NPI's Cascadia Advocate

Offering commentary and analysis from Washington, Oregon, and Idaho, The Cascadia Advocate provides the Northwest Progressive Institute's uplifting perspective on world, national, and local politics.

Monday, June 8th, 2020

Book Review: “Dawn of the Code War” looks at the modern age’s cyber battlegrounds

Two cen­turies ago, the Pruss­ian gen­er­al Carl von Clause­witz famous­ly wrote, “War is a con­tin­u­a­tion of pol­i­tics with oth­er means.”

The nice thing about apho­risms is that they are so easy to re-inter­pret for fresh pur­pos­es and present cir­cum­stances. In that way, apho­risms are unlike new tech­nol­o­gy, which often change the world around it far less than is cred­it­ed to it pure­ly by virtue of being nov­el and there­fore more visible.

For­mer Assis­tant Attor­ney Gen­er­al John P. Car­lin and jour­nal­ist Gar­rett Graf­f’s 2019 book Dawn of the Code War focus­es on the new chal­lenges posed by cyber threats to nation­al secu­ri­ty. Sub­ti­tled “Amer­i­ca’s Bat­tle Against Rus­sia, Chi­na, and the Ris­ing Glob­al Cyber Threat”, it dives deep into some of the cas­es Car­lin dealt with dur­ing his rough­ly twen­ty years in fed­er­al law enforce­ment for the FBI and U.S. Depart­ment of Justice’s Nation­al Secu­ri­ty Divi­sion, par­tic­u­lar­ly those threats direct­ed by Iran, North Korea, Chi­na, and Russia.

Dawn of the Code War

Dawn of the Code War: Amer­i­ca’s Bat­tle Against Rus­sia, Chi­na, and the Ris­ing Glob­al Cyber Threat, by John P. Car­lin and Gar­rett M. Graff (Hard­cov­er, PublicAffairs)

There’s some val­ue and some inter­est in this, explain­ing how indi­vid­ual human errors are often the key to, for exam­ple, find­ing an indi­vid­ual Daesh/Islamic State group “cyber jihadist” recruiter based on con­nec­tions to oth­er, less care­ful cyber crim­i­nals or that Chi­nese hack­ers were the ones behind a par­tic­u­lar net­work intru­sion for intel­lec­tu­al prop­er­ty because they did­n’t always cov­er their tracks as well as they were capa­ble of.

The his­to­ry of cyber­crime and cyber­crim­i­nals traced from its hum­bler begin­nings when com­put­er net­works were large­ly the realm of niche aca­d­e­m­ic pur­suits ver­sus now where every aspect of our lives is inter­twined with them does show again and again the human ele­ment of what it takes to hold mali­cious actors account­able for their actions, even when those actions are key­strokes half a world away.

But the book’s pri­ma­ry lim­i­ta­tion is that, to be crass, Car­lin is a cop; his insights are main­ly lim­it­ed to a cop’s insight of solv­ing par­tic­u­lar cases.

It’s enter­tain­ing to read through North Kore­a’s attack on Sony Pic­tures in 2014 over their griev­ance of the Seth Rogen film “The Inter­view” because the plot includ­ed the far­ci­cal assas­si­na­tion of North Kore­an leader Kim Jong-un.

It reminds you how seri­ous this attack actu­al­ly was, which was obscured at the time and has most­ly fad­ed from pop­u­lar mem­o­ry now.

But Car­lin was­n’t with the for­eign-focused CIA or NSA, so his view is from the view of a cop catch­ing incom­ing criminals.

When focus­ing on oth­er nations with bad designs on the Unit­ed States, a major miss­ing piece is what the Unit­ed States itself is already doing. I say this only because I read about the Iran­ian cyber attacks as an exam­ple of the asym­met­ri­cal war­fare they favor, but there was only one off­hand ref­er­ence I saw to Stuxnet, the joint U.S.-Israeli com­put­er worm designed in the mid-aughts to tar­get Iran’s nuclear pro­gram and cause phys­i­cal dam­age to cen­trifuges in infect­ed facilities.

Clear­ly, the Unit­ed States is aware of the many ways that cyber­at­tacks can be used to tar­get a nation’s infra­struc­ture because we’ve done and no doubt are doing it to oth­ers. Sim­i­lar­ly, as Car­lin acknowl­edges, the prob­lem with Russ­ian elec­tion inter­fer­ence was­n’t so much that there was a lack of secu­ri­ty with­in polit­i­cal par­ties or state elec­tion sys­tems, although that’s accurate.

The prob­lem was that when the attacks were dis­cov­ered, traced back to Russ­ian intel­li­gence agen­cies, and the infor­ma­tion was brought to Con­gress, then-House Speak­er Paul Ryan and Sen­ate Major­i­ty Leader Mitch McConnell were per­fect­ly OK with the attacks because it meant they had a bet­ter chance for their par­ty to win the pres­i­den­cy and achieve their pol­i­cy goals of dis­man­tling the wel­fare state, hurt­ing unions, and entrench­ing vot­er suppression.

The Unit­ed States has sim­i­lar­ly made com­mon cause with local polit­i­cal par­ties to con­tin­ue pol­i­tics with oth­er means.

We’ve been aware that some­one might do the same to us, but what’s changed is hav­ing a polit­i­cal par­ty whol­ly embrace such a for­eign alliance.

You can even look at the role of pro­pa­gan­da and how lit­tle has changed in sev­en­ty years. Dur­ing the Cold War, the CIA fund­ed Radio Free Europe for years as anti-Com­mu­nist pro­pa­gan­da whose radio waves could pierce the Iron Curtain.

Its effec­tive­ness com­pared to the Sovi­et equiv­a­lent Radio Moscow was that the Sovi­et Union had struc­tur­al issues exploitable by radio broad­casts by RFE’s broad­casts, such as includ­ing less strict cul­tur­al cen­sor­ship and infor­ma­tion (or mis­in­for­ma­tion) that seemed more trust­wor­thy than the local gov­ern­ments that so bald­ly lied about what was going on, such as Chernobyl.

How­ev­er, now Radio Moscow has become Sput­nik, and what makes Sput­nik effec­tive is that it can ampli­fy forty years of con­ser­v­a­tive ide­ol­o­gy while being ampli­fied in turn by them. If Radio Moscow had had the equiv­a­lent of Fox News and AM talk radio pick­ing up its pro­pa­gan­da and push­ing it, or if Nixon had asked the Sovi­ets to do Water­gate for him and the Repub­li­cans had con­trolled the Sen­ate and been fine with it, it’s hard to see what would be so different.

For that rea­son, the new­ness of what cyber­at­tacks rep­re­sent is less con­vinc­ing, includ­ing what our nation’s new respons­es should be.

Gov­ern­ments uti­liz­ing inde­pen­dent hack­ers to attack oth­er coun­tries does­n’t seem too dif­fer­ent from eigh­teenth-cen­tu­ry pirates get­ting their let­ters of mar­que to be des­ig­nat­ed pri­va­teers. Intel­lec­tu­al prop­er­ty rights seem to have changed more in the past one hun­dred years than nations’  theft of intel­lec­tu­al prop­er­ty.

Pro­pa­gan­da, use­ful idiots, agent provo­ca­teur — these were all around in the past and per­haps less iden­ti­fi­able. But in the great ide­o­log­i­cal strug­gle of the Cold War, the Sovi­ets felt com­pelled to side with the plight of Black Amer­i­cans in an effort to under­mine cap­i­tal­ism. Maybe if they’d helped South­ern con­ser­v­a­tives resist the Civ­il Rights Move­ment, they’d have found more will­ing partners.

The Unit­ed States spent an unknown amount of resources to devel­op our cyber­weapon Stuxnet, designed to phys­i­cal­ly break part of the infra­struc­ture of Iran. But it turns out the most cost-effec­tive worm for under­min­ing Amer­i­can hege­mo­ny and infra­struc­ture is mak­ing sure Trump and pri­va­ti­za­tion-hap­py Repub­li­cans stay in pow­er, by what­ev­er means necessary.

Some­times pol­i­tics is a con­tin­u­a­tion of war with oth­er means.

Adjacent posts

  • Enjoyed what you just read? Make a donation

    Thank you for read­ing The Cas­ca­dia Advo­cate, the North­west Pro­gres­sive Insti­tute’s jour­nal of world, nation­al, and local politics.

    Found­ed in March of 2004, The Cas­ca­dia Advo­cate has been help­ing peo­ple through­out the Pacif­ic North­west and beyond make sense of cur­rent events with rig­or­ous analy­sis and thought-pro­vok­ing com­men­tary for more than fif­teen years. The Cas­ca­dia Advo­cate is fund­ed by read­ers like you and trust­ed spon­sors. We don’t run ads or pub­lish con­tent in exchange for money.

    Help us keep The Cas­ca­dia Advo­cate edi­to­ri­al­ly inde­pen­dent and freely avail­able to all by becom­ing a mem­ber of the North­west Pro­gres­sive Insti­tute today. Or make a dona­tion to sus­tain our essen­tial research and advo­ca­cy journalism.

    Your con­tri­bu­tion will allow us to con­tin­ue bring­ing you fea­tures like Last Week In Con­gress, live cov­er­age of events like Net­roots Nation or the Demo­c­ra­t­ic Nation­al Con­ven­tion, and reviews of books and doc­u­men­tary films.

    Become an NPI mem­ber Make a one-time donation

  • NPI’s essential research and advocacy is sponsored by: