A “S.E.A.-Change” in Military Contingency Planning
As Ben noted yesterday, today Lawfare begins a cooperative project with the New Republic. Today, I have a piece in the new Security States blog about cyber contingency planning for possible military action in Syria: "A 'S.E.A.-Change' in Military Contingency Planning." Here's the opening:
Is America at risk from a counter-strike by Syria if it launched a military attac
Published by The Lawfare Institute
in Cooperation With
As Ben noted yesterday, today Lawfare begins a cooperative project with the New Republic. Today, I have a piece in the new Security States blog about cyber contingency planning for possible military action in Syria: "A 'S.E.A.-Change' in Military Contingency Planning." Here's the opening:
Is America at risk from a counter-strike by Syria if it launched a military attack against Syria's chemical weapons? Yes – but not in the traditional way. A Syrian response would likely be of a different, asymmetric cyber form. And that’s a whole new way of thinking about war and contingencies. For the past several weeks American leaders have been considering a military strike in Syria (a possibility that seems to have faded in recent days). Lurking behind the controversy and debate about whether that sort of strike would be good policy is a problem that must be driving military planners to distraction – America is no longer immune. Any decision to launch missiles at Syrian chemical weapons targets must incorporate an answer to the question – what will Syria do in response?
Paul Rosenzweig is the founder of Red Branch Consulting PLLC, a homeland security consulting company and a Senior Advisor to The Chertoff Group. Mr. Rosenzweig formerly served as Deputy Assistant Secretary for Policy in the Department of Homeland Security. He is a Professorial Lecturer in Law at George Washington University, a Senior Fellow in the Tech, Law & Security program at American University, and a Board Member of the Journal of National Security Law and Policy.
