country…. but a few is not nearly enough for that sort of analysis.)

So, yes, intelligence told Bush and team what they wanted to hear. And one reason there they were so amiable in doing this is, they really did not know what was going on there.

This sort of thing is why I felt that the loveint cases may have been faked. The NSA was asked for evidence by an overseer on cases of abuse, post Snowden. They had to throw them something. So they gave them a handful. And all cases where people just were bothered about their spouses or lovers. What scouts. Wow. Hundreds of thousands of workers… and twelve cases of abuse of power.

They did not know, so they made something up. (Maybe is true, who knows… but the point remains the same.)

From the information standpoint, the system worked before 9/11. G.W.Bush got informed about 9/11. He only dismissed that (which he later denied).

But Iraq was from head to toe lies. That is also why everyone says it is complicated. It was complicated because it was made complicated. It was a racket.

There are several documentaries about this subject.

I rely on as many sources as possible. Documentaries can be great for information, and I have seen a number on Iraq. But, political documentaries often have bias in them. I prefer paper sources on such matters.

I think this is a pretty simple argument I am making. Their intelligence sucks. They do some things well, other things they do horribly.

A lot of people say this. I don’t care much about Bush in this equation. He is not a spy, he is not an analyst. It is true part of the problem is also that Presidents can be so biased and put into leadership seats entirely incompetent people with no experience.

That is another flaw.

If anybody wants to argue, though, that intelligence should tell their consumers just what they want to hear: then with this, I disagree heartily. If anybody wants to argue that the US had good “on the ground” intelligence on Iraq before the war? This, also, I disagree with.

911 is a different matter. They did drop the ball there, as well. You are correct, they were warned about an attack before it happened, however.

911 is actually less of an intelligence failure then Iraq. This statement could be controversial for some. But they are both way up there.

Put the two together, it paints an even nastier picture.

I think, though, 911 was more, “what could we do better”. Al Qaeda was slick in their operation there. That was original. Their terrorists operated very intelligently and professional. I can understand something like that slipping by.

But, going to war based on intelligence which was known to be crap? Bending intelligence to suit such an aim? This is very difficult to discern between sheer insanity and such actions.

Nova • September 8, 2014 7:50 PM

@AnonLurker

[Post-mortem on psychiatric study where students obeyed orders to give others electric shock discovers that it was not mere banality and order following that inspired them, but a cause. According to a careful study of the comment cards by the participants. The cause Milgram sold them on? You are doing it for science!]

Interesting response to the Milgram study, which, I have seen very often taken as the biblical word though it is just one study. Rarely contrasting with anyone else’s work, at all.

This finding makes me feel much more confident about that study. I think that this error shows just how bad sometimes science can get, people relying on a singular study, and the conclusions effectively being off.

It rings true. The Nazis did not just blindly obey with no other motive. They loved their little suits and getups. Made my a major fashion designer. They loved the respect they got. They loved the power, the authority. Does not matter if they were just pencil pushers. Look at ‘House of Cards’.

And, you are correct, you see the exact same thing happening in a lot of “free” countries today… where military becomes “patriotism” and “patriotism” really becomes a religion. To dare offer criticism is to speak blasphemous things, to be a heretic — worthy of a burning! Truth becomes meaningless, 1+1 = 3 if they so deign it.

Who can make war with the beast, the people gasp in shock and awe and praise…

Nova • September 8, 2014 8:56 PM

@Skeptical

This is evading the point. Obviously, many different narratives can be made from the Iraq war and there were many different junctures of extraordinary intelligence failure. I was more interested in the bigger picture, but you do bring up other details where US intelligence failed.

I am not sure if you are capable of criticism of US intelligence, even in the wake of 911, Iraq, and the hunt for Osama Bin Laden. It seems to me that such criticism to you is as something impossible to hold in your mind. Granted, no idea who you are, and I take you simply as someone presenting a devil’s advocate viewpoint. I have no idea if you really believe your arguments or not. I rarely take people at face value.

I do think it is okay for people to admit it sucks, because it does. Though they are very good at some things. I am sure they worked their way deep in major US companies, and I am sure they are well using all that metadata of US citizens. Probably, they have made some really interesting connection maps.

No one wanted Iraq to explode. Wars in general are NOT good for American business, because while a few defense companies might make more money, most companies suffer from higher supply costs, more skittish consumer demand, and perhaps, in some areas, a loss of labor force – and that’s why equity markets tank when the spectre of a significant conflict appears.

This is a highly naive viewpoint, you have to close your eyes to believe this sort of thing. Look at Clapper & Alexander and their defense contractor ties. I have never bothered to look at more public, non-elected officials and their ties. I am sure it would be a truly noxious map.

A “few” defense contractors “might” make more money? This is not how it went, at all. The business of war has been booming.

Maps of links of defense contractors to elected officials has been made. It is disturbing. I will let you do your own homework, however, as persuading people of what they should already know is not much my concern.

I do not buy that you are this naive.

I wonder what your explanation is for Obama not firing his intel heads at the Snowden disclosures….

But, no, overall, I do not think war is good for the economy. As I argued, it is actually bad for the economy. It divests the economies of essential resources that could be empowering it. It forces taxes to be raised.

There is a good reason Washington warned not to be entangled in foreign engagements.

As for officials doing what it takes to make money, that is part of it. So, you are employed by contractors, making money from them, on the board for a lot of them… and the prospect of war comes up? Obviously, they would be eager for this. So, people pleasing and prestige concerns come into these things. Then, there is the allure of power, of commanding troops, of plotting mass murders, of rampaging, of victory. Of being saluted and being honored.

So, it is much more then just money. I am not saying otherwise.

But the impropriety of the monetary connections is bad enough alone.

Nova • September 9, 2014 11:28 AM

@figureitout
@cc’d, Jacob, Clive Robinson, Nick P

I would gently suggest what Jacob did here was good. I am not much apprised of the situation, however. But, making lists on pros and cons is important on thinking on any matter, isn’t it? You have to consider situations from many different angles to find the correct angle, don’t you?

There has been some histories of intelligence and policing forces harassing citizens, though excepting in “the mirage men” situation… I am not aware of this happening to people who are not extreme in their political beliefs. (I am also here not including VIPs or intelligence personnel.)

Some good questions to get down, in a brainstorming session:
-> Who might want to hack me?
-> Why might they want to hack me?

These two questions, of course, are inter related. And in this, one should also include:

-> Where are cases like this I have heard of or read about?
-> What is the potential monetary or other value of hacking me?

Also, in such a situation: You Need Evidence. Evidence must drive investigations.

-> How can you gather evidence?
-> What evidence do you have already?
-> What is your gameplan for collecting and gathering evidence?
-> And, finally, careful consideration of all possibilities for attribution of that evidence.

Finally, in such a situation, you want to come up with a strong counter-surveillance strategy.

-> What is your counter-surveillance strategy? Have you studied or thought about counter-surveillance strategies? Are you aware of counter-surveillance strategies, how they work, how they do not work, and so on?

This may be the most important, and I can offer a lot of ideas, though this is online and if you are under surveillance then they would be watching this… which means your counter-surveillance strategy would have to adapt to that.

(Even if you are not under the scopes of a determined attacker, you want as flawless of a pull off of a counter surveillance strategy as possible… in order to prove to your self you are not under a determined attacker’s gaze…)

Nova • September 9, 2014 12:28 PM

@Wesley Parish

‘Just a small comment on the last cooment of @Skeptical…’

I think it is quite clear that Skeptical is very set in his viewpoints, and this is representative of the view of many.

I think it is self-evident that nations are generally not happy with US interventions, and they are not happy to keep them with their nations. This is difficult for Americans to consider, because they are not in the habit of considering the problems from the opposite spectrum: Would you like foreign troops in your nation? Would you like to have drones from a foreign nation in your nation? Would you like a foreign nation arresting and hassling citizens of your nation? These are all very alien considerations.

Yet this very mindset is what is required for empathy.

A major problem here is these sorts of perspectives remain largely unseen by Americans and other Westerners, or even by “free” world Easterners. Iraq and Mexico, for instance, are on the top ten list for murdering journalists.

There, are, however as well other major problems: Diversion. The US has high violent crime rates and many other internal problems. The wars are operating like some form of theater. Politics is typically funded by corporate interests on both sides of the spectrum. There is a wake of obesity and extremely high psychiatric and recreational drug use. There are also severe problems with many of the ground politics, left and right. Deep inaccuracies that undermine any legitimate accusations.

There is an extremely high number of people jailed… and the prisons systems operate as nexus points for further corruption.

I do believe one big punch in the gut a lot of people have gotten is from Obama. He came on in a platform of change, and actually made many things worse. Change & Hope. Smashed.

Finally, there has crept in a dark culture of bloodlust, of conquering, of war. Though, never even mind all of the legitimate foreign problems.

Nova • September 10, 2014 10:10 AM

@Figureitout

“Nova
–Please if you would, have the decency to spell my name right if you address me; otherwise please don’t talk to me.
No durr. I already did all that 5 years ago. Gameplan is to stick up my middle finger and focus on my work I find interesting in what little time I have left on the earth.””

I apologize for failing to capitalize your false name… my statements were not, however, “no durr” material, I should point out. I deal with more unknown shit then John Constantine. That is a professional opinion. And that is not some procedure you do once, five years ago. You keep doing it. You rinse and repeat everytime something happens.

You get evidence, you stick to the evidence. Where you do not have explanations, it is okay to consider possible theories. But, the theories have to be evidence based, or be thrown out.

Please note: I am not even saying “nothing is happening”. A guy who says “I have more unknown shit happen then John Constantine” does not say that. But, attribution is key.

I suppose, to completely change the tune here: is there anything happening which you believe is impossible?

Is there anything happening which you do not tell people about, because you are afraid they would think you are crazy?

In other words, is it just your computer? Or are other things happening? Physical things? For instance. Or psychological things?

Besides that you believe some people have treated you maliciously?

FYI, I am not saying “nothing is happening”. What I am trying to get you to consider is other possibilities of what may be happening.

Nova • September 10, 2014 11:25 AM

@Skeptical

“It’s an understandable error. Stalin, in fact, a fervent believer in Lenin’s view that capitalist nations would forever be at odds, indeed at war, had made his post-war plans with the view that Britain and the United States would quickly become blood enemies after WW2 due to the influence of capitalists who profited by war. Needless to say, he was grossly mistaken.

As for defense or intelligence officials, companies in that sector will be striving to hire them regardless of whether there is a war. The notion that officials corruptly steer the nation into war for the chance of being hired after they retire is mere fantasy.”

Like any crime, motive is necessary to be worked out. Taking the known examples of Clapper & Alexander, for instance, their interests are with defense contracting firms. Crime… sin. Sin is an archery term meaning “to miss the mark”. Point is there is inaccuracy.

Iraq, as we have all agreed, even you, was a very missed shot. It was an action of enormous inaccuracy to begin with. We could go further here and probably agree America’s dealings with Iran from 53 to 79 – and perhaps even beyond – was all full of gross, negligent inaccuracies.

There are then to questions here as in regards to these inaccuracies, or sins… or crimes. Why. What were the motives?

If you look at these people, you see a lot of possible motives. Obviously, money is one of them, and it is worth mentioning. You or I may not care so much about money, but they clearly do or they would not make so much efforts to make so much more then they could ever possibly need.

This idea that leaders of countries invariably care about their people… well, go back to Stalin on that one. He was presented that way. Uncle Joe. Did Stalin really care about his people? You are talking about people who have small, black raisin hearts. Of course they did not care about their people!

I may or may not spend more time investigating these… inaccuracies of the US. It is interesting to me. In which case, I am sure I could compile lists of how people are making money from defense contracting and weapon dealers. This is beyond the motives of such things as prestige and “power”.

All day long they walk around exercising their prestige and power, getting the fruit of the honor others give them. You know they love that. They live for it. That is why they longed to be in such roles, and that is why they continue in such roles even after they have retired from them (or been fired).

I am not sure why you have such a naive viewpoint, but many do. They are fooled by the very cunning Judases out there. Of these devils… Stalin, Lenin are pretty clearly bad apples. Cheney is not very hard to spot. Rumsfeld is better at posing in the guise of good, the man has charm… but a cursory deeper look shows there is nothing deeper in him. The man is simply not there.

Basic, basic thing: errors result, try to figure out what went wrong, then try and figure out how it might have been performed differently. No one has an obligation to trust and admire blindly authority regardless of what they do and say. Not in a free country — not in any other country.

And, FYI, Stalin was very much a warmonger, a man with a deep taste of bloodlust.

“Everywhere America has gone, they have left a wake of disaster.”

Western Europe, Japan, South Korea, yes, utter disasters.

The reality is that America has a very mixed record when it comes to particular foreign policy actions. Some turned out very well – the Marshall Plan, NATO, the reconstruction of Japan after WW2, the defense of South Korea, intervention in the Balkans, and others. Some turned out very poorly – the Vietnam War, the Iraq War.

But pretending that it’s all one or the other is simply ridiculous.”

Words like “everywhere”, “all the time”, “every time” are vague words. They are generalizations except in the most rare of circumstances. I have every capacity of stating something as literally true. Everyone does.

So let us rephrase that, “America has a tendency to leave destruction in her wake wherever she goes”. Is that statement less confusing to you?

That is fine, however, that this has given you a response to the positive. Japan and Germany, of course, were devastated after the war. The US did drop two nuclear weapons on Japan. They cut a deal with Stalin to give away half of Germany to the Soviet Union. They were in a difficult situation, however.

Instead of taking North Korea, they kept North Korea in a backwards, lost world of early 1950s Communism. So, the world remains on edge to this day because of North Korea.

Is America solely to be congratulated on the post war successes of South Korea, Japan, and Western Europe? Could it be you are attributing their own successes to the USA?

Whatever the case, let us backtrack a little here. I live in America. I love the music, I love the shows. For the most part, I love the people. I love the diversity. I strongly believe in the ideals of the founders… though these days I am skeptical they will ever be practiced and upheld. Probably just wait until “Kingdom Come” for Paradise.

I think there have been a great number of Americans who have striven for right ideals expressed in the founders thoughts over the years. That is between them and God.

I am not a fan of either extremist Islam nor Communism. I work for the church. I am definitely no fan of Fascism.

In almost all of these failed foreign actions, there is strong guise of doing good… and for many involved, I think they generally were attempting to do good.

What, I think best explains my viewpoint is something kind of like this…

I watched two great shows this week. Low Winter Sun & A Simple Plan. Hat tip to the brits here, Low Winter Sun was made from a Brit show. Point is it is one of the smartest
detective shows I have seen in a very long time… it showed a good homicide cop doing bad things. Very much like A Simple Plan.

I will assume you have seen A Simple Plan… but quick recap as it was in the 90s… the show is your typical “group of people find a bag of money, chaos results”. What was ingenius about that show is the writer kept the people as sympathetic through it all. They made errors, bad errors. But you could still see their redeeming goodness through it all.

Same with Low Winter Sun… only the big difference was: these were homicide cops. They knew what they were doing. They knew how to cover up and commit crimes. It was their day job. It was what they did. They were street smart. In a Simple Plan, these people had no idea of what they were doing. Their plans were off base.

Long story, short: these guys leading the country are like the guys in a Simple Plan. They really have no idea of what they are doing. Some are sympathetic, they mean well. Some are not. But, they never should have been doing what they were attempting to do in the first place.

Quicker metaphor: Do not put someone who does not know how to fly a large plane behind the wheels of one. Chaos will result.

In all of these actions, I think you do have people who are very good at what they do: you have people skilled at interrogation who get results, you have people they know how to fly literal planes, you have people that know how to fight unconventional warfare… but many of the bigger picture areas, there is no expertise and you are talking about politicians. They are very good at politics. But on what they are actually tasked to do, they are horrible at.

It is like in the technical security field: no one is a master of all matters, and we are always swimming just trying to keep our head above water regardless of how experienced and results driven (or not) we may be.

This is, in fact, however false humility to believe otherwise. People live a very short span, a blink of an eye. Their minds complete the picture constantly — as modern science has shown. They have vast gaps of perception. Some, like Stalin, may have read tens of thousands of books… but this does not mean they learned anything.

They have to shit, they have strong urges to procreate, they have to sleep. They have deep problems of bias. They do not have the time nor mental capacity to be the flawless people so many make them out to be. Put them in the elements, they tend to be very poor at surviving. As quick as they may master one subject, their body is already starting to break down.

Maslow’s pyramid of needs does not go away just because they have become wealthy. They crave constantly, and there are addictions to praise, to prestige, to receiving honor. To illusions of power. They have a tendency to try and get far more money then they need, like obsessive collectors.

I think human beings resist looking at international events in this way because it is a very scary mindset for them to have. To consider that no one is actually behind the wheel. Like that ghost plane wreck last week… the pilots are knocked out, but the plane just keeps on flying.

Now, obviously, I do have another opinion on whether or not someone may be behind the wheel, but that is outside the realm of this forum. I just keep it as, “there are forces at work beyond their comprehension and control.”

Nova • September 10, 2014 12:42 PM

@Skeptical

The Iraq War was certainly a mistake, but it’s equally a mistake to believe that the US simply went into Iraq, removed the power structure, and left. You managed to forget about the years between 2003, when the US invaded, and 2011, when the US left.

I’m not sure which is more mistaken here: the idea that there is unity among Sunnis in Syria (when in fact there are a large number of splintered, and internally warring, rebel groups) or the idea that the US provided great support to any of them (it did not, and it’s now debated whether the US erred in not providing more support to certain groups).

“And lo and behold, the group that was Al Qaeda in Iraq, now ISIL, comes in and conquers much of Iraq. Now, the US continues a bombing campaign. Which worked really well in Laos and Cambodia…”

It’s a good analogy, except for the differences in terrain, forces, technology, societies, and context.

Extraordinary generalizations like those you’re attempting require getting the underlying facts right. And facts are stubborn things.

Consider that you may be missing the “forest for the trees”. You are looking at details, that really do not matter much, they certainly do not change the essential meaning of what I am saying. You are pretending you are a person whom never uses generalizations, and focusing merely on the details there, too: semantics. Because you can not focus on the arguments.

I surely do not “manage to forget the years between “2003 and 2011”. Nobody does, and it is absurd to posit that anyone does.

But you are not keeping your eyes focused: others and myself have mentioned these things time and time again — and I do not even think you would disagree. What is the problem there? I think you are wanting to say something like “but there was good done”! This is not even a case where someone found a fly in their meal, ruining the whole thing. This is a case when the meal its’ self was made from fly garbage — but there is some real food in the details there!

So what?

None of this is “all America’s fault”. Obviously. This may be where you are confusing fair critics with those who simply are looking for scapegoats. Obviously, the Middle East is a genuine, deep mess. Going in there, however, did not make it any better! It just stirred it up and made it worse.

-> how much of US Aid made it to Al Qaeda in Iraq fighting in Syria, aka, now called ISIS/IS/ISIL? (According to the CT Paper you posted at the beginning of this thread.) Nobody knows. What everybody does know is that it is expected at least some did. Further, because they aided the Sunnis, this very likely operated as a positive benefit of very possibly strong value to ISIL.

You are pretending as if people are literally saying “America gave all their money to extremists in Syria”. They are not. You are pretending as if you have AS and metaphors and generalizations are beyond your capacity. I think it is very clear this is not the case.

You are further pretending – losing focus, keeping your eyes on the trees, but missing the forest – that there is no precedent for this sort of damage…. but you know very well: this is most surely not the case.

Where is that gorilla/guerilla in the room? Al Qaeda in Afghanistan anyone? Pakistan’s ISI? The Taliban?

Now, I am not a truther, and I do not think anyone really responding here is. I do not think the US intentionally decided to effectively empower Al Qaeda and the Taliban in Afghanistan. I do not think they intentionally decided and intended to empower the corrupt Pakistani secret services. But, they effectively did do this.

We can there, also get lost in the details: Well, the Soviets were the bad guys there. The US was trying to get them stuck in their own quagmire. The US was trying to just arm the more moderate Afghani liberators. The US did not intentionally try and create the conditions for the Talibani rise of power there. And so on. But this is all very much what happened… and clearly, no lessons were learned.

-> Other gorillas in the room? How is Libya doing these days?

-> Even worse, much worse: Why, in all these decades did no one already remove Saddam? Are we blind or ignorant of this? No, I am not, and I know you are not. No one removed Saddam because, as bad as he was, he was keeping the country together… and he was a bulwark against Iran.

What does that mean? That means everyone refused to do this who could have – including the Bush Sr administration and the Reagan administration – because they knew if they did this the region would collapse.

There were successes between 2003 and 2011, sure. But there were also horrendous mistakes made. They effectively lobotomized and weakened the state. Alan S’ paper at the Huffington Post put it well enough, and I take it bears some repeating:

The US invasion also initiated the most radical and ill-informed experiment in forced privatization that any imperial power has ever attempted. In 2004, President George W. Bush sent L. Paul Bremer III to act as a kind of Viceroy in Iraq in the guise of the head of something called the “Coalition Provisional Authority.” Bremer is a blueblood corporate guy who apparently didn’t have a clue about the people over which he ruled.

For a time Bremer’s power was total and he didn’t hesitate to use it. Soon he was issuing daily “orders” all designed in one way or another to turn Iraqi society into an Ayn Rand novel. For example, “Order Number 39” privatized Iraq’s 200 state-owned enterprises; allowed for 100 percent foreign ownership of Iraqi businesses; and gave away unrestricted, tax-free remittances of all profits and other funds to foreign companies (i.e. American and British) working under 40-year ownership licenses.

Bremer’s “Order Number 1,” with its ostensible aim of “de-Baathifying” the Iraqi state, destroyed just about every major governmental institution left standing in Iraq. He disbanded the Iraqi Army and police, cutting off the salaries and pensions of high-ranking officers and enlisted soldiers. With one imperial stroke of his pen, Bremer swelled the ranks of the resistance against the American occupation with capable fighters, field engineers, and other security technicians.

And none of Bremer’s “orders” were legal under international laws dating back to 1907 because an occupying power has no right to change the legal system of the country it is occupying.

The car bombs and IEDs that became a permanent fixture of Iraqi life mirrored the exact skill set of the Sunni technocratic class that Bremer sent packing. It has been reported that former officers of the Baath Party are directing some of the Sunni organizations that fight alongside ISIL.

But, these, too, are details. They are, however, relevant details. The picture that “the forest its’ self is on fire”, as opposed to, “gee, just this tree is on fire”… should not have to be made.

Should I further simply point out: 2003-2011 was not enough time, besides that they simply really did not know what they were doing? No, it was not enough time, and they did make many small and large bad decisions in those years.

Getting stuck on semantics is not helping your case.

I think that you must admit, some time or another, “okay, maybe they are very bad at what they do, whether they mean well or not… and they are very bad at correcting their mistakes”.

Continuing to repeat the same error over and over again is what? Insanity.

Or there is something much darker going on.

Nova • September 10, 2014 1:02 PM

@Andrew_K

It’s the two sides of esprit de corps. It can be a rich and enlightening experience when strangers become close as family. But it can also lead to complete disaster when no one has both the reputation and the balls needed to stop them if they’re wrong.

(And the rest of the response.)

Interesting perspective…

I would only add here: the situation is bad all the way around. From a critical standpoint, it is hard not to feel empathy for the soldiers on the allied side. Admitting mistakes, in general, is very difficult to do. It is painful. It leaves people going, “Now what?” Or even can make them hopeless.

And you know, the Japanese, also had this kind of system…. failure for them was treated even more harshly.

Will can be celebrated as strength, but arrogance also disguises its’ self as strength.

Nova • September 10, 2014 1:34 PM

@name.withheld.for.obvious.reasons

This is one are the U.S. fails on a regular basis, we think that solutions come at the end of barrel and not with a perspective that shares the concerns those under our thumb (that’s a nice way of saying it). Much of the hegemony that we promote comes with monolithic thinking and a binary perspective of the world (We are good, you are bad). This kind of fatalistic thinking needs to be flattened, much like the view that is that of the world (the world is flat thinking).

Until we break the log jam that is the asinine hubris in our righteousness, we will continue to stumble around the world like a 800 ft tall drunken sailor.

Yes, and very well put.

Nova • September 11, 2014 1:09 AM

@Skeptical

Your analysis fails to capture the degree to which the US did learn, and change tactics and strategy, over the course of 2003-2011. You write as though the US Government ignores history, when in fact, if you were familiar with the nature of changes that are made to doctrine and training would know, and and if you read primary source material on the memoranda and briefings that ultimately shaped the decisions of US Presidents, you would see that history plays an enormous role in shaping US policy.

Okay, so I see… you aren’t here just arguing your own viewpoints, you are actually defending the honor of the country.

That must make things simple for you.

Well, that is one way to go. And maybe you are right. But, I think you have to analyze the situation from a different perspective then just accepting what people are saying. You have to look at what they are doing.

The US has been playing this game for awhile. They say the right things. It is beguiling. One would think they have been playing to make the Middle East a safe haven for Democracy for years. More then Democracy, for freedom, for liberty… for justice!

But, that is what they have been saying, isn’t it? And not what the results have been?

Which makes one, just maybe, start to look at things a little more critically: maybe the US has been playing both sides of the fence for so long there because they are trying to make the region as unstable as possible? Hrrm?

Play the Israelis, play the Palestinians. Pit them against each other. Play the Sunnis, play the Shia. Pit them against each other. Arm one side, then arm the other side.

Rinse and repeat.

Say you are just doing the best you can. Say you are an angel. Not a devil. Say you are just being diplomatic. Say you have hard choices to make, only the best choices out of two bad ones. Always play up that things like sunshine policies do not work, or some other way find your self out that sort of posture. Do not not get involved. Do something! You are just trying to help!

Libya, after all, was an accident.

Funding the Pakistani ISI, an accident. Funding Al Qaeda and the Talibani in Afghanistan — an accident. Leaving behind the perfect conditions for a fundamentalist breeding ground. Whoops! Sorry!

Isolating and putting Iran against the way? Just trying to help.

Funding the rebellion in Syria? Well… you know, Assad is such a bad guy.

Refusing to break up Iraq into three separate countries: Kurd, Sunni, Shiite. Never would have worked!

Accidentally allowing for the circumstances to allow Pakistan, India, Israel, and now, Iran to get the Bomb? Not your fault! Definitely, no way, what you wanted!

Like Mexico. Total accident. All their fault.

I see you mention to Alan S the good work the CIA did with FARC. Maybe so. FARC has lost power recently. Kind of makes sense. But, then, during these same years, the Mexico crisis deeply worsened. Probably doesn’t have anything to do with anything.

Al Qaeda in Iraq… sheesh, becoming, this Islamic State? Who would have guessed? I mean, sure, a systematic working of Iraqis in the prison system where their leader and others learned all about the very best side of America. You know what they say about prisons? Well, besides that is where people get raped (because you know that isn’t cruel and unusual punishment)… it is a college for crime.

Beheading the Iraqi infrastructure… yowsers. Dumping all those angry Sunni men that were cops and military? What could they possibly do with their time after that?

Did you even know Iran was fingered for the Lebanon marine barracks and embassy attacks? Yep. Their intelligence units tried to make it look Sunni, but the US correctly saw through their efforts. No response to Iran. Zero. No, instead, the US lessened their presence in Lebanon, while Shia radicals gained ground. Further destabilizing both Lebanon and Syria.

Why, exactly? I mean… is there some master plan behind all of this? What about poor Jordan and Egypt? What is the plan there? I wonder how the struggles in Syria might pour out into Jordan and Lebanon.

The Pentagon admits air bombing won’t do it. Right. So, why exactly do it?

And, really, let us go back to before this Gulf War. You are aware that the US was already bombing Iraq on a regular basis and had them gripped with very painful sanctions, right? Not that this would have made the area more chaotic, no way.

Nothing like supporting the Shah all those years…

Turning the other cheek, is the saying for that? Hand holding vicious dictators who are talented at getting their people against them?

What other element but the most radical could have risen from such a perfect swamp of chaos?

Kind of reminds me of the approach to Saudi Arabia.

But, if you look at everything on a more individual level, you really just have a bunch of people who are making some money, having some fun, having a life for themselves… thinking that they can treat a bunch of hard case nations like it is their own personal chess board.

Personally, despite strong pretensions to being a friend of Israel, I am thinking the US is doing all it can to try and destroy Israel. Best friends so very often turn out to be archenemies.

But, hey, let us see as events unfold.

The US approach to terrorist networks has been, in significant part, by targeting and killing key nodes in those networks. They’ve used this to great effect against al Qaeda in Iraq, AQAP, the Haqqani network, and AQ. I have no doubt that they will use such a strategy against ISIL.

Now, if we’re not speaking simply about ISIL and about the situation in Syria generally, then our views are not necessarily (they might be) in contradiction. I expect Syria to remain in chaos for a long time – but quelling that chaos is not a US objective, and absent a massive occupying force I do not think such an objective would be attainable.

I am skeptical the US is not trying to foment more chaos in the region. So, I think, if this is what they are doing, then chaos in Syria is exactly what they want. Iran, of course, does not want this.

I am wondering if all of this will not soon spillover to Lebanon and Jordan.

The US has done very well at chopping down elements of Al Qaeda. However, IS is a strong portion of what was Al Qaeda in Iraq.

I will also give strong kudos to the US at preventing onshore terrorism. The Boston Bombing was a major failure, however, which gives me little confidence. They should have had that guy on their radar for bothering to travel across the world to spend a lot of time at a known terrorist mongering mosque.

Frankly? I think their attention was diverted into such games as setting up the telecom surveillance infrastructure.

In a sense, the IS problem is interesting from a perspective of the US being forced to be friendly with many of the same parties at the same time: The shia, the sunni, the kurds. They all have a common enemy, and it isn’t the Jews right now. It is IS.

But, they are not friends among each other. They have strongly competing interests nationally and spread all through the region.

So, such alliances can breed serious problems.

Nova • September 11, 2014 8:51 AM

To Defeat the Islamic State, Follow the Money
http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2014/09/to-defeat-isil-follow-the-money-110825.html?utm_source=digg&utm_medium=email#.VBGnK_ldWfi

A few things come to mind at this:

-> The US created a monster… they ballooned Al Qaeda in Iraq. IS was originally presented as coming out of nowhere, just seven months ago Obama was saying they are junior varsity pretending to be pro ball.
-> in retrospect, there was no Al Qaeda in Iraq before the US got there
-> I wonder if they will quickly attempt to cut off ISIL’s money, but doubt it as they have been around for quite some time…

Moreso, I would like to see proof the US did not intentionally create this.

Did the original Al Qaeda ever come close to making this kind of money?

And Osama Bin Laden was not “trained” and “educated” in American prisons in Iraq.

This all stinks to high heaven.

Nova • September 11, 2014 3:34 PM

The ISIL intervention is guaranteed to be a catastrophe.

There is a very long and deep track record of severe incompetence and failure in the US intelligence and military, as well as in the overall political structure — including how those three systems work together. Which is badly.

But, they all over the Middle, N Africa, and Asia. They just finished with Libya, now under militia chaos. They are hard at work on Syria.

Besides the very fact they should not be doing any of this in the first place, there are hosts of well known, even atrocious problems, they have never done anything about. Regardless of how loudly the problems have been exposed.

Nova • September 12, 2014 11:05 AM

@Figureitout

“So, YOU can link an email for me to contact you in your name instead of a rape pic if you are so curious”

I noticed that, and initially thought there might be either a MITM attack on myself, or XSS.

If you notice, the normal “dot” between the name and the link to the message was also made into a clickable link.

On investigating, however, I realized that the issue was a minor parsing error in the site and the link merely came from the post directly above that one, “Boo’s” post.

If you wish to contact me, you have to jump through a minor security hoop: you have to get an account at ARS technica and PM unknown.soldier there. I will talk through that PM system, if you wish. I will not leave that system up forever, for security reasons. I wash my identities on a regular basis.

Nova • September 13, 2014 11:59 AM

@Figureitout

Scratch that, I am sorry, but I am out of here (and that other site). And on these issues entirely. I am simply “taking too much of the air in the room up”. I am also sick of the subject. At this stage of things, I do not even believe in positive change.

Might as well just wait for the Apocalypse.

As I do not wish to get you worked up on your issue, there is not much of any advice I can give even in parting.

(I would never share any details about myself, my thoughts on personal security, or what security I rely on honestly to any stranger on the internet… anyway. So I could only speak on the most generic terms, anyway. I have no idea of who may or may not be an “hacker”, and those who seem the most implausible as such are actually the most plausible as such.)