The (Cyber) Mouse that Roared

If someone asked you for a quick list of nations capable of mounting a major cyber attack, it's doubtful that North Korea would be included.

After all, the DPRK is one of the least-wired nations on earth. Aside from a few government agencies and Kim Jong-il's various residences, there is virtually no internet access. Just a few years ago, a North Korean government official said the nation's "young men" were still "trying to figure out the net."

Apparently, North Korea's IT fledgling cadre has made a lot of progress in recent. Hackers loyal to the DPRK--operating from North Korea or other locations--are believed responsible for last week's cyber assault that paralyzed government and commercial websites in South Korea and the U.S. The attacks began on July 4th, and their effects were still being felt four days later.

It was, by all accounts, a sophisticated, well-planned strike. As the U.K. Telegraph reports:

The South Korean intelligence agency told members of parliament that it believed Pyongyang or its agents abroad were behind the attacks.

“This is not a simple attack by individuals,” Seoul’s National Intelligence Service (NIS) said in a statement. “The attack appeared to have been elaborately prepared and staged by a certain organisation or state.”

The Yonhap news agency quoted an unnamed member of parliament who said that the NIS had suggested that the attacks were the work of North Korea or “a pro-North Korean force”.

Experts said that there was no indication of data theft, but because the websites were still affected four days after the attacks began, an unusually sophisticated denial of service attack had probably been used.

Thousands of computers were infected by a virus that flooded websites with traffic, then overloaded their servers and forced them to shut down.

In the U.S., the official websites of the Treasury, Transportation and State Departments were hit with similar attacks. However, agency spokesmen and members of Congress refused to link the strikes with those in South Korea. But media reports suggested the American websites were hacked by the same groups that targeted South Korean government sites.

The weekend attacks offer another reminder of the vulnerability of our computer networks and related systems. Even a nation like North Korea--or its sympathizers--can marshal the resources conduct a large-scale cyber assault on technologically advanced adversaries. Meanwhile, the DPRK is less vulnerable to a similar counter-attack, given its limited access to the internet.

At least one analyst described the assault on U.S. and ROK systems as a probing attack, designed to test our computer defenses. The hackers targeted a variety of business and government sites with a denial-of-service (DOS) attack. On the commercial side, targeted sites included the New York Stock Exchange, NASDAQ and Amazon.com.

The Obama Administration had previously announced plans to appoint a "cyber czar" to oversee computer security in the public and private sectors. Additionally, the Defense Department has created its own cyber command to oversee the military's information operations and computer network defense functions.

And not a moment too soon, judging by the impact of last weekend's attacks. The successful strike reminds us that virtually all future conflicts will contain a cyber element, and some will be built around those operations. As one of the nation's most dependent on the internet, the U.S. is among the most vulnerable. Creation of the cyber czar and cyber command are steps in the right direction, but they represent steps that should have been implemented years ago.

Oddly enough, three Air Force Captains suggested this type of attack would be part of a crippling, asymmetric first strike inflicted on the United States by North Korea and its "coalition" partners. Their scenario was first published in 1998. Events last weekend remind us that such an attack is not only possible, it is becoming increasing probable. Unfortunately, our preparations for that type of contingency remain weak.

The 80-Year-Old Fraud

Over the past four years, we've tried to do our part in exposing military phonies. From our perspective, there is nothing worse than a veteran--or someone who never served--offering bogus claims of valor and sacrifice. Real heroes (see our previous post) are an increasingly rare commodity; their exploits should never be cheapened by the frauds and charlatans.

With that in mind, we propose a special place in the Military Hall of Shame for Howard Manoian. Since the late 1940s, the Lowell, Massachusetts resident (and World War II veteran) has masqueraded as a former paratrooper.

For 60 years, Mr. Manoian told anyone who would listen that he served in combat with the 82nd Airborne Division during some of its toughest battles. As a member of the iconic unit's 505th Airborne Regiment, Manoian said that he jumped into Normandy on D-Day and Holland during Operation Market Garden. He also claimed two battle wounds.

It was all a lie.

Last month, about the time that Manoian was receiving France's highest military award, he was finally exposed as a phony. The Boston Herald, using information unearthed by military researchers, discovered that Manoian was never a member of the 82nd, or any other airborne unit. He served in Normandy, but as part of a chemical decontamination battalion. When it became obvious that the Germans would not use chemical weapons, Manoian's unit became a supply outfit.

Since then, the European edition of Stars and Stripes and a British paper have picked up the story. Mr. Manoian, as you might expect, has been reluctant to discuss his real military record. He's been living in France for several years, in a village (Sainte-Mère-Église) where American paratroopers landed on D-Day. But, when a Stripes reporter attempted to contact Manoian, his French landlord reported that the phony paratrooper had returned to the U.S.

Make no mistake; Howard Manoian served honorably in World War II. His unit came ashore on Utah Beach during the Normandy invasion and ran the supply dump for that sector. But apparently, that resume wasn't exciting enough, so he fabricated his service as a member of the 82nd.

At his age, Manoian probably won't be prosecuted for his fraud. But he deserves lasting enmity for his decades-long charade. When it comes to stolen valor, there is no age limit, or statute of limitations.

Remembering a Real Hero

Amid today's orgy of adulation over Michael Jackson, we should pause and remember real heroes--men and women who paid the ultimate price for this nation, but whose lives go uncelebrated.

U.S. Army Lieutenant Brian Bradshaw was one of individuals. He died on June 25th, the same day that Michael Jackson passed away. But Lieutenant Bradshaw didn't die in a Hollywood mansion from a drug-induced heart attack. He was killed on a road in Afghanistan, when his vehicle was targeted by an improvised explosive device.

More on Brian Bradshaw from the Seattle Times.

Paul Bradshaw, of Steilacoom, Pierce County, said his son joined the Army and went to Afghanistan "to try and help people" and to make the lives of the people there better.

"That was his hope. He didn't go to win a war."

Lt. Bradshaw was assigned to the 1st Battalion, 501st Parachute Infantry Regiment, 4th Airborne Brigade Combat Team, 25th Infantry Division in Fort Richardson, Alaska. He was
deployed to Afghanistan in March, his father said.

Paul Bradshaw said he talked to his son by telephone on Father's Day.

"He said that where they were at you couldn't recognize if they were making a difference, but they had made friends in that area."

The danger was obvious, his father said, but whenever his son spoke about it "he was worried about all his men ... not himself."

Lieutenant Bradshaw's death might have gone unnoticed outside his home state of Washington, except for his aunt, Martha Gillis. In a recent letter to the Washington Post, she bemoaned the lack of coverage of recent combat deaths in Iraq and Afghanistan, while describing non-stop tributes to Jackson as "totally ridiculous" and laughable.

Since Mr. Jackson expired last month, Lieutenant Bradshaw--and 12 other American warriors--have died in Afghanistan alone. Keep them (and their families) in your prayers. They deserve our gratitude and thanks.

Regrettably, most of our celebrity-crazed citizens aren't even aware of their sacrifice.

H/T: Blackfive

.

The Green Light?

A pair of reports, published this weekend, suggest that Israel has received tacit permission for a raid against Iran's nuclear facilities.

The first account, from the U.K. Telegraph, claims that Saudi Arabia has assured Israel that it will "cast a blind eye" to IAF jets flying over the kingdom, during any potential raid against nuclear targets in Iran.

The head of Mossad, Israel’s overseas intelligence service, has assured Benjamin Netanyahu, its prime minister, that Saudi Arabia would turn a blind eye to Israeli jets flying over the kingdom during any future raid on Iran’s nuclear sites.

Earlier this year Meir Dagan, Mossad’s director since 2002, held secret talks with Saudi officials to discuss the possibility.

The Israeli press has already carried unconfirmed reports that high-ranking officials, including Ehud Olmert, the former prime minister, held meetings with Saudi colleagues. The reports were denied by Saudi officials.

“The Saudis have tacitly agreed to the Israeli air force flying through their airspace on a mission which is supposed to be in the common interests of both Israel and Saudi Arabia,” a diplomatic source said last week.

Use of Saudi airspace would solve enormous logistical, planning and tactical challenges for the IAF. Without a direct route (through Saudi Arabia or Iraq), Israeli pilots would be forced to use corridors through Turkey or around the Arabian Peninsula. As we noted more than three years ago, longer routes put added pressure on Israel's small tanker fleet, which would be used to re-fuel strike aircraft on the Iran mission.

Estimates vary on the exact numbers of tankers in the IAF inventory, but most analysts believe there are only 5-7 KC-707s. These aircraft would be an integral part of any long-range mission to Iran, providing aerial refueling and (possibly) command-and-control functions, such as radio relay. Israeli aircraft use the same "boom" refueling system as the USAF; fighters maneuver behind the tanker as the "boom operator" extends the refueling probe into the refueling receptacle of the receiving aircraft. Once contact is established, the tanker begins pumping fuel to the receiver, at a rate of several hundred pounds per minute.

The number of tankers available, coupled with their potential offload, will limit the size of any Israeli strike package. Again, estimates on the size of the formation vary (depending on the number of targets to be struck, fighter payload, target distance and airspeed), but many analysts believe the Israelis would launch 4-5 tankers, supporting no more than 30 strike aircraft, divided roughly between F-15Is and F-16Is (which would attack the nuclear facilities) and other F-15s and F-16s, flying air defense suppression and air superiority missions. Divide the number of "bombers" (say 15) by the number of nuclear complexes (four), and you'll see that the IAF has virtually no margin for error.

Flying across Saudi airspace would not only decrease in-flight refueling requirements, it could also allow the IAF to add additional strike aircraft to the package, and increase their munitions load, improving prospects for success. Utilizing a corridor through Saudi Arabia would also provide "plausible denial" for two of Israel's most important allies, Turkey (which controls northern approaches to Iran), and the United States, which controls Iraqi airspace.

But if securing the Saudi route is critically important--and it is--why leak the information? A couple of possibilities come to mind. First, there's the chance that someone in Israel or Saudi Arabia decided to leak the information, trying to deter the attack for political reasons.

Secondly, the leak may be designed to send a message to Iranian leaders. Saudi complicity means that Israel has overcome one of the last major obstacles in striking Iran's nuclear facilities. That means an attack would come at any time, giving the mullahs something to contemplate as they set strategy in Ahmadinejad's second presidential term.

The announcement about the Saudi air route came just days after another disclosure from Tel Aviv. Late last week, the Defense Ministry disclosed that an Israeli Dolphin-class recently transited the Suez Canal in June. It was the first IDF warship to use the waterway in years, and signals improving relations between Israel and Egypt. The transit also gives Israeli subs direct access to the Red Sea and Indian Ocean, putting them closer to possible targets in Iran.

According to various defense and press accounts, Israel's newest subs are capable of launching cruise missiles through their torpedo tubes. Details on the weapons system remain sketchy; some analysts believe the cruise missile is a modified Harpoon or Popeye with limited range. Others suggest a long-range weapon, capable of hitting targets up to 750 miles away. Whatever its capabilities, the cruise missile gives Israel another option for striking Iran.

There are also indications that the U.S. will not stand in the way if Israel attacks Tehran's nuclear facilities. In an interview on ABC's "This Week," Vice President Joe Biden said the Israelis are free to set their own course on Iran. According to the AP, Biden's remarks suggest the administration is adopting a "tougher" stance toward Tehran, although the vice president still holds out hope for talks with the Iranians.

Given Mr. Biden's penchant for verbal slips and gaffes, it's hard to say if his comments actually reflect administration policy, or he was simply free-lancing once again. Assuming his remarks are consistent with White House views, then it looks like the Obama team may be accepting the inevitable.

In other words, Tehran has no plans to give up its nuclear program, and Israel will not allow Iran to get the bomb. That makes an Israeli strike almost inevitable, and there's only so much the U.S. can do to prevent it.

Besides, even the "diplomacy first" crowd that dominates the White House and State Department must recognize the bottom line. If the Israelis go after Iran, they will be doing the world a favor, and (possibly) prevent a regional conflagration. It's the sort of bold action that-- in another time--might be openly endorsed by the U.S. But in today's political environment, tacit approval is about as good as it gets.

Not on the Agenda

When President Obama meets with Russian leaders in Moscow this week, arms control will be at the top of the agenda. Mr. Obama is anxious to hammer out a new strategic arms reduction treaty with Russia, resulting in further cuts in each nation's nuclear arsenal.

Meanwhile, there's another issue that deserves the attention of President Obama and his Russian hosts. During the 1990s, North Korea managed to acquire the SS-N-6, a submarine-launched ballistic missile developed by the former Soviet Union. U.S. experts believe the system's technology is being Incorporated into long-range missiles recently tested by Pyongyang. Making matters worse, Kim Jong-il has also sold the missile to Iran, which is expected to use the missile to improve its own designs.

Regrettably, neither President Clinton nor President George W. Bush pressed the Russians on this matter, and there's no reason to believe that Mr. Obama will, either. It's much easier to focus on "big-ticket" items like an arms control deal between Washington and Moscow. Meanwhile, serious proliferation issues--like the SS-N-6 deal--remain on the back burner. We can only guess what technologies have made their way to Pyongyang since that SLBM.

More on this topic in our current column for Examiner.com.

Will They or Won't They?

Our new column for Examiner.com looks at the looming showdown between the U.S. and North Korea. By some accounts, Pyongyang is preparing to launch another Tapeodong-2 long-range missile, apparently in the direction of Hawaii. In response, the Obama Administration has positioned additional missile defenses around the islands, and suggested that we are prepared to shoot down the TD-2.

But there are limits on how far we're willing to go in dealing with that threat. As we note in the article, maybe the real issue isn't whether North Korea will launch the missile, but rather, does the U.S. have the political will to shoot it down.

Karl Malden, R.I.P.

Of all the celebrities who have passed in recent days, it's likely that Karl Malden will receive the least amount of media attention.

True, Mr. Malden had been retired from acting from several years. And his heyday as a film and theater performer was more than 50 years ago, when he appeared such landmark productions as A Streetcar Named Desire and On the Waterfront. Younger audiences knew him for his potrayal as General Omar Bradley in Patton; his 70s' TV series (The Streets of San Francisco) or those ubiquitous commercials for American Express traveler's cheques.

But the passage of time doesn't diminish the exceptional caliber of Malden's work. He was the original Mitch in Streetcar on Broadway, and won an Academy Award for his work in the film version (1954). Director Elia Kazan cast him again as Father Barry in On the Waterfront (1954) and he was the definitive General Bradley--and counterpart to George C. Scott--in Patton, released in 1970. He had other, equally memorable performances in such films as One Eyed Jacks, The Birdman of Alcatraz, and The Cincinnati Kid, among others.

Not a bad resume for the son of immigrants who grew as Mladen Sekulovich in the steel mill town of Gary, Indiana. He spoke Serbo-Croat until kindergarten. In high school, Sekulovich was a star basketball player who took his share of elbows to the face, giving him that distinctive, bulbous nose. The acting bug bit him while appearing in church plays, directed by his Serbian father. But when Mladen left the mills to become an actor, his father was stunned. He couldn't imagine giving up a steady job for the insecurity of acting.

After a name change (and training at Chicago's Goodman Theater), Malden made his first Broadway appearance in the late 1930s. In New York, he made the acquittance of Mr. Kazan, who would cast him in the plays and films that made him famous.

If Mr. Malden navigated his long career below the celebrity radar, it was by choice--and the fact that he didn't behave like a star, at least by today's standards. He was never the focus of a high-profile divorce trail; never fought with the paparazzi, or pulled a stint in rehab. Mr. Malden was married to the same woman for 70 years, served his country honorably during World War II (as an NCO in the Army Air Corps) and pursued his craft with diligence and integrity, qualities often lacking among the current crop of actors.

Malden was also willing to go against the Hollywood grain, as evidenced by an anecdote from 1999. By all accounts, he was the moving force behind an effort to award an honorary Oscar to Elia Kazan. While his reputation as a director was indisputable, Kazan was reviled by many in the film community for testifying before the House Un-American Activities Committee, listing communists within the entertainment industry. Mr. Kazan defended his actions until his death, earning the enmity of many of his peers.

As a governor of the Academy of Motion Pictures Arts and Sciences, it was Mr. Malden who defied decades-old grudges (and political correctness) in proposing an honorary Oscar for his long-time friend and colleague. As he later described his speec for the Los Angeles Times:

"When I got up to talk, I suspected that there would be a big fight, but no one debated it at all," Malden later told The Times. "I said that I'm nominating a dear friend, and as far as I'm concerned, there's no place for politics in any art form. An award like this is about your body of work, and when it comes to a body of work, Elia Kazan deserves to be honored.

"When Malden finished speaking, The Times reported, he was greeted by a rousing burst of applause.

Thanks to Malden's efforts, Mr. Kazan finally got his long-deserved Academy Award for Lifetime Achievement in 1999, just four years before his death.

Here's hoping that academy will bestow a similar honor on Karl Malden at next year's ceremony.

Changing Course

For more than a week, the USS John S. McCain has been shadowing a North Korean merchant vessel, believed to be carrying illegal weapons.

Now that ship--the Kang Nam--appears to be heading back home. As the AP reports:

U.S. officials said Tuesday that a North Korean ship has turned around and is headed back toward the north where it came from, after being tracked for more than a week by American Navy vessels on suspicion of carrying illegal weapons.

The move keeps the U.S. and the rest of the international community guessing: Where is the Kang Nam going? Does its cargo include materials banned by a new U.N. anti-proliferation resolution?

Originally, the North Korean cargo vessel was believed enroute to Myanmar, carrying a load of missile parts. The two rogue nations have drawn closer in recent years, although Myanmar has little need for ballistic missiles. However, various intelligence agencies and anti-proliferation groups have reported that Pyongyang has been attempting to sell missiles to the Myanmar regime since 2005.

There is also the possibility that Myanmar was merely a trans-shipment point, but those reports are also unconfirmed. With U.S. naval vessels trailing the Kang Nam--and hints that we might board and search the vessel--North Korea decided to recall the ship and its cargo.

Still, no one can actually be sure the the Kang Nam is heading back to the DPRK. In the past, North Korean ships involved in illicit activities (most notably, drug running) have operated from Chinese coastal waters. Under that scenario, the vessel would rendez-vous with another ship and transfer the cargo.

However, given the constant surveillance of the Kang Nam, accomplishing that transfer would be difficult, if not impossible. It's also unlikely that Beijing would want to be associated with that activity, particularly as U.S. envoys press China to put more pressure on Pyongyang.

The most likely scenario? In a few days, the Kang Nam slips back into port at Nampo, and the cargo is unloaded. Then, it's shipped to Sunan Airfield, near Pyongyang, and loaded onto an IL-76 transport, which flies the cargo to the customer.

As we noted almost three years ago, North Korea has long used airlift to move high-value cargo to its most important clients, including Iran. And that illustrates a rather serious "hole" in current efforts to contain Pyongyang. While the U.S. (and other naval powers) are actively tracking DPRK maritime shipments, there is no comparable effort for air transfers.

In some cases, those shipments would be almost impossible to stop. With a lighter load, an IL-76 can fly non-stop from North Korea to Iran. However, those flights do require direct routing (through Chinese or Russian airspace). Without it, North Korea or Iranian airlifters would be forced to make refueling stops, providing an opportunity for the U.S. to lobby for third-party inspections, or deny access to the airfields.

As with other attempts to pressure Pyongyang, China would be a key player in eliminating the air option. But (apparently) there are limits to Beijing's cooperation. Intelligence reports indicate that North Korean IL-76s sometimes use Chinese airfields during flights to the Middle East. Without more assistance from the PRC, North Korea's "air bridge" will remain open, and Kim Jong-il will retain a critical option for shipping missile and WMD cargoes to his customers.

What Supersonic Looks Like

An F-22 Raptor breaks the sound barrier during a fly-by of the carrier USS John Stennis last week (U.S. Navy photo)

If we had a prize for the shot of the week, we'd give to it Navy photojournalist Ron Dejarnett. He took the photo you see above last week, during Exercise Northern Edge in the Gulf of Alaska. Dejarnett captured an Air Force F-22 passing through the sound barrier, as it flew over the USS Stennis.

It's hardly the first time a fighter aircraft has been photographed at Mach 1. In fact, one of our favorite images shows a Navy F/A-18 breaking the sound barrier during a fly-by of the carrier Constellation in 1999.



Ensign John Gay's famous photo of a Hornet hitting Mach 1 near the USS Constellation. He captured the shot with a Nikon 90S, using a shutter speed of 1/1000th of a second. Gay's iconic image took first place in a 2000 world photography contest.

For the physics-and-engineering crowd, LiveScience.com offers this explanation of the effect depicted in the photographs:

A layer of water droplets gets trapped between two high-pressure surfaces of air. In humid conditions, condensation can gather in the trough between two crests of the sound waves produced by the jet. This effect does not necessarily coincide with the breaking of the sound barrier, although it can.

Indeed, it can.

Today's Reading Assignment

...The incomparable Mark Steyn, writing at National Review, on the need to burst the "bubble" that surronds modern politicians, and--apparently--prompts some of their outrageous behavior (latest example: South Carolina Governor Mark Sanford, just back from that trip to see his mistress in Buenos Aires).

A few of Steyn's gems from his essay:

The plot owed less to Tim Rice and Andrew Lloyd Webber than to one of those Fox movies of the early Forties in which some wholesome all-American type escapes the stress and strain of modern life by taking off for a quiet weekend in Latin America, and the next thing you know they’re doing the rhumba on the floor of a Rio nightclub surrounded by Carmen Miranda and 200 gay caballeros prancing around waving giant bananas. In this case, the gentlemen of the South Carolina press were the befuddled caballeros and Governor Sanford was bananas.

[snip]

Instead, we have the governor of South Carolina resorting to subterfuge worthy of one of those Mitteleuropean operettas where the Ruritanian princess disguises herself as a scullery maid to leave the castle by the back gate for an assignation with a dashing if impoverished hussar garbed as a stable lad. Perhaps some enterprising producer would like to option a Carolinian update of Prince Bob, the hit of the 1902 theatrical season in Budapest, in which the eponymous hero, a son of Queen Victoria, escapes “the bubble” of Buckingham Palace by getting out on the streets and wooing a Cockney serving wench.

And finally, Steyn offers this hilarious reminder that Americans still take a back seat to the Brits when it comes to sex scandals:

I was asked the other day about the difference between American and British sex scandals. In its heyday, Brit sex was about the action — Lord Lambton’s three-in-a-bed bi-racial sex romp; Harvey Proctor’s industrial-scale spanking of rent boys; Max Mosley’s Nazi bondage sessions, with a fine eye for historical accuracy and the orders barked out in surprisingly accurate German; Stephen Milligan’s accidental auto-erotic asphyxiation while lying on a kitchen table wearing fishnet stockings . . . With the exception of the last ill-fated foray, there was an insouciance to these remarkably specialized peccadilloes.

By contrast, American sex scandals seem to be either minor campaign-finance infractions — the cheerless half-hearted affair with an aide — or, like Governor Sanford’s pitiful tale (at least as recounted at his press conference and as confirmed by the e-mails), a glimpse of loneliness and social isolation, as if in the end all they want is the chance to be sitting at the bar telling the gal with the nice smile, “My wife, and my staffers, and my security detail, and the State House press corps, and the guy who writes my Twitter Tweet of the Day, don’t understand me.”

The cure for this sort of behavior is smaller government, Steyn writes. Part-time legislators, with limited responsibilities and lots of time outside the "fishbowl." That reminds us of an effort in Arkansas during the early 80s to further limit sessions of the General Assembly. At the time, state lawmakers met for only 30 days every two years, if we recall correctly. Reformers suggested an even more abbreviated session, say 2 days every 30 years.

They were only half-joking.