The Missing Link In Arab Armies
February 18, 2010: One of the reasons for the poor training, lethargic movement and poor combat capabilities of most Arab armies is logistics, or lack of same. Keeping the troops supplied is something Western armies take for granted, along with their ability to do it well. But Arab armies are still way behind their Western counterparts. American officers and NCOs come face-to-face with the differences when they are ordered to help Iraqi troops build an effective logistics system. Two big problems were encountered. First, the Americans have, in the past two decades, computerized their supply system. The Iraqis can't adopt that, because they don't have enough computers, or people who know how to use them. In the army, when there are computers available, officers grab them because they make great status symbols. Many Iraqi businesses use manual record keeping for their company logistics, but the pre-2003 Iraqi Army never even adopted a decent manual system. The U.S. Army has sought out older NCOs (and retirees willing to go back to work) who had experience in the old American manual systems, and remember how it worked in practice, to implement these old school techniques for the Iraqis. Old manuals and forms are being sought out, translated into Arabic and distributed. But not fast enough, because the Iraqis need it now, and most of the American troops will be gone by the end of the year. American trainers will still be around, but the American military logistics system, which has been keeping the Iraqi forces going, will be gone.This is not a new problem for Iraq, or Middle Eastern armies in general. Creating an efficient logistics and administrative system for the Iraqi armed forces is proving to be the most difficult task the coalition has had to face while creating new armed forces for Iraq. The U.S. has been working on this for over four years, and corruption and bad habits make it difficult to keep the Iraqi troops supplied with essential items. There seems to be a curse at work here, preventing the Iraqis from getting their logistics act together.
Military logistics has been deficient in Iraq, and the entire region, for some very practical reasons. First of all, it's expensive. Even with all that oil money, no one wants to spend a lot of cash on providing logistics capabilities needed for troops in combat that might never come. Historically, nations in the region saw their armed forces as more of an internal security force. If invaded, the army could just grab whatever they needed from the civilian economy. Another important angle was preventing the troops from joining a rebellion. Only a few units had access to lots of ammo and fuel, and these were the most loyal troops, who were thus in a better position to defend the government from rebellious soldiers.
The two times Saddam used the military to invade neighbors, these logistical deficiencies were very obvious. In 1980, when he invaded Iran, his troops were only supplied sufficiently, and just barely, to take the oil rich areas just across the border. Iraqi troops failed in this, partly because of logistical shortcomings. The 1990 invasion of Kuwait was successful, but witnesses noted that the invading Iraqi troops promptly began living off the Kuwaitis, because there was no logistical support from Iraq. When the coalition attacked into Kuwait in 1991, they found the defending Iraqi troops poorly supplied and demoralized because of it.
While there are plenty of Iraqis with military experience, there are few of them with any knowledge, or experience, in military logistics. Coalition trainers had to start from scratch to build a modern logistical system for the Iraqi security forces. In the meantime, coalition logistical organizations are keeping the Iraqis supplied, as best they can. Even with the coalition help, there are few capable logistical troops with the operational units, to receive, store and disperse the supplies.
And then there's corruption. Another reason for Middle Eastern nations to avoid investing in logistics, a service which includes stockpiling supplies for military operations, is the likelihood that the stockpiles will be plundered. This stuff is all-too-easily stolen, and there are surviving records explaining how this was done in the Middle East thousands of years ago. Rulers in this part of the world have learned their lesson, and have another reason to avoid investing in logistics
Google's Reported Link to National Security Agency Alarms Privacy Watchdogs
February 18, 2010By Joseph Abrams
- FOXNews.com
Internet privacy watchdogs are warning of risks posed by a reported security relationship between the National Security Agency and Google, which has collected reams of sensitive information about its users.
After Chinese hackers tore Google a new cyberhole in December, the tech titan reportedly looked to an unlikely source for help: the ultra-secretive National Security Agency, better known for tapping phones than patching security holes for private companies.
The connection has raised the antennae of Internet privacy experts, who now are warning of the possible risks posed by the close and as-yet undefined ties between the world's top cybersurveillance agency and a corporate behemoth that has amassed more sensitive data about its users than most personal diaries.
"We're very concerned about what information Google is sharing with the NSA," said Greg Nojeim, a senior counsel with the Center for Democracy and Technology.
Nojeim is part of a chorus of watchdogs barking at Google to open up about the reported deal, which the company sought after hackers tried to break into the Gmail accounts of Chinese human rights activists in a "highly sophisticated" blast that hit at least 20 other large businesses.
The ACLU has started a letter-writing campaign to Eric Schmidt, Google's CEO, highlighting what it calls the "frightening" ramifications of shacking up with the NSA, a military agency that has little government oversight.
The NSA's "primary mission" is spying, the ACLU writes, "and in the last decade, it turned its surveillance efforts inward on the American people -- in violation of the law and the Constitution."
Despite the ACLU's vehement warning, little is known about the possible NSA-Google arrangement. The Washington Post reported that the NSA would help Google shore up its defenses and coordinate aid from other U.S. agencies. Citing unnamed sources, the Post said Google would not be sharing its users' e-mails or search data.
Technology experts were quick to defend Google, saying that concerns over its ties to the government were "paranoid" and overlooked the NSA's unique ability to help Google strengthen its security systems.
"This is a huge, profound attack -- possibly by a foreign government -- on an American company. I'd want the best. I would want to know everything I could possibly know," said Jeff Jarvis, director of the Interactive Program at the City University of New York's Graduate School of Journalism.
"Who do we think is going to to look at cybercrime -- the Food and Drug Administration?"
Jarvis, author of "What Would Google Do?" faulted the watchdogs for their guilt-by-association approach to the NSA and insisted that there is no evidence of any wrongdoing in the reported relationship.
But the ACLU and others, while admitting they know little about what that relationship would entail, worry that the NSA could intercept private e-mails. So they are trying to keep the links above-board. The Electronic Privacy Information Center (EPIC) has filed a Freedom of Information Act request seeking records about the NSA's ties to Google and is calling for both Google and the NSA to state the exact terms of any deal.
Since 9/11, the NSA has conducted warrantless wiretaps and e-mail intercepts on American citizens in order to track terrorists overseas. Google stated in 2008 that it "was not part of the NSA's Terrorist Surveillance Program," but watchdogs are wary of any new overture.
"The question we're asking is, under what circumstances will NSA be allowed to gather data on Americans?" said Marc Rotenberg, executive director of EPIC. "And if NSA now has access to a lot of information that Google possesses about Americans, that becomes a real risk."
Rotenberg said he believes it is not the first such private arrangement with the NSA, but he noted that Google is in a uniquely worrisome position, as it tracks and keeps long-lasting records of user search data and controls the country's third-largest e-mail system.
Nojeim, of the Center for Democracy and Technology, said there are other civilian entities within the U.S. government that would be more appropriate choices. He suggested that the Department of Homeland Security's Computer Emergency Readiness Team would have provided the same expertise, with the added benefit of government oversight.
NSA told FOXNews.com it was unable to comment on specific relationships it may or may not have with U.S. companies. In a statement it did say it works with a "broad range of commercial partners and research associates to ensure the availability of secure tailored solutions for DoD and national security systems customers today and cutting-edge technologies that will secure the information systems of tomorrow."
Google's privacy woes are not new. Its social-networking service, Buzz, left many users irate after details of their personal and professional interactions were put on display. And Google has been criticized for keeping months-old records of its users' activities -- from the books they read online to the searches they conduct every day.
The safety of Gmail accounts would also be better managed, Rotenberg said, if Google allowed its default settings to encrypt the e-mail accounts. Google has said that such a step would slow its service.
Google declined to comment about the reported partnership with the NSA, but a spokeswoman told FoxNews.com in an e-mail statement that "Google remains completely committed to freedom of expression and to privacy, and we have a strong track record of protecting both."
That was little comfort to privacy watchdogs, for whom those few vague words were not enough.
"They have to be more transparent," said Rotenberg, who testified before Congress on Google and the NSA last week. "I don't think you can reassure the public by saying, 'Don't worry, trust us.'"
'James Bond' Tactics Help Companies Spy on Each Other
CIA Says OK for Agents to Moonlight for Private Clients
Feb. 18, 2010
James Bond, meet Fred Rustmann. A former CIA agent, Rustmann now runs a "corporate intelligence" firm that helps companies spy on each other. Like many veterans of the Central Intelligence Agency, Rustmann's spying tricks are in high demand by the private sector.
When one of Rustmann's clients wants to find out about, say, its competitors' upcoming product line-ups, it pays him to conduct undercover interviews with unsuspecting employees and dig through their garbage.
"You can find out all kinds of good stuff in the trash," says Rustmann, founder of CTC International, who spent 24 years in the CIA's clandestine service breaking into embassies and wiretapping foreign government officials.
Because it's illegal in the United States to trespass in order to retrieve trash, Rustmann says he often gets cleaning crews to sell him the garbage they collect. While the practice raises eyebrows among some in the rapidly growing "competitive intelligence" industry, Rustmann says he never breaks the law.
"Sometimes you have to go the extra yard for your client, without stepping over the line," he says.
Rustmann says his phone started ringing with job offers almost immediately after he retired from the CIA, where he served clandestinely in many countries, including Vietnam, Cambodia, France and Ethiopia. Companies are keen to tap CIA veterans' expertise with psychological analysis, undercover research and high-tech eavesdropping.
"Nobody is better at collecting information than the CIA," says Rustmann.
One of his favorite tactics is calling unsuspecting employees at a target company, indentifying CTC as a "research firm" -- which it is -- and then asking all kinds of juicy questions. As long as CTC doesn't lie about its identity and doesn't ask for trade secrets protected by the Economic Espionage Act of 1996, the practice is perfectly legal.
It's not just former CIA agents who do this type of work. Current operatives sometimes moonlight for private companies in order to earn some extra cash.
CIA OK's Moonlighters
More Photos
News of this "moonlighting" has been making headlines after Politico reporter Eamon Javers broke it in a new book, "Broker, Trader, Lawyer Spy: The Secret World of Corporate Espionage," which details cases in which CIA employees helped hedge funds vet the companies they invested in.
The CIA has been open about its policy, and a CIA spokeswoman says that the agency allows employees to take second jobs in certain cases. She points out that all such requests for outside employment are vetted carefully for legality, propriety and security.
"There's a rigorous process to all this -- one that's been in place for decades," says CIA spokesperson Marie Harf. "The fact that people have the energy and creativity to run a business outside of work hours shouldn't be held against them. This is America, after all."
News reports about the policy were enough to anger some members of Congress. During an unrelated Congressional hearing two weeks ago, a congresswoman demanded an explanation from Dennis Blair, who as director of national intelligence oversees the CIA.
"I think there is a real potential of conflict," said Rep. Anna Eshoo, D-Calif., referring to reports she had seen about instances of moonlighting at hedge funds. "I was stunned to read about it."
Rustmann, who left the CIA in 1990 and says he never knew any moonlighters, was equally dismayed.
"People who are gainfully employed with the agency should not be doing anything else," says Rustmann. "It's a security problem if nothing else. They have so many secrets in their heads and now they're working with another boss. It's not a very comfortable situation. "
Of course, the vast majority of employees in the corporate intelligence industry have no ties to the CIA. The industry has grown rapidly over the past 10 years, and experts say most Fortune 500 companies now either hire consultants to help them gather intelligence about competitors or have units specifically dedicated to this task.
Most of the time, the work is mundane. Researchers search public databases, government filings, transcripts of television interviews and statements made at conferences to guess at their competitors' strategies. The practice of calling a company and posing as a non-threatening research firm, as CTC does, is also common practice. Buying trash, however, is considered unethical.
Nevertheless, every once in a while a large transgression makes it into the headlines.
In 2000, for example, Oracle CEO Larry Ellison admitted to having hired a private detective agency that stole trash from a Washington trade group supporting Microsoft.
Ken Garrison, head of the Society of Competitive Intelligence Professionals, says most of the work done by his members involves carefully analyzing bits of information gathered legally and ethically.
"Multi-national companies have very long and specific ethics codes," he says, arguing that companies not only want to abide by the law but are also eager to operate ethically. "They don't want information gained by unethical means. This is not the image the company wants to put forth."
No comments:
Post a Comment