Cyberwarfare

This NYTimes article raises many of the issues regarding cyberwarfare.

Though the Geneva Convention doesn't cover this explicitly, rules governing proportionality and collateral damage still apply.

The article starts out addressing concerns about collateral damage - taking out civilian communications and other networks that are not related to military or government communications of the country being attacked.

In 2003 a major cyber attack didn't go forward because of concerns about collateral damage to communications networks, which really struck me as strange, as there has been an enormous amount of collateral damage in civiliian lives and physical infrastructure throughout the Iraq war.

Then I came upon this quote:

“Policy makers are tremendously sensitive to collateral damage by virtual weapons, but not nearly sensitive enough to damage by kinetic” — conventional — “weapons,” said John Arquilla, an expert in military strategy at the Naval Postgraduate School in Monterey, Calif. “The cyberwarriors are held back by extremely restrictive rules of engagement.”

Is this because they were aware they could cause a major economic disruption in a key part of the world? Despite the ongoing conflict, until the financial crisis most countries in region continued record economic growth, including in their stock exchanges. The lives of ordinary Iraqis were highly expendable, but not the communications networks that support financial activity around the region.

Of course a major concern with cyberwarfare is also that networks supporting hospitals, sanitation facilities and others could be accidentally taken out and contribute directly to the deaths of civilians. However one of the greatest failures of in Iraq war was an immediate failure to protect civilian infrastructure, particularly hospitals, from looting and physical damage. Why worry about damaging their communications when the buildings and equipment themselves are not protected?

Hopefully lessons have been learned from this. Bremmer's administration in Iraq consciously ignored many lessons of post-conflict reconstruction and reintegration. (For more on this, read this excellent article)

There doesn't seem to be much protection of schools and other civilian infrastructure in Afghanistan, especially outside Kabul. This may be due in large part to the already overextended forces there. But what good is building new schools when the Taliban can simply blow them up?

Cyberwarfare will not likely apply to Afghanistan in large order, as much of it is still off the grid, relying on generators or simply doing without electricity. However this is highly relevant for other conflicts. If the US attacks communications and computer networks in one country, it may damage critical communications infrastructure for surveillance and security in friendly countries.

Cyber security is another sexy topic these days, but as more and more of our lives rely on networks supported and regulated by computer programs, we will become ever more vulnerable in the event of such attacks.