Feral Jundi

Saturday, December 12, 2009

PMC 2.0: Social Networks as Foreign Policy, The Onion Router, and Humari Awaz

Filed under: Iran,Pakistan,PMC 2.0,Technology — Tags: , , , , , , , — Matt @ 5:59 AM

Defense Secretary Robert Gates, who has written about the efficacy of samizdat in undermining the Soviet Union, sees a similar dynamic at work here. “The freedom of communication and the nature of it,” he has said, “is a huge strategic asset for the United States.” 

*****

    These three stories are all inter-related and based on this first one below.  The more I read this, the more I keep thinking that someone is reading Feral Jundi and taking the hint.  lol.  There are all sorts of things we could be doing with these technologies, and it is great to see some innovation in that department.  I especially like the Humari project, because that is flipping cool.  Facebook is already accessible on a mobile platform, but to actually create a social network for mobile for the Pakistani market?  That is neat.

   Why are these stories in PMC 2.0? Because not only is the freedom of communication and the nature of it an excellent strategic asset for the US, it is an excellent strategic asset for companies.  I recommend the reader to go back through all of the PMC 2.0 and social networking related posts that I have made in the past, and evaluate for yourself on the validity of this concept.  The future is coming and everyone will have mobile smart phones and everyone will be using social networking sites.  Is your company ready for that?-Matt

Edit: 12/14/2009- Check out this paper written at the Heritage Foundation about Public Diplomacy 2.0.

————————————————————–

Social Networks as Foreign Policy

12/12/2009

From the 9th Annual Year in Ideas

In August, after the suppression of Iran’s pro-democracy protests, officials in Tehran accused Western governments of using online social networks like Twitter and Facebook to help execute a “soft coup.” The accusation wasn’t entirely off-base. In Iran and elsewhere, this year showed the growing importance of social networks to U.S. foreign policy.

Long before the protests in Iran started, the Broadcasting Board of Governors, which oversees U.S. civilian international broadcasting, had in place software to counter censorship in countries like Iran, so people could better access the blogosphere. And the State Department financially supports agencies that make it easier for Iranians and others to surf the Web. After the protests began, the State Department asked Twitter to reschedule a maintenance outage so the activists could continue to spread the word about their movement.

The United States has long disseminated information to people living under repressive regimes — think of Radio Free Europe. The difference here is that the content of the information isn’t the important thing; the emphasis is on supporting the technical infrastructure and then letting the people decide for themselves what to say. Communication itself erodes despots’ authority. “The very existence of social networks is a net good,” says Alec Ross, a senior adviser on innovation to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.

(more…)

Thursday, December 10, 2009

Afghanistan: The Taliban Pay More Than The Afghan Army?

Filed under: Afghanistan — Tags: , , , , , — Matt @ 9:43 AM

   I am sorry, but this is unacceptable.  So all along, the Taliban have been paying more for it’s recruits than the Afghan Army has been paying theirs?  Who dropped the ball on this one, because this is huge in my book. For any strategists who would like to learn a quick lesson on war and economics, especially coming from one of us ‘evil security contractors’, the math is simple.  The locals will always go for the best deal possible, and if the Taliban are paying more, then of course they are going to join them.

   It reminds me of the latest GAO report on the State Department’s problem with trying hire enough supervisors to manage the WPPS crew.  If you pay so little for a position like this, what do you expect? Of course contractors are not going to sign up for such a thing.  I love the phrase, ‘pay peanuts and you get monkeys’.  Well in this case, the applicable phrase is that you ‘get what you pay for’.

   Not to mention the fact that every village and tribe out there is hedging their bets right now as to who will be in charge a year from now, five years from now, ten years from now, and etc.  If survival means working for their cousin up in the hills as a ‘little T’ or contract Taliban, and make a little money off the venture, then so be it.  Until the government of Afghanistan can show that it is not corrupt and that it is willing to actually pay their guys a decent salary, then of course these folks are gonna go for the better deal.

     The Afghan Army has to show capability as well, and if they lack motivation or discipline to accomplish the mission of killing the Taliban and company, then why would anyone want to join them? Success breeds success, and everyone likes a winner.

   Glad to see someone woke up and realized that this needed fixing. I think the Army will definitely see an uptick in recruits and in retention, and in turn, less recruits for the Taliban. Duh.

    The other question though is how long can we, I mean the Afghans, pay for these salaries?  Unlike Iraq with it’s oil, Afghanistan really has nothing to pay for anything. –Matt

——————————————————————

Pay increase for Afghan troops boosts interest

APPLICATIONS ARE ON THE RISE

Obama strategy depends on well-trained force

By Glenn KesslerThursday, December 10, 2009

KABUL — A recent pay increase for Afghan troops and police appears to have resulted in a surge of applicants, said the top U.S. military official for Afghan security training.

Lt. Gen. William B. Caldwell IV, citing Afghan statistics, said 2,659 Afghans had applied to join the security forces in the first seven days of this month, about half of the month’s recruiting objective. In the three previous months, recruiting fell short of targets, with only 830 applicants in September, he said.

President Obama’s new strategy for Afghanistan, which calls for 30,000 U.S. reinforcements next year, depends heavily on the rapid development of a well-trained Afghan force that can begin to take over security from U.S. and NATO forces. Afghanistan has about 97,000 troops and 95,000 police officers, but they are poorly trained, have high turnover rates and are prone to corruption.

(more…)

Tuesday, December 8, 2009

Industry Talk: GAO Report Critical of State Department’s Diplomatic Security Bureau

Filed under: Afghanistan,Industry Talk — Tags: , , , , — Matt @ 8:20 AM

     FP is right.  The surge is happening, and the civilian surge will be coming right along with it.  All of those folks are gonna need security, and DoS needs to prepare for that big time. I didn’t know that DoS was this bad off, and you would think that there would have been plenty of lessons learned to guide them and prepare them for future needs.  WPPS will be big in Afghanistan, and how anyone could have missed the planning and preparation for this, is beyond me. –Matt

Edit: 12/09/09 Check out Danger Room’s post on the same thing here.

——————————————————————

Exclusive: GAO report rips State Department’s Diplomatic Security Bureau

From Foreign Policy

Mon, 12/07/2009

The State Department is tripling its civilian presence in Afghanistan, which will require a huge increase in the amount of security needed to look after those civilians. But State’s bureau in charge of protecting its personnel is already stretched thin and the Afghanistan surge could only exacerbate its administrative and strategic shortfalls, according to a soon-to-be-released GAO report, obtained exclusively by The Cable.

It’s a fact of life that operations in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Pakistan are a now a huge part of the mission for the State Department’s Bureau of Diplomatic Security (DS), which protects diplomats all over the world. That’s somewhat a legacy of Condoleezza Rice’s “Transformational Diplomacy” initiative, which was meant to expand the U.S. diplomatic presence to include more robust efforts in more dangerous places. Outposts that might have been closed have been kept open, such as in Lahore, Pakistan, putting added burdens on the diplomatic security infrastructure, the report states.

Success in Afghanistan depends on improving the Afghan government and “that makes civilian efforts as vital as military operations and of longer duration,” Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said just before last Tuesday’s announcement by the president. “We have begun to elevate diplomacy and development alongside defense in our national security strategy, and we are certainly engaged in doing so in Afghanistan.”

(more…)

Sunday, December 6, 2009

Somalia: P.M. Calls for Plan Like U.S. Afghan Strategy

Filed under: Somalia — Tags: , , , , , — Matt @ 6:53 AM

     You know, this PM has a point.  We are investing a lot of troops and resources to Afghanistan, but there are other centers of gravity for the enemy that we should be focusing on.  One of them is Somalia, and the enemy is gaining momentum there as well. Money and manpower issues come to mind as to why we are not ‘surging’ into Somalia.

   He also mentioned another fantastic point.  For the amount of money we are spending on all of these massive navies to go after small little boats with pirates in them, we could certainly re-evaluate that process and use that money for a better return on investment.

   We could instead force the shipping industry to provide their own security, and then the costs could easily be passed down to the companies, and then to the consumer. It is already happening like that, but instead of security costs, the shipping companies are having to pay for increased insurance do to kidnappings.  I say lower the kidnapping potential by increasing security on the boats. Invest in security, and not insane insurance costs that only go up as the pirates capture more boats.  That makes economic sense.

    Also minimize the naval presence out there, and focus on being a quick reaction force or QRF to all these security contractors on boats.  The taxpayers of all the countries are paying for these massive naval operations that are not effective. It’s like using elephants to kill mice.

    Thanks to David who sent me the article below this one, this only strengthens the point that large navies are not that effective at stopping all of these small scale attacks.  They cannot be every where and at all times.  But security on boats can be on scene at the right time, and every time.  The monopoly on the application of the use of force, must be loosened, and there must be an effort to allow and even encourage the hardening of these boats.

   But back to the money.  Just imagine if instead of spending millions every day for all of these navies, to instead put that down on a land based strategy with some teeth?  It could happen, but it will take a re-thinking of the proper allocation of money and manpower for this to take place.  It would also take political will to communicate why this needs to happen. –Matt

—————————————————————

Somali PM Calls for Plan Like US Afghan Strategy

05 December 2009

VOA News

In a letter published Saturday in the British newspaper ‘The Times,’ Omar Sharmarke said Obama’s plan for Afghanistan, announced in a speech Tuesday, ‘marks a sea change in international support to troubled countries.’

Somalia’s prime minister is asking for U.S. President Barack Obama’s vision for Afghanistan to be applied to his country.In a letter published Saturday in the British newspaper The Times, Omar Sharmarke said Obama’s plan for Afghanistan, announced in a speech Tuesday, “marks a sea change in international support to troubled countries.”Prime Minister Sharmarke said Somalia needs similar aid, to restore an effective government and train security forces, to police Somalia’s waters to ensure only Somalis profit from the fish, oil, and gas, and to launch a vocational training program for young people. (more…)

Monday, November 30, 2009

Maritime Security: Somali Pirates Hijack Oil Tanker Going to U.S.

Filed under: Maritime Security,Saudi Arabia,Somalia — Tags: , , , , , — Matt @ 8:05 AM

   This is not good.  This is the kind of nightmare scenario that can go a number of ways.  What if Al Qaeda or similar group, provides a better offer for the tanker than the owners of the boat or goods?  For all we know, these guys are working with Al Shabaab and have something planned.  You just don’t know, but now that the vessel is under the control of these pirates, they have all the power.  And the shipping company is at fault for not properly securing this vessel.

   I am also starting to get a headache from reading Roger Middleton’s crap assessments on shipping security.  Who is this guy, and why does the media continue to give him a voice on this matter?  For all we know, this shipping company followed the pathetic advice of this dork, and look what happened?  Where is the voice of reason here?

    Now tactically speaking, yeah, RPGs might ignite some kind of flammables in an attack, but the key to good security is to not even allow RPG armed pirates to get that close.  With the proper surveillance systems in place, and a locked on and properly staffed security detail, I can guarantee that a tanker like this will not be taken again.  Especially if this team is using weapons that will give them stand off distance.  The basic math here is use weapons that reach out farther and do more damage than what the pirates use.  Glock pistols will not do the trick.  Long guns or a Bushmaster Cannon are what I am talking about.  Or we can allow pirates who could be backed by terrorists, to take oil tankers or chemical tankers, and use them for whatever purpose.  And with the case of this tanker, the pirates have all the power right now, all because the ship did not have the means to protect itself.

   Another idea to protect a ship like this, is to use escort ships to draw fire away from the tanker. This would be expensive, but doable.  A pirate will fire on a tanker or chemical tanker regardless, all with the idea of trying to terrorize and control the vessel.  If you can draw the fire of the pirates away from the tanker, and take the battle zone away from that flammable vessel, then that is another idea.  I will say this again, and in stark contrast to what Roger has to say.  Pirates only understand one thing out on the high seas, and that is the rule of force. –Matt

—————————————————————–

Somali pirates hijack oil tanker going to US

By MALKHADIR M. MUHUMED

Monday, November 30, 2009

NAIROBI, Kenya — Somali pirates seized a tanker carrying crude oil from Saudi Arabia to the United States in the increasingly dangerous waters off East Africa, an official said Monday, an attack that could pose a huge environmental or security threat to the region.

The Greece-flagged Maran Centaurus was hijacked Sunday about 800 miles (1,300 kilometers) off the coast of Somalia, said Cmdr. John Harbour, a spokesman for the EU Naval Force. Harbour said it originated from Jeddah, Saudi Arabia and was destined for the United States. The ship has 28 crew members on board, he said.

The shipping intelligence company Lloyd’s List said the Maran Centaurus is a “very large crude carrier, with a capacity of over 300,000 tons.” Officials could not immediately say how many barrels of oil were on board, but its value would be in the millions of dollars.

Pirates have increased attacks on vessels off East Africa for the millions in ransom that can be had. Though pirates have successfully hijacked dozens of vessels the last several years, Sunday’s attack appears to be only the second ever on an oil tanker.

The hijacking of a tanker increases worries that the vessel could crash, be run aground or be involved in a firefight, said Roger Middleton, a piracy expert at London-based think tank Chatham House.

Pirates typically use guns and rocket-propelled grenades in their attacks, and some vessels now carry private security guards, but Middleton said oil tankers do not.

(more…)

« Newer Posts — Older Posts »

Powered by WordPress