Organising for What Is Just

Workers' Daily Internet Edition: Article Index :

Isle of Wight:
Organising for What Is Just

When War Criminals Are Rewarded for Killing People:
Tony Blair Awarded the "Liberty Medal"

Yet More Proof of the Lies of Tony Blair behind the Invasion of Iraq

US and NATO:
US Cyber Command: Waging War in the World's Fifth Battlespace

July 20 marked the first anniversary of the occupation of the Vestas factory. WDIE once again congratulates the Vestas workers for their stand against the right of the monopolies to impose their dictate and for the right of the working class and people to decide on the direction of the economy. It will not be forgotten. It remains an inspiration to all workers fighting in defence of their livelihoods and to defend the national and local economies.

To mark the occasion, we are posting the following material concerning the ongoing actions on the Isle of Wight and on the work to further the organisation and consciousness of the working class and people on the island, as part of the struggle of the working people nationally against the anti-social offensive and to take a stand for what is just.

Protest Actions against the Cuts

Following last week’s decision by the Isle of Wight Cabinet to vote in favour of proposals to cancel the Student Rider, a rally was called for Wednesday, July 21, at County Hall in Newport. Tory Council Leader David Pugh told the Cabinet last week that the subsidy for the Student Rider cannot be sustained by the council and would therefore be abolished this September. The Student Rider is a scheme that allows those in education to travel on Southern Vectis buses for £1.20 fare. There is a lot of anger among young people about the scrapping of the Student Rider.

Two rallies were arranged for later on Wednesday.

The first, starting at 4.30pm, was organised by young people on the Island outraged by the council’s decision. Over 100 turned out in support. The Youth Rally was supported by Ryde and East Wight Trades Council and Trades Unions. The second rally, called by the “Save Our Services” Facebook group and starting at 5.30pm, opposed various cuts, closures, jobs losses and price hikes at the council. Both rallies took place outside County Hall.

Rydes Trades Council Playing its Part in Opposing the Cuts

Rydes Trades Council held an important meeting on July 7 to discuss workers’ opposition to the cuts. A variety of union secretaries and workers’ delegates took part. Various people spoke from across the island about the budget and cuts and how it was essential to prepare the citizens of the island in their impending struggles. It was acknowledged that the opposition would be wide and varied and not only the trades unions but also the wider community were already involved and faced with issues that taken as a whole represent a movement on the Isle of Wight that is surely developing. The important factor in all this, it was said, that consciousness about the effects of the cuts and unity was essential leading to further organisation. The merits of demanding two MPs on the island were also discussed.

One young worker spoke about how the Trades Council was working at local council level in Ryde to assist in uniting the community in issues affecting the locality. This shows how deep and willing to connect with the people the Trades Council is. An experienced local councillor, who took part in the discussion, provided valuable information and insight into the issues at stake.

Unison, the largest union on the island, represented by Mark Chiverton, took part in the discussion along with others. He responded positively to the question of how the Trades Council could assist in its task talking about recruitment, inspiring and strengthening the membership. This follows on from the critical struggles at the council last year that involved actions. Many jobs have been lost at the council and there are even more in the pipeline.

Unison has a large responsibility but it was pointed out that solidarity from other unions will also be essential such as from GMB and unions involved more in the private sector such as Unite. RMT said that it was essential that the Trades Council role in supplying the workers with information, opening up its offices and making its public face even more accessible to the public would be essential.

Ex-Vestas workers at the meeting spoke clearly about their struggle and the aftermath of it with the ongoing court cases for compensation. They also spoke firmly about the need to recognise the sporadic nature of the opposition to the cuts as issues arise and the necessity to unite the opposition into a co-ordinated force.

It has to appreciated that the delegates to the Ryde and East Wight Trades Council has trebled in recent times and more people are taking part all of the time.

The Trades Council noted and supported the stand that Hazel Wyld has taken in defence of the Medina Centre in Newport and praised her ability to come forward and make the issue a public concern.

What is clear is that actions, protests and strike actions have already been unfolding on the island. There have been issues at the college, local librarians have issues because of the cuts, care homes and care workers are all affected on the island as can be seen on the Unison web map highlighting impending cuts decisions. Schools and even the NHS are threatened. A clear message is going out that the resistance is mounting and growing workers’ opposition. If the Con/Dem coalition thinks that the opposition is going to go away then they will have to think again because a message is going to come from this island, across Britain, that this is not the case.

First Anniversary of Vestas Occupation

July 20 was the anniversary of the Vestas occupation, and a group of occupiers, trade unionists and local supporters marked it by coming down to the industrial estate to see each other in a place with good memories, a fight which all who participated are proud of. The Ryde and East Wight Trades Council, activists from Workers Climate Action and a local RMT member were all part of the re-occupation of the “Magic Roundabout”. They reminded people that the fight for jobs, justice and the climate is far from over on the Isle of Wight and beyond.

The fact remains that the official unemployment figures out last week, always an underestimate not taking into account the seasonal dynamic, put the number out of work on the island at 2,200. The demand is still that the factory be re-opened: it was the product of millions of regeneration money over a decade. It is the obvious way to create jobs on the scale that they are urgently needed.

On the same day, a thousand teachers lobbied Parliament against the scrapping of the Building Schools for the Future money. On the island, this translates into the scrapping of the significant school improvements due for Carisbrooke, Medina, Sandown and Ryde.

With these latest rounds of cuts, the ones that are know about and those that are rumoured, it is surely time to make a proper stand and assert the feelings that most ordinary people have about this so-called economic crisis. We did not cause it, and we will not pay for it. As one Unison member put it, the bankers robbed us and the government is mugging us.

(Isle of Wight sources)

Michel Chossudovsky, Global Research, July 2, 2010

When war becomes peace.

When killing is presented as a humanitarian endeavour.

When war criminals are rewarded for killing people.

When killing is justified in the name of democracy. When killing people is equated with to "bringing liberty" to those you have killed.

A known war criminal is rewarded for his contributions to peace and constitutional democracy. Former British Prime Minister Tony Blair is to be awarded a $100,000 Liberty medal by the National Constitutional Centre in Washington, DC.

This award is granted to Tony Blair for "bringing liberty to people around the world".

Another known war criminal, former president Bill Clinton will present the award to Tony Blair in September.

Clinton stated that: "It was a privilege to work with my friend Tony Blair to help end 30 years of sectarian violence and broker a lasting peace in Northern Ireland, to stop the killing in and mass exodus from Kosovo, and to develop policies that would improve living conditions for people in both our countries." (quoted in The Guardian, 1 July 2010)

By Kim Sengupta, The Independent, 1 July 2010

Image: Leon Kuhn

For seven years, Britain has wanted to see how the legal case for invading Iraq was made. Yesterday, at a public inquiry that is going on unnoticed, official documents were released for the first time that showed the grave reservations of the Attorney General, his remarkable U-turn, and how the basis for the Iraq war was built on sand.

Documents about how the legal case for the Iraq war was formulated by the Blair government seven years ago were made public yesterday, revealing the grave doubts of the Attorney General over impending military action.

The drafts of legal advice and letters sent to the Prime Minister by Lord Goldsmith had been kept secret despite repeated calls for them to be published. Yesterday they were released by the Chilcot Inquiry into the war, after the head of the Civil Service, Sir Gus O'Donnell, stated that the "long-standing convention" for such documents to be kept confidential had to be waived because the issue of the legality of the Iraq war had a "unique status".

It had been known that Lord Goldsmith had initially advised the government that an attack on Iraq would not be legal without a fresh United Nations resolution. However, just before the US-led invasion he presented a new set of opinions saying that a new resolution was not needed after all.

Tony Blair appeared to show his irritation with the warnings over military actions, saying in a handwritten note: "I just do not understand this." In another note, a Downing Street aide said: "We do not need further advice on this matter."

In the documents released yesterday, Lord Goldsmith repeatedly stated that an invasion without a fresh UN resolution would be illegal, and warned against using Saddam Hussein's supposed WMD (weapons of mass destruction) as a reason for attack. Two months later, in autumn 2002, Downing Street published a dossier that stressed the alleged WMD threat in an attempt to boost public support for war.

In a letter to Mr Blair on 30 July 2002, marked "Secret and Strictly personal - UK Eyes only", Lord Goldsmith stated: "In the absence of a fresh resolution by the Security Council which would at least involve a new determination of a material and flagrant breach [by Iraq] military action would be unlawful. Even if there were such a resolution, but one which did not explicitly authorise the use of force, it would remain highly debatable whether it legitimised military action - but without it the position is, in my view, clear."

In his letter, copied to the then Foreign Secretary, Jack Straw, and Defence Secretary Geoff Hoon, the Attorney General warned that any form of military assistance offered to the US, however limited, such as "the use of UK bases, the provision of logistical or other support ... would all engage the UK's responsibility under international law. We would therefore need to be satisfied in all cases as to the legality of the use of force."

Lord Goldsmith continued: "The development of WMD is not in itself sufficient to indicate such imminence. On the basis of the material which I have been shown ... there would not be any grounds for regarding an Iraqi use of WMD as imminent."

Successive inquiries into the Iraq war, by Lord Hutton, Lord Butler and now Sir John Chilcot, have heard repeated claims that Lord Goldsmith was subsequently persuaded to change his advice into the legality of military action by Mr Blair and members of his government.

In January 2003, Mr Blair met President Bush at the White House. The Prime Minister's foreign policy adviser, Sir David Manning, wrote a memo paraphrasing Mr Bush's comments at the meeting as: "The start date for the military campaign was now pencilled for 10th March. This was when the bombing would begin."

In a letter to Mr Blair dated 30 January 2003, after the UN had passed another resolution on Iraq, 1441, Lord Goldsmith wrote: "In view of your meeting with President Bush on Friday, I thought you might wish to know whether a further decision of the Security Council is legally required in order to authorise the use of force against Iraq." The letter marked "secret" continued: "I remain of the view that the correct legal interpretation of Resolution 1441 is that it does not authorise the use of military force without a further determination by the Security Council." Lord Goldsmith concluded: "I have not copied this minute further."

The Attorney General sent a draft advice to Mr Blair dated 12 February 2003 after he had consulted US officials. He said: "It is clear that Resolution 1441 does not expressly authorise the use of force. It follows that resolution may only be relied on as providing the legal basis for military action if it has the effect of reviving the authorisation to use force contained in Resolution 678 (1990)" - when Iraq was adjudged by the UN to have flouted previous resolutions.

However, the Attorney General stressed "it is clear that the [Security] Council did not intend the authorisation in Resolution 678 should revive immediately following the adoption of Resolution 1441." He continued: "The language of 1441 is not clear and the statements made on adoption of the resolution suggests there were differences of views within the Council as to the effect of the... resolution. The safest legal course would be to secure the adoption of the further Council decision." Lord Goldsmith continued: "If action were to be taken without a further Security Council decision, particularly if the UK had tried to and failed to secure the adoption of a second resolution, I would expect the Government to be accused of acting unlawfully."

The Attorney General was told to provide clarification of his advice by the Government and the final version was delivered to Cabinet on 7 March 2003, days before the invasion. Lord Goldsmith had decided a new resolution was not needed, after all, to justify war.

Goldsmith's advice to the Prime Minister
30.07.02:

"The key issue here is whether an attack is imminent. The development of WMD is not in itself sufficient to indicate such imminence. On the basis of the material which I have been shown - and I appreciate that there may be other documentation which I have not seen - there would not be any grounds for regarding an Iraqi use of WMD as imminent.

"My view therefore is that in the absence of a fresh resolution by the Security Council which would at least involve a new determination of a material and flagrant breach, military action would be unlawful. Even if there were such a resolution, but one which did not explicitly authorise the use of force, it would remain highly debatable whether it legitimised military action - but without it the position is, in my view, clear."

14.01.03: Attorney General's advice to the PM, after Resolution 1441 is passed by the UN

"It is clear that Resolution 1441 contains no express authorisation by the Security Council for the use of force.

"However, the authorisation to use force contained in Resolution 678 (1990) may revive where the Security Council has stated that there has been a breach of the ceasefire conditions imposed on Iraq by Resolution 687 (1991).

"But the revival argument will not be defensible if the Council has made it clear either that action short of the use of force should be taken to ensure compliance with the terms of the ceasefire. In conclusion therefore, my opinion is that Resolution 1441 does not revive the authorisation to use of force contained in Resolution 678 in the absence of a further decision of the Security Council."

18.10.02: Record of Attorney General's telephone conversation with the Foreign Secretary

"The Attorney explained that he was concerned by reports he had received that the Prime Minister had indicated to President Bush that he would join them in acting without a second Security Council decision if Iraq did not comply with the terms of a resolution in the terms of the latest US draft. In the Attorney's view, OP10 of the current draft would not be sufficient to authorise the use of force without a second resolution.

"The Foreign Secretary explained the political dimension. He was convinced that the strategy of standing shoulder to shoulder with the US was right politically. It was also important to obtain a decent Security Council resolution.

"The Attorney understood and endorsed the politics behind the Government's approach. It was obviously important to get Bush on side behind a second UN resolution. He was not concerned about what Ministers said externally, up to a point. The Government must, however, not fall into the trap of believing that it was in a position to take action which it could not take. Nor must HMG promise the US government that it can do things which the Attorney considers to be unlawful."

Letter to the Prime Minister - 30.01.2003 (Day before meeting with Bush in White House.)

"In view of your meeting with President Bush on Friday, I thought you might wish to know where I stand on the question of whether a further decision of the Security Council is legally required in order to authorise the use of force against Iraq.

"You should be aware that, notwithstanding the additional arguments put to me since our last discussion, I remain of the view that the correct legal interpretation of Resolution 1441 is that it does not authorise the use of military force without a further determination by the Security Council." NB: later handwritten on top of note: "Specifically said we did not need further advice this week - Matthew 31/1." (No 10 aide, Matthew Rycroft)

... and afterwards

12.02.03: Goldsmith draft legal advice, after Blair meeting with Bush, and after Goldsmith's meetings with Jeremy Greenstock (UK ambassador to the United Nations)

"Since our meeting on 14 January I have had the benefit of discussions with the Foreign Secretary and Sir Jeremy Greenstock, who have given me valuable background information on the negotiating history of Resolution 1441. In addition, I have also had the opportunity to hear the views of the US Administration from their perspective as co-sponsors of the resolution.

"Having regard to the arguments of our co-sponsors which I heard in Washington, I am prepared to accept that a reasonable case can be made that Resolution 1441 revives the authorisation to use force in Resolution 678.

"However, if action were to be taken without a further Security Council decision, particularly if the UK had tried and failed to secure the adoption of a second resolution, I would expect the Government to be accused of acting unlawfully. Therefore, if these circumstances arise, it will be important to ensure that the Government is in a position to put up a robust defence.

"I must stress that the lawfulness of military action depends not only on the existence of a legal basis, but also on the question of proportionality.

"This is not to say that action may not be taken to remove Saddam Hussein from power if it can be demonstrated that such action is a necessary and proportionate measure to secure the disarmament of Iraq. But regime change cannot be the objective of military action."

Rick Rozoff, Stop NATO, May 26, 2010

On May 21, US Secretary of Defence Robert Gates announced the activation of the Pentagon's first computer command. And the world's first comprehensive, multi-service military cyber operation.

US Cyber Command (CYBERCOM), initially approved on June 23, 2009, attained the status of what the Pentagon calls initial operations capability eleven months afterward. It is to be fully operational later this year.

CYBERCOM is based at Fort Meade, Maryland, which also is home to the National Security Agency (NSA). The head of the NSA and the related Central Security Service is Keith Alexander, US Army lieutenant general on the morning of May 21 but promoted to four-star general before the formal launching of Cyber Command later in the day so as to become its commander.

The US Senate confirmed Alexander for his new position on May 7. In written testimony presented to Congress earlier, he stated that in addition to the defence of computer systems and networks, "the cyber command would be prepared to wage offensive operations as well..”.[1] Two days before his confirmation the Associated Press reported that Alexander "said the US is determined to lead the global effort to use computer technology to deter or defeat enemies”.[2] The conjunction "and" would serve the purpose better than "or”.

The day Alexander assumed his new command Deputy Defence Secretary William Lynn "called the establishment of US Cyber Command at Fort Meade, Maryland, today a milestone in the United States being able to conduct full-spectrum operations in a new domain”, adding that the "cyber domain... is as important as the land, sea, air and space domains to the US military, and protecting military networks is crucial to the Defence Department's success on the battlefield”.[3]

The Pentagon's second-in-charge is not the only person to refer to cyber warfare as the world's fifth battleground after those of land, sea, air and space, nor to link the first with the other four.

Indeed, the Defence Department's Quadrennial Defence Review released earlier this year focuses on "a broader range of military responsibilities, including defending space and cyberspace”,[4] and the Pentagon's space operations are now grouped with cyber warfare as the new Cyber Command is subsumed under US Strategic Command (USSTRATCOM), which is in charge of the militarisation of space as well as the global interceptor missile project, information warfare and related missions.

In its own words, "USSTRATCOM combines the synergy of the US legacy nuclear command and control mission with responsibility for space operations; global strike; Defence Department information operations; global missile defence; and global command, control, communications, computers, intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance (C4ISR), and combating weapons of mass destruction."[5]

"US CYBERCOM is a sub-unified command under US Strategic Command, of Offutt Air Force Base in Nebraska. But it will be run out of the super-secretive communications-gathering National Security Agency in Fort Meade, Md."[6]

Three months ago US Air Force Chief of Staff General Norton Schwartz addressed a conference of the Air Force Association, but he "did not mention fighters, special operations or mobility”, instead concentrating on space and cyberspace. "We have an enduring need for robust space and cyberspace capabilities," he told the audience.

The Air Force Times provided background information regarding Schwartz's comments and connected the role of space and cyber warfare: "Space and cyberspace missions were brought together last year, when the service moved many of its communications and computer missions into Space Command and created the 24th Air Force to be the service's in-house 'cyber command.'

"At the same time, Space Command's nuclear missile role was transferred to the new Global Strike Command."[7]

The 24th Air Force will be joined by the Army Forces Cyber Command and the 10th Fleet and Marine Forces Cyber Command (representing the four main branches of the US armed forces) in providing the first 1,000 personnel for the new multi-service Cyber Command.

The day that CYBERCOM was launched, the Pentagon announced, "The US Army will consolidate 21,000 soldiers in its cyber warfare units under a new unified command led by a three-star general." Army Forces Cyber Command, ARFORCYBER, "will be fully operational by October at Fort Belvoir, Virginia, a sprawling base south of Washington”, and will achieve "unprecedented unity of effort and synchronisation of Army forces operating within the cyber domain”. In the words of the Army's chief cyber commander, Major General Steven Smith, his service is "trying to understand what a cyber warrior should be, and how they should be trained”.[8]

A few days before the Air Force revealed that since last November it has transferred at least 30,000 troops from communications and electronics assignments to "the front lines of cyber warfare”.[9]

Earlier this month Deputy Under Secretary of Defence for Policy James Miller was cited as maintaining, "The Pentagon would consider a military response in the case of a cyber attack against the United States." He was quoted as proposing a direct military reaction to computer attacks, stating that "we need to think about the potential for responses that are not limited to the cyber domain”.[10]

Placing computer security, including in the civilian sector, under a military command is yet another step in the direction of militarising the treatment of what are properly criminal or even merely proprietary and commercial matters. And preparing responses of a decidedly non-virtual nature in return.

The Pentagon and the National Security Agency will not be alone in the endeavour to establish and operate the world's first national cyber warfare command. As usual, Washington is receiving unconditional support from the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation, the military bloc it initiated in 1949 and has extended throughout Europe and, operationally, into Asia, Africa and the Middle East over the last eleven years.

NATO not only provides the US with 27 additional voices and votes in the United Nations and as many countries through which to transit and in which to base troops and military equipment, it also -- through its Article 5 mutual military assistance provision -- allows for American military deployments and creates the pretext for armed confrontation in alleged defence of other member states. Troops from all 28 NATO members and over 20 partner states are embroiled in the nearly nine-year war in Afghanistan because Article 5 was first invoked in September of 2001.

Stating that "The Parties agree that an armed attack against one or more of them in Europe or North America shall be considered an attack against them all," Article 5 is in large part the foundation of and the impetus for the Pentagon's Cyber Command.

The clamour for a cyber warfare capacity began among leading American and NATO officials during and immediately after attacks on computer systems in Estonia in late April and early May of 2007. The small country, a neighbour of Russia which had been inducted into NATO three years earlier, accused Russian hackers of the attacks on both government and private networks, and the charge was echoed in the West with the additional insinuation that the government of then Russian President Vladimir Putin was behind the campaign.

Three years later the accusations have not been substantiated, but they have served their purpose nonetheless: NATO dispatched cyber warfare experts to Estonia shortly after the events of 2007 and on May 14, 2008, the military bloc established what it calls the Cooperative Cyber Defence Centre of Excellence (CCD COE) in the nation's capital of Tallinn.

The bloc's Article 5 has been repeatedly -- and given its nature ominously -- evoked in reference to alleged cyber crimes and attacks, and Estonia has been portrayed as both the model victim of such assaults and the rallying point for a global cyber warfare response to them.

From the genesis of the drive for US-NATO cyber warfare operations Russia has been the clearly implied if not always openly acknowledged target.

In an August 2008 column in the influential Wall Street Journal entitled "Russia's Aggression Is a Challenge to World Order”, two leading US senators, Joseph Lieberman and Lindsey Graham, called for "reinvigorating NATO as a military alliance, not just a political one. Contingency planning for the defence of all member states against conventional and unconventional attack, including cyber warfare, needs to be revived. The credibility of Article Five of the NATO Charter -- that an attack against one really can and will be treated as an attack against all -- needs to be bolstered."[11] This January US-based Google accused Chinese hackers of "sophisticated cyberattacks" and since then Beijing has joined Moscow as the most frequently cited antagonist in future cyber conflict scenarios, intimately linked to comparable disputes in space over military and civilian satellites.

The British House of Lords issued a report in mid-March of this year that explicitly asserted, "Britain needs to work more closely with NATO to fend off 'cyber warfare' on critical national infrastructure from former cold war enemies such as Russia and China," and which "highlight[ed] the dangers of attacks on the internet, banking and mobile phone networks by the Russians in Estonia three years ago”.[12]

A few days before NATO Secretary General Anders Fogh Rasmussen, while promoting the military bloc's new Strategic Concept in nominally non-aligned Finland, reiterated that although Article 5 military defence of the Alliance's 28 members' territory remains NATO's chief function, it isn't sufficient to "line up soldiers and tanks and military equipment along the borders”, as the bloc needs "to address the threat at its roots, and it might be in cyber space”, adding that an "enemy might appear everywhere in cyberspace”.[13]

A year earlier Rasmussen's predecessor as head of the Western military alliance, the Netherlands' Jaap de Hoop Scheffer, foreshadowed NATO's preparations for its 21st century Strategic Concept, unveiled by former US Secretary of State Madeleine Albright and her self-styled Group of Experts at NATO headquarters this May 17, in stating that "we need to take a broader approach and gradually consider the notion of collective security, rather than strictly collective defence”.[14]

To expand the North Atlantic bloc's missions internationally, the distinction between military threats and a multitude of self-identified security concerns needs to be blurred.

The litany of non-military excuses for NATO interventions throughout the world includes frequently intangible, unverifiable and highly subjective factors like perceived missile threats, climate change, demographic shifts and dislocations, and "storms and floodings" amid "a myriad of determined and deadly threats" as Lord Peter Levene, chairman of Lloyd's of London, characterised NATO's current challenges at a conference his firm co-organised with the military bloc last October 1.[15]

Arguably by their very nature, cyber security issues are among the most amorphous, nebulous and ethereal threats that can be devised (and concocted) and as such are characterised by near universal applicability and the effective impossibility of being disproven. An indispensable arrow in the Pentagon's and NATO's collective quiver, then.

In the speech cited above, former NATO chief Jaap de Hoop Scheffer specifically addressed the matter of cyber security, demanding that NATO "should consider drawing on the unique capabilities that already exist in our military and look to build on them. They could, for example, form a rapid response service to support Allies and perhaps even partners in the event of an attack. And given the vital role that space and satellites now play within our cyber networks, should we not also start to follow activities in space more closely and consider the implications for our security?"[16]

In June of last year US ambassador to NATO Ivo Daalder, former National Security Council staffer currently on loan from the Brookings Institution, also tested the waters on whether the Alliance's Article 5 war clause should be activated in response to "energy strangulation" or "a cyber or bio attack of unknown origin”.[17]

"Energy strangulation" -- that is, the accusation of energy cutoffs to Europe -- is inevitably coupled with charges of cyber attacks in Europe and both are in exclusive reference to Russia. For example, in Scheffer's recommendation of last year on the application of NATO's Article 5 for cyber and space use he added this:

"The disruption of a country's energy supply can destroy the economic and social fabric of a country in a way that resembles a war -- yet without a single shot being fired. It is therefore vital that NATO defines what added value it can bring, for example in terms of protecting critical infrastructure or securing chokepoints through which supply lines run."[18]

In her May 17 remarks to NATO's North Atlantic Council on the new Strategic Concept, Madeleine Albright stated that "NATO must maintain a flexible mix of military capabilities, including conventional, nuclear, and missile defence" and laid stress on "the primacy of Article 5”, which stipulates that "the Alliance must continue to treat collective defence as its core purpose”.

Among threats justifying the activation of Article 5 are "cyber assaults and attacks on energy infrastructure and supply lines”.[19] Her group's report demands that NATO "accelerate efforts to respond to the danger of cyber-attacks by protecting its own communications and command systems, helping allies to improve their ability to prevent and recover from attacks, and developing an array of cyber-defence capabilities aimed at effective detection and deterrence”.[20]

Anticipating the Pentagon's William Lynn by two months, NATO's Director of Policy Planning Jamie Shea said that "120 countries currently have or are developing offensive cyber attack capabilities, which is now viewed as the fifth dimension of warfare after space, sea, land and air..”.

On March 22, "Shea said there are people in the strategic community who say cyber attacks now will serve the same role in initiating hostilities as air campaigns played in the 20th century."[21]

Shortly after this year's presidential election in Ukraine, the country became the first non-NATO member to be recruited for cyber defence cooperation with the North Atlantic military bloc. "On 11-12 February 2010, cyber defence experts from Ukraine, NATO and Allied countries participated in the first NATO-Ukraine Expert Staff Talks on Cyber Defence in Kyiv."[22]

NATO's pioneer project in this area, though, remains its cyber warfare centre in Estonia. The operation's experts "second-guess potential adversaries, gazing into what they dub the 'fifth battlespace,' after land, sea, air and space”.

Colonel Ilmar Tamm, the top Estonian military official at the site, was quoted late last month claiming, "Definitely from the cyber-space perspective, I think we've gone further than we imagined in science fiction."[23]

Estonian Defence Minister Jaak Aaviksoo spoke with Agence France-Presse about events in 2007 and the present, saying "It clearly heralded the beginning of a new era... It had all the characteristics of cyber-crime growing into a national security threat. It was a qualitative change, and that clicked in very many heads. Cyber-security, cyber-defence and cyber-offence are here to stay. This is a fact of life."[24]

On April 23, the second day of a NATO foreign ministers meeting in the Estonian capital, a memorandum of understanding was signed which "creates a legal framework for cyber defence cooperation between NATO and Estonia. It will facilitate the exchange of information and provide means for create a mechanism for assistance in case of cyber attacks.

"The agreement was signed on behalf of NATO by Ambassador Claudio Bisogniero, Deputy Secretary General..."[25]

The individual who personifies the organic and inextricable connection between the Pentagon and NATO is the one who simultaneously heads up US European Command and is NATO's Supreme Allied Commander Europe, from General Dwight Eisenhower in 1951 to Admiral James Stavridis currently.

On February 2 of this year, Stavridis said that because of "attacks on computer networks in Estonia, Georgia, Latvia and Lithuania in the past several years”, although he didn't offer either specifics on or substantiation for the claim, "the definition of protections for NATO members should be expanded”.

The four countries identified as victims leave no doubt as to who Stavridis views as the perpetrator.

Addressing an Armed Forces Communications and Electronics Association conference and speaking of NATO's Article 5, he said that the "likelihood that the next conflict will start with a cyber attack rather than a physical attack highlights the importance of changing the treaty's definitions”.[26]

Employing a line of reasoning that he has repeated in the interim, he said, "In NATO we need to talk about what defines an attack. In a country like Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, all NATO members, what defines an attack? I believe it is more likely that an attack will come not off a bomb rack on an aircraft, but as electrons moving down a fibre optic cable. So this is a very real and germane part of this challenge that we face in the cyber war." NATO's top military commander was also paraphrased as saying that "NATO has taken the first step toward making cyber warfare combat an international effort by standing up the Cooperative Cyber Defence Centre of Excellence in 2008 in Estonia, but facing cyber threats will require cooperation among US government agencies, and between governments and industry as well”.[27]

In early May, Stavridis delivered a speech in Paris in which he again highlighted "new threats facing NATO from cyber space" in relation to "NATO's role in combating these threats, in particular Article 5 operations and collective defence”.[28]

On May 19, he appeared as the guest of honour at a special Commanders Series event at the Atlantic Council[29] in Washington, D.C., where he was introduced by Madeleine Albright two days after she had presented her Group of Experts report on NATO's 21st century global Strategic Concept in Brussels.

Stavridis boasted that NATO nations have a combined gross domestic product of $31 trillion, have over two million men and women under arms, and "130,000 soldiers and sailors and airmen and Marines on missions on three different continents”. The above despite the fact that "No nation has ever attacked a NATO nation."[30]

His presentation was accompanied by slides and his comments included: "I think that Secretary Albright's paper hits this exactly right. We must, as an alliance, begin to think coherently about cyber. We find here the flags of four states that have been involved in cyber intrusions. [Presumably the four former Soviet states he identified in February.] I think it's important that as an alliance, we begin to come to grips with what is a cyber attack.

"We need centres that can focus on it; we need procedures to provide defensive means in this world of cyber."[31]

Cyber defence and its inevitable correlate, cyber warfare, are integral components of Pentagon and NATO warfighting doctrine, embodied as such in the US's new Quadrennial Defence Review and in NATO's latest Strategic Concept to be formally adopted at the bloc's summit in Lisbon, Portugal this November.

Cyber warfare as an element of military operations in the other four spheres -- land, air, sea and space, especially in the last -- and in its own right. With the most advanced computer networks in the world and the most capable corps of cyber specialists in all realms, the world's military superpower has launched the first military cyber command.

Notes

1. Agence France-Presse, May 12, 2010.
2. Associated Press, May 5, 2009.
3. US Department of Defence, May 21, 2010.
4. Financial Times, January 31, 2010.
5. US Strategic Command, http://www.stratcom.mil/about.
6. Stars and Stripes, May 22, 2010.
7. Air Force Times, February 19, 2010.
8. Stars and Stripes, May 22, 2010.
9. Air Force Times, May 19, 2010.
10. Agence France-Presse, May 12, 2010.
11. Wall Street Journal, August 26, 2008.
12. The Telegraph, March 18, 2010.
13. Agence France-Presse, March 4, 2010.
14. North Atlantic Treaty Organisation, March 11, 2009.
15. "Thousand Deadly Threats: Third Millennium NATO, Western Businesses Collude on New Global Doctrine," Stop NATO, October 2, 2009, http://rickrozoff.wordpress.com/2009/10/02/thousand-deadly-threats-third-millennium-nato-western-businesses-collude-on-new-global-doctrine.
16. North Atlantic Treaty Organisation, March 11, 2009.
17. Defence News, June 8, 2009.
18. North Atlantic Treaty Organisation, March 11, 2009.
19. North Atlantic Treaty Organisation, May 17, 2010.
20. Aviation Week, May 18, 2010.
21. Defence News, March 23, 2010.
22. North Atlantic Treaty Organisation, February 22, 2010.
23. Agence France-Presse, April 24, 2010.
24. Ibid.
25. North Atlantic Treaty Organisation, April 23, 2010.
26. Defence News, February 2, 2010.
27. Ibid.
28. North Atlantic Treaty Organisation, Supreme Headquarters Allied Powers Europe, May 7, 2010.
29. "Atlantic Council: Securing The 21st Century For NATO", Stop NATO, April 30, 2010, http://rickrozoff.wordpress.com/2010/05/01/atlantic-council-securing-the-21st-century-for-nato.
30. Atlantic Council, May 19, 2010.
31. Ibid.