Threat Assessment

This commentary appeared on CNN on May 21, 2013.

The announcement by prosecutors that charges had been filed against suspected cyber thieves believed responsible for stealing $45 million in a matter of hours from ATM's in two dozen countries should send a stark message to governments around the world — banks could be the most vulnerable front in cyber space.

Plenty of people have been warning us these days to worry about cyber attacks, but generally we have been worrying about the wrong things. Most “cyber Armageddon” scenarios focus on gaps in our physical infrastructure and even far-fetched scenarios such as infant incubators in hospitals being turned off. But major swathes of the United States have routinely gone without electricity and water for days following natural disasters. Soon enough, life gradually gets back to normal. Want real chaos? Destroy confidence in the banking system (or even a part of it), and just stand back and watch....

The remainder of this commentary is available at cnn.com.

This commentary appeared on The Hill's Congress Blog on May 14, 2013.

The use of drones to attack the Taliban in Afghanistan and Pakistan, and al Qaeda there and in Yemen, draws criticism for exacerbating anti-American sentiment. But drone use needs to be seen in broader contexts as the U.S. withdraws from combat in Afghanistan, deals with unrest in the Middle East and Persian Gulf, and grapples with al Qaeda threats to our homeland.

Debate has focused on using drones to assassinate — that is the proper word — those identified as major al Qaeda operatives, their allies or others in Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Yemen. Al Qaeda continues to seek a 9/11-sized attack on the U.S., making it appropriate to target complicit individuals outside the United States for killing or capture. We need to re-examine how to do it, along with the costs and risks.

This commentary appeared on Reuters on May 14, 2013.

Israel's recent attacks on military targets in Syria have made clear the widening regional dimensions of Syria's civil war. They have also fueled debate about whether the United States should intervene. Look, some say, Israel acts when it sets red lines, and Syria's air defenses are easy to breach. Israel's involvement has energized those, like Senator John McCain (R-Ariz.), who argue for U.S. military intervention in Syria. Unfortunately, the interventionists are drawing the wrong lessons from the Israeli actions.

The first misconception is that the Israeli strikes showed how Israel stands by its red lines in ways that bolster its credibility — a sharp contrast to the perceived equivocation of President Barack Obama's stated red line that the use of chemical weapons in Syria would be a “game changer.”

This commentary appeared on GlobalSecurity.org on May 13, 2013.

The investigation of the Boston Marathon bombing highlighted growing public participation in protecting communities against terrorism. People on the scene before the medical teams arrived were the real first responders, as ordinary citizens always are in such cases. Shocked by the attack, Bostonians were eager to assist authorities in running the bombers down before they could strike again. It worked both ways as police opened their filters to enlist public assistance.

Spectators provided police with their videos of the event. They assisted in identifying the bombers. They obeyed the controversial order to stay off the streets. It was a citizen's tip that led to the capture of the second suspect. The spontaneous expressions of joy at the apprehension of the second suspect reflected not only relief, but also a sense of shared achievement.

This commentary appeared in U.S. News & World Report on April 22, 2013.

The horrendous attacks on innocent people at the Boston Marathon continue to weigh on the public consciousness nearly a week after the deadly plot unfolded. There has been broad outreach to the victims and the suspects are accounted for: one dead, one in custody. Some people, especially in places where marathons, festivals, or other large public events will occur in the coming weeks and months are already looking ahead to the next question: What should we do to prevent terrorist attacks like this in the future?

In the wake of a terrorist attack, there is an overwhelming urge to fix things so the events will never be repeated. The story is familiar. After the bombing of U.S. embassies overseas, barriers around government buildings became de rigueur. After the anthrax letter attacks on Capitol Hill in 2001, mail to many federal offices faced irradiation and severe delays, if not prohibitions. When Richard Reed brought a shoe bomb on a plane, Americans removed their shoes at airports. After the London bombing plots, travelers lost the right to bring liquids on planes. After the so-called underwear bomber attempt, Transportation Security Administration spent millions of dollars on sophisticated body scanners.

For its recent feature "The Future of War," Foreign Policy magazine surveyed 71 leading authorities on today’s global conflicts – including many current and former analysts from the RAND Corporation - and used their responses to rank future security threats.

The economic crisis poses the greatest danger to U.S. national security, according to the ranking. Most agreed Al Qaeda is weakening, and three-quarters of the experts surveyed said the U.S. should pursue active negotiations with the Taliban. A majority of the respondents agreed that the invasion of Afghanistan was a worthwhile endeavor, and three-quarters of them said the plan to withdraw combat forces by 2014 should continue.

The survey found experts divided on the subject of Asia. About half of those surveyed said the U.S. military pivot to Asia was either overblown or a distraction and half said President Obama's characterization of China as an "adversary" was incorrect.

Contributing to the experts pool from RAND were Jack Riley, director of the National Security Research Division, and Seth Jones, associate director of the International Security and Defense Policy Center. Also surveyed were Henry Rowen – president of the RAND Corporation from 1967 to 1972 – and a list of former RAND political analysts that includes Graham Allison, John Arquilla, William Rosenau, and Frederic Wehrey.

Back in January, a Russian research satellite—the Ball Lens In the Space (BLITS)—apparently collided with a piece of orbiting space debris that resulted from a 2007 Chinese anti-satellite test. The collision was significant enough to change the orbit of the BLITS satellite and affect its operations. This event is certainly a loss for the Russian scientists who rely on this satellite to support their research activities. But it also serves as a reminder that debris-generating events can have long-lasting effects that go well beyond the immediate public outcry and global media coverage.

In the summer of 2010, the Deepwater Horizon oil spill occurred in the Gulf of Mexico creating a dramatic effect on Gulf ecology, as well as impairing the recreational and aquaculture industries. Like space debris, oil spills are environmental disasters that don't stop at international boundaries. In addition, these events occur in environments that are difficult for many people to conceptualize. However, even as the immediate effects of Deepwater have faded from the public's view, oil remains in the Gulf, just as most debris remains in space.

This commentary appeared on U.S. News & World Report on February 25, 2013.

The casual observer can be excused for being confused after reading news headlines on al Qaeda over the past few weeks. On one hand, the organization is portrayed as coming back with a vengeance as the new jihadi hydra, with assertions that the group has become a far greater threat than the Obama administration admits. On the other hand, recent events have been described as the acts of a desperate and dying cause.

Both arguments have some merit, but the weight of evidence favors those who argue that al Qaeda has become a shadow of the organization that attacked the United States on 9/11. The attack last month by al Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb on an isolated and vulnerable gas facility in Algeria, as brutal and shocking as it was, should not be confused with a resurgent threat to the United States, the resurrection of the al Qaeda of old, or progress toward bin Laden's vision of a Salafist Caliphate spanning the breadth of the Middle East. The swift march into Mali by a band of Islamist thugs demonstrates an efficient, opportunistic filling of a security vacuum more than an increase in jihadist power or influence.

While last week's meteor hit in Russia may seem like an extraordinary event, the truth is that the planet is always under bombardment. Earth is inundated with 100 tons of celestial particulate every day. Most of these particles are harmless: Due to their small size, they disintegrate upon entering the Earth's atmosphere. However, some objects survive passage through the atmosphere and have the potential to cause significant effects on the ground. While the event in Russia was caused by a medium-sized (10,000-ton) meteor, larger objects, like the asteroid 2012 DA14 that also passed near Earth last week, have the potential to be significantly more damaging.

To date, scientists have discovered 11 significant, kilometer-class craters on the planet caused by large-scale collisions with asteroids. The most recent (and the smallest!) is Meteor Crater, which is about 40 miles east of Flagstaff, Arizona. The crater is 0.75 miles in diameter, and it was created 49,000 years ago when an asteroid struck the surface. The largest known crater is a bowl-shaped cavity 125 miles in diameter buried under the Yucatan; the impact is believed to have caused the extinction of 50 percent of life on Earth at the time (including the dinosaurs).

This commentary appeared on U.S. News & World Report on February 14, 2013.

In his State of the Union Address, President Obama focused on the need for the country to "continue to take direct action against those terrorists who pose the gravest threat to Americans." This should certainly be the nation's priority. But we will need to do more, and for this we need to look back and also forward.

Since World War II, the United States has pursued a strategy that involves the ability to project military power to distant regions and to confront more than one enemy at a time. This has been important not only to deter adversaries but also reassure allies. Yet, how that strategy has been implemented over the decades has changed, as threats, alliances, and military capabilities have evolved.