Rethinking Security

Veteran's/Armistice Day

Can't really add anything to this.

Also see Library of Congress resources in American Folklife Center.

Do We Need a Grand Strategy?

New entry at Red Team Journal prompted by an excellent intervention by Fear and Loathing in Georgetown.

Swine Flu and Social Media

Foreign Policy 's techblogger Evgeny Morozov thinks that the swine flu outbreak is exposing Twitter's Achilles heel: it's herd mentality and lack of context:

Who knew that swine flu could also infect Twitter? Yet this is what appears to have happened in the last 24 hours, with thousands of Twitter users turning to their favorite service to query each other about this nascent and potentially lethal threat as well as to share news and latest developments from Mexico, Texas, Kansas and New York (you can check most recent Twitter updates on the subject by searching for “swine flu” and “#swineflu”). And despite all the recent Twitter-enthusiasm about this platform's unique power to alert millions of people in decentralized and previously unavailable ways, there are quite a few reasons to be concerned about Twitter's role in facilitating an unnecessary global panic about swine flu.

Morozov argues that Twitter, far from being a "global brain" that co-produces better understanding, is merely providing people with a platform to voice their ill-informed fears about swine flu. There's also a social dimension to the Twitter swing flu scare that goes beyond the "echo chamber" effect:

"Unlike basic internet search – which has been already been nicely used by Google to track emerging flu epidemics – Twitter seems to have introduced too much noise into the process: as opposed to search requests which are generally motivated only by a desire to learn more about a given subject, too many Twitter conversations about swine flu seem to be motivated by desires to fit in, do what one's friends do (i.e. tweet about it) or simply gain more popularity.

In situations like this, there is some pathological about people wanting to post yet another status update containing the coveted most-searched words – only for the sake of gaining more people to follow them. And yet the bottom line is that tracking the frequency of Twitter mentions of swine flu as a means of predicting anything thus becomes useless (however, there are plenty of other non-Twitter ways to track the epidemic and Mashable does a good job of summing them all up)."

What's very ironic about Morozov's sadly accurate critique is that Twitter's rise to fame as a communication medium was largely due to its disaster reporting function during the Mumbai attacks. Perhaps the lesson of the swine flu outbreak is that Twitter excels at geographically focused and instrumental events (such as terrorist attacks) but struggles when faced with distributed disasters like public health crises.

Medical Dimensions of Security

According to CNN: the latest count in Mexico's swine flu outbreak is 81 dead:

No kissing to say hello. No large crowds. No close contact. That's the advice of the Mexican government as more and more people die of swine flu, which has turned into a 'public health emergency of international concern,' according to the World Health Organization. The WHO advised all countries to be on the lookout for 'unusual' outbreaks of flu, following an emergency meeting Saturday as the seriousness of the outbreak became clear. By Sunday, 81 deaths had been deemed "likely linked" to a deadly new strain of the virus by health authorities in Mexico. Viral testing has confirmed 20 cases, said Dr. Jose A. Cordova Villalobos, Mexico's health secretary.

Going beyond the specific case of swine flu here, the prospect of global pandemics brings up larger theoretical considerations for security policymakers. While I may have specific theoretical and policy disagreements with the Human Security school, I do think that their holistic conceptualization of security is admirable. The case of this Mexican pandemic demonstrates the need to consider things like pandemics from a security as well as a public standpoint.

The crux of the problem is how precisely to integrate non-human (but obviously, in many ways, human-influenced) security threats into a larger security framework. Or is it better, conceptually, to separate security and public health policy frameworks in a conceptual sense and only integrate them on policy and operational levels?

Sunrise in Security

I'm always on the lookout for good new security blogs despite the fact that my RSS feedreader is overflowing. But I'd like to alert the security/foreign policy blogosphere to a promising new blog by Aksel, a MA student at King's College in London. Aksel's blog, Sunrise in Security, takes a very holistic view of security in a manner that Rethinking Security readers will certainly appreciate. Aksel, however, focuses much on political and institutional issues associated with national security technology and weapons.

Take for example, this post on the "Zero Goal Taboo," where Aksel integrates discussion of weapons tech, norms surrounding nuclear weapons, and academic approaches to international relations theory. I think it is very remarkable that there has been a normative shift to the point where a hard-bitten realist like Henry Kissinger could endorse nuclear disarmament, and this will be something that will surely complicate discussions of arms control and rogue states.

Chaos on the Border

Steve Schippert is doing yeoman's work with his recent updates on the Mexican cartel conflict. This post in particular is extremely chilling.

Paul Van Riper on Self-Organizing Systems and Leadership

Lt. Gen Paul Van Riper talks on war, business, and self-organizing strategic systems.

Digital Transparency

It remains to be seen whether the expansive transparency scheme promised by President Obama will become a reality. But if he does, it will be a evolutionary step towards rebuilding American trust in government. Lack of trust fuels the growth of conspiracy theories and the popularity of sites like Wikileaks. The image of the emotionless, shades-wearing "man in black" has been a mainstay in American popular culture since the 1970s and has turned many talented individuals away from government service. Making government work look good again should be a long-term priority, especially in the national security field. This would also have a marginal impact abroad, especially in the inspiration of pro-democracy reformers abroad. However, it is hard to expect it having too large of an international impact.

Of course, the flip side of this is that information doesn't exactly equal clarity. The new administration may bombard the American people with marginalia and hide the things that truly should be transparent. Additionally, even if it does make good on its promise to err on the side of transparency the public might not pay attention, as government documents are not known for scintillating prose or brevity. Thus, the same rumors and conspiracies may persist because the public simply refused to pay attention to the document on hand. The administration will point to the document, but it is hard to imagine this staunching a viral rumor that is juicy enough. Still, this is an extremely encouraging step towards building a more transparent government.

Robert Gates as SecDef

Robert M. Gates in Foreign Affairs:

"When thinking about the range of threats, it is common to divide the "high end" from the "low end," the conventional from the irregular, armored divisions on one side, guerrillas toting AK-47s on the other. In reality, as the political scientist Colin Gray has noted, the categories of warfare are blurring and no longer fit into neat, tidy boxes. One can expect to see more tools and tactics of destruction -- from the sophisticated to the simple -- being employed simultaneously in hybrid and more complex forms of warfare."

This, in a nutshell, is why Obama was correct in keeping Gates as the Secretary of Defense. He does not conform to either extreme of the irregular vs. conventional debate and recognizes that the two are increasingly blending together. In contrast to Rumsfeld and McNamara, Gates' thinking has also continued to evolve past his formative years. He references cutting-edge military theorists and concepts throughout his essay, and in even if some underling wrote for him Gates undoubtedly approved of the overall thrust of the piece.

America isn't kind to complex thinkers. But Gates is one of them and it is fortunate that we have him on our side. He has flaws, of course, but his ability to see the picture is not one of them.