Wednesday, December 01, 2010

How to Deal With WikiLeaks Shows "Brave New World"

Between the Global War on Terror, Al Queda, and now Wikileaks, how we deal with internal and global security may have to be totally reevaluated. Jay Tea over at Wizbang has some salient thoughts and ideas:
What we are seeing with WikiLeaks is very akin to what we are seeing with militant Islam and the War On Terror: a non-state entity taking on some of the powers and influence previously accorded only to nation states. WikiLeaks is acting like the intelligence agency of a nation hostile to (if not at war) with the United States. They, like the terrorists, have declared a modern form of war against us, and are waging it just like the KGB would. They are violating our secrets and publicizing them for their own ideological ends -- which are inimical to our own national security.

In the old days, we had ways of dealing with that sort of thing. We could arrest, try, convict, and imprison them. We could swap them for our own intelligence agents. We could identify them and turn them to our own use, or feed them false information. We could even, in extreme circumstances, kill them. (Usually behind some euphemism like "sanction" or "terminate" or "vanish.")

But all those options, save the first and last, were contingent on one element that we lack here: a nation-state behind the opposing intelligence agency that which we could deal with. A counterpart, with clearly identifiable leadership and goals.

Here, like in the War on Terror, we are seeing a group take on some of the aspects of a nation-state, but not enough to qualify as such. They still qualify, under the old and still existing rules, as "civilians" and have the protections accorded thereto.

Quite frankly, the world has outgrown the presumptions behind those principles. Civilians were protected because they were seen as largely helpless and harmless.

No longer. Groups like Al Qaeda and WikiLeaks can actually cause more harm, in different ways, than many actual nations.

This isn't like dealing with the KGB or the Mossad or MI-5 or other intelligence organizations. There isn't a nation state to cajole. This may necessitate drastically changing our worldview and how to deal with threats in this new age:
What we are seeing very well could be the beginning of the end of the modern nation-state. Non-state actors are becoming more and more powerful, taking on many of the powers that have been traditionally been reserved for nation-states -- but without the corresponding responsibilities and liabilities and weaknesses. They are, in their own way, waging war against the United States and other nations -- and doing so in a way that our own laws and customs regarding warfare limit our ability to fight back.

We need to adapt to this new reality. We need to rework how we deal with these trans-national organizations, to come up with new rules that cover groups that wage war on the US while still pretending to be "civilians."

In the case of WikiLeaks, my personal sentiment is to treat them precisely how they have become to be: a hostile foreign intelligence agency at war with the United States. Espionage charges, counterintelligence, information warfare, and even -- if necessary, "wet work" -- targeted assassinations.

That's the game they have chosen to play. And by choosing to play in the big leagues, they have forfeited their right to the protections accorded civilians.

My gut says, right on right on! However, the notion of targetting assassinations for things like this could produce that ever present slippery slope. Where will the line be drawn? Will the proprietors of WMD become targets because they disagree with an administration? That last idea--wetwork--is one that must be considered only in the most grave situations, I think. Time will tell.