20/20 Hindsight

I can blog today because my shift was canceled due to slow foot traffic caused by clouds. In Portland a cancellation due to clouds is a lot like a cancellation in Cairo due to sand. That also happened to me. A word to the wise: cloudy and cool is the best zoo weather. Why everyone waits for the hottest day of the week to flock to see animals asleep because it's too hot is beyond me.

Anyways, I'm reading a book I like. This is exciting because I don't like all books. If you don't have me in the first ten pages, you don't have me. Luckily, In the Garden of Beasts is keeping my attention nicely. Author Erik Larson tells the story of the American Ambassador to Germany during Hitler's rise. Through narration, quotes, and excerpts of letters I am learning how it was possible for Hitler to consolidate power, virtually unchecked. The U.S. could have taken several steps to oppose the suspicious developments in Germany, but for various diplomatic reasons, history unfolded as it did. The most interesting part of reading this book is knowing the ending without knowing the rest.

This has prompted some reflection about the ability to predict events. I recapped some of my Egypt stories over the weekend. One thing I tend to repeat is how surprised we all were. I remember the first days of protests, everyone thought it would die out. Ironically, given the corruption and tyranny of many Middle Eastern/North African governments it's shocking people did not revolt sooner. Okay, we couldn't predict the Arab Spring, but if we had, would U.S. policies have behaved differently? Would we have supported, politically and financially, the dictators that brutally opposed their own citizens? If we had clues would we heed them? Or would we miss, or worse, ignore the signs?

In the Garden of Beasts is convincing me that there are some things we cannot predict, they rise slowly and gradually grow out of our control. But there are the threats we can predict now, and if we can see them coming down the line, it is time to start preparing. For example, a recent Al Jazeera article reminds us that come 2030 half of the world will experience water scarcity. Conflict over "blue gold" is inevitable and has already begun. Consolidated power of some countries or groups over others will lead to unfair water advantages. Yes, climate change is exacerbating the issue immensely. A change in weather patterns leads to disrupted agriculture, increased migration and excess strain on already limited resources. Are we working to combat this, or are we waiting until conflict erupts?

Were I allowed to speak frankly to zoo guests, I would ask them to pause and plan according to the information at hand: the sun is hot, your kids are tired in the afternoon, the zoo is less enjoyable when crowded. So too I beseech those shaping security policy in this country to plan ahead, and by ahead I don't mean election cycles, I mean generations.

Thoughts from the highway

Hey security fans, thought I'd write a quick note about President Obama's address (which I listened to in the car.) It is appropriate that the draw down starts now. What Afghanistan needs is a holistic strategy, a combination of continued coaching of Afghan security forces and development initiatives addressing agriculture and education. In the meantime, I agree with the President. Time to work on nation building at home.

A Common Denominator

I was waiting in the Bahrain airport. I had nestled into an uncomfortable chair beneath what were tauntingly bright florescent lights, at least they seemed that way after we failed to talk our way into the executive lounge. I commenced what I do best at airports (besides complain) and began to people watch. One image stuck in my mind. A woman, fully covered (burka, veil, and gloves) was pushing a luggage cart while her two kids ran along beside her. What struck me most was not her clothing or the fact that she and I live by starkly different religious and social customs, but how similar the scene looked to any mother pushing a cart while trying to keep track of her kids. That image, that scenario was almost universal. My point is not that luggage carts are useful. My point is that despite all our differences, people are pursuing the same basic goals - take care of and support their families.

The value of work is something I have been thinking a lot about recently. Lack of job opportunities was one of the factors driving the Egyptian revolution. Having struggled with finding proper employment since graduation, I can emphasize with the frustration. These thoughts were turning over in my mind during my new-hire orientation at the zoo (yes folks, it's happening.) Part of me dreaded my first day. I certainly did not expect to be 23 and earning less than I was at 14. At the same time, one hundred people applied for my spot, I was lucky to get it. The Oregon Zoo will be sponsoring part of my graduate school experience, and for this I am extremely grateful. On an even more basic level, I am finding the psychological difference between being unemployed and having a job, any job, is immense.

I hate being unemployed. I would never wish it on anyone. But it's been said before, our greatest enemies are our greatest teachers. Unemployment has taught me some humility, yes, but more than that it has taught me that there is dignity in work, any work. I may have won this battle, but the war between me and unemployment is hardly over. I just hope the next time we see headlines that divide people in some way, "Muslim extremists" vs. "freedom-loving Americans," was one that I heard recently, we remember that no matter the religion or the continent, we are all trying to do our best to make a decent, honest living for ourselves and for our families. Remembering this common denominator will do more for our national security than any arsenal of missiles.

Nuclear weapons are not sticky

The pop psychology book Made to Stick argues that in general we fail to communicate messages effectively, they do not stick, they are not "sticky." This is unfortunate given how hard we try to get our point across. Ultimately, the book shows us that vague corporate language (think mission statements) doesn't cut it. Instead, using surprising, concrete examples and anecdotes will allow us to convey messages that will stick with people long after we've shared them.

The book provides the example of movie popcorn. A researcher, attempting to demonstrate just how unhealthy movie theater popcorn was (back when they used coconut oil), decided to make his message "sticky." Instead of lamenting the fact that the popcorn boasted 37 grams of saturated fat (about twice the daily recommended value), he invoked a more appalling reaction. Consumers did not inherently know if 37 grams of saturated fat was bad, the message had to be communicated with more than just the facts. At a press conference presenting his findings, this researcher and his team displayed the medium-sized bag of popcorn on one side of a table and a bacon and egg breakfast, a Big Mac and fries, and a steak dinner on the other. The popcorn had more fat than the other side of the table combined. This message was enough to get the nation's major theaters off of coconut oil.

As you may have guessed from an earlier post, nonproliferation is a particular passion of mine. Yet, I can see that nuclear weapons are not sticky. We all know that as of now, the world could be destroyed many times over with the amount of weapons present in the world's arsenal. Terrifying as it is, it is too big a concept to fully comprehend. It is like saying that movie popcorn has twice the amount of fat you should eat in a day, let alone one snack. We hear this and know it is "bad" but the argument isn't grounded in reality. Brookings lists some interesting facts about nuclear weapons, but given the scale of the numbers, it is more likely our eyes glaze over than we are swept up in a call to arms (pun not intended). What the nonproliferation community needs is a popcorn display. Some kind of message that conveys just how threatening nuclear weapons are to the world but on a personal, visceral level.

Made to Stick also cites the problem of nuclear weapons as a particularly hard message to convey. "How do you make clear to people the staggering destructive capability of the world's nuclear stockpile? It's so intangible, so invisible." One solution was a demonstration, in which a representative from the group Beyond War would drop a BB into a bucket. The one BB represented the Hiroshima bomb. He would then drop 5,000 BB's into the bucket representing the world's nuclear arsenal. This had both a strong visual and audio effect.

Perhaps an image of a large glass bucket with one small BB in it would be enough to evoke some sort of emotional response. Maybe it's sticky. Regardless, it is clear that despite the grave security threat posed by nuclear weapons both existing and in development, there is less movement on the issue than I would like. Effective messaging can change that.

Duck and Cover

Despite my Middle Eastern concentration in college, I would usually find myself term after term in multiple Cold War history classes. I loved the material; dark, uncertain times, full of trench coats and secrets. My fascination with this war on ice was well known, my roommates and friends teased me often. Intrigue and misplaced nostalgia aside, (I once argued on an essay exam that the Cold War never ended), there are lessons to be drawn from this period in history. We need to learn from our mistakes.

Nuclear weapons are a bad idea. Why yes I am familiar with the mutual deterrence theory. As someone in the business of security, I can tell you that amassing more and more weapons to maintain a constant ratio of threat with an enemy is not going to cut it. Yet, sadly, decades after the fall of the Berlin Wall and more than a year after President Obama's Nuclear Security Summit, the headlines assure us we have not progressed as we should. Syria is in the process of being referred to the UN Security Council for sanctions regarding a secret nuclear site. Need I remind you this is the country currently busy massacring its own people. Also keep in mind that despite the reassuring narration in those black and white videos, ducking and covering will get you nowhere.

Equally concerning is the debate surrounding the IAEA vote. Russia and China both objected. Iran and North Korea are likely sponsors of the Syrian program. I appreciate the haze that exists in determining the objectives of a country's nuclear program, but it seems clear there were no peaceful purposes behind the nuclear reactor. (The violation came when Syria did not report building this reactor as per the IAEA regulations.) The problem is that countries are still thinking in terms of who should be allowed to have nuclear weapons vs. who shouldn't. The answer is simple, no one should be allowed to have nuclear weapons.

In order for this policy to play out, powers with large arsenals would have to demonstrate a serious commitment to disarmament first before they can ask others not to develop nuclear capabilities. Only after this process begins in earnest would the international community have the credibility it needs to ensure states new to the nuclear community that they too should halt production. No one understands the trust and balance this would take better than a student of the Cold War, but the end result of a policy of nuclear intolerance makes the world exponentially safer than a policy of one-upmanship.

Meanwhile, as you all ponder the attainable, yes, attainable, path to a world free from nuclear weapons, I will be preparing for a follow up interview at the zoo. I'm not kidding. Wish me luck.

Lease on Death

I was listening to coverage of the worsening state in Syria on NPR this morning. I was driving to drop off my resume and get this, a cover letter for a job selling chocolate at a local chocolate shop. The cover letter was rough. Despite many an hour spent on Capitol Hill, in private offices, and in ventures abroad, my most relevant experience was what I gained from selling khakis at the Gap. Try as I might, I just could not write a full page but hey I got close. In all honesty it would be a lovely summer job. But we have more important issues to discuss.

The Syrian government has claimed that 120 of its security personnel were killed by angry mobs. Since the beginning, there has not been much condemnation paid to the violence perpetrated by President Assad's government towards peaceful protesters. Sure some sanctions, some harsh words here and there, but nothing befitting the unacceptable actions the government has taken against its own people. In President Obama's recent Middle East/North Africa address he had this to say about Syria, "President Assad now has a choice: He can lead that transition, or get out of the way. The Syrian government must stop shooting demonstrators and allow peaceful protests." Riveting Mr. President, just riveting.

Matters since have only worsened. The government has vowed retaliation for the killings of its security personnel. This retaliation will not come in the form of measured justice, but rather a major assault. "People were struck by fear and panic after the government statements ... it's clear they are preparing for a major massacre,'' a resident told the AP news agency on Tuesday." Indeed, activists are claiming that the security personnel were killed by government soldiers for refusing to fire on civilians. The government insists its personnel were killed by "armed gangs."

France and the UK have been coordinating a UN Security Council vote to support a resolution condemning the government's use of violence in Syria. This is a positive step and something the U.S. will most likely support. Now I know I do not have the 8-10 years of experience or advanced degrees that usually accompany this kind of critique, but even a part-time Gap employee can tell you that it is awkward at least, inhumane at worst that the U.S. has been largely silent when it comes to the Syrian uprising. It is in our interest to defend basic human rights (which includes not being massacred by your own government). End of story.

Security.com

As I mentioned in my intro, I am resisting the temptation to throw in the towel and embrace a career as an event planner (always thought that would be my back up.) Though I am still on track to use my international affairs degree in a relevant manner, my search for a summer job has led me outside the security policy box. I applied for a job at the zoo. As a penguin. Just kidding. On a more somber note, when I arrived for the open interviews this morning there were around 30 people hoping for a spot as an assistant in the gift shop. The applicants ranged in age from teenager to adult. Perhaps this is normal but given the volume of applicants, I cannot help but think this is the sign on of the times. During my interview, when asked about my availability, I explained that I have a Wednesday morning obligation.

I am part of a Toastmaster's club. No, this has nothing to do with bread. It is a public speaking club that creates a forum to practice both prepared and impromptu speaking. The people in my club are fantastic, but often we speak more about matters relating to the club than our own lives. Eventually a friend asked me what I am interested in. I started to describe security policy and that by security I mean national security and not night club bouncers or airport police. He immediately said that he had to send me an article he read recently in the Wall Street Journal. As if putting his finger on the pulse, he sent me an article about... cyber security. I generally try to avoid complicated technology pursuits, I use the internet to read articles and view the latest confirmation that Sarah Palin would be better off as a mime on Youtube, but despite its sci-fi name, cyber security is an issue we must embrace.

Cyber security has been debated for years but recently came back into the spotlight after the famed internet blackout during Egypt's January revolution. I was in Cairo at the time. I can tell you there was very real frustration that a government would have the power to throw the kill switch on a country's internet. Admittedly we used the blackout as an excuse to revert to old-school yet still highly entertaining methods of communicating that involved safe houses, meeting spots and search parties. While surviving an internet blackout during an ongoing revolution is thrilling, it highlights what a delicate balance cyber security demands.

On one side of the coin is the fight to ensure internet freedom. On the other is the ability to protect ourselves from and respond to cyber attack. Today I would like to discuss the latter. The WSJ article that my friend sent to me describes the Pentagon's plan to implement what I see as a bad idea. Given that cyber attacks can be defined as acts of war, the U.S. could respond to such attacks using traditional military force. The Pentagon believes that any attack sophisticated enough to cause the damage worthy of a military response would require state level resources, therefore justifying an attack on a country. While arguably legal, implementing this strategy would do more harm than good. The Pentagon itself admits that it is still difficult to determine the source of an attack, a critical piece of information if a military retaliation is in order. Additionally, the precedent that would result from this strategy has strong potential to lead the U.S. into multiple foreign conflicts with the inevitable opportunity for escalation. The article cites the war in Afghanistan as a response to terrorism as the type of response covered under this strategy. Finally, the incongruity in fighting cyber warfare with conventional weapons is too obvious to ignore. Just as terrorism cannot be fought state to state, cyber warfare will also require limited, nuanced technique grounded in solving the root of the problem as opposed to punishing the result.

With any luck some of my attention this summer will be dedicated to zoo related activities (plush fruit bat anyone?) but I will also be keeping up with the cyber security debate. In the meantime, Bloomberg News reported that the most common password on the internet is 123456. I think it is time that we as citizens do our part to step up our own cyber security.

Intro

It occurred to me last night that in a few months I will have been working (or attempting to) for a decade. As an eager and apparently naive 14 year old, I managed to talk my way into a job at a criminal defense firm. Proud of my strong start out of the employment gate, I often caught myself day dreaming of my inevitable corner office with a view. Ten years later however, my college degree is not worth as much as I thought, in fact it is costing me thousands in student loans. To add insult to interest-ridden injury, my actual college degree is somewhere in Egypt complete with a red ink ministry stamp. This stamp could in fact be worth more than the degree itself considering the government that awarded it has now been ousted and put on trial. As with most tales I have told since graduation in 2009, I am not sure whether to appreciate the humor or the tragedy. Despite the absence of gainful employment after what I would call a successful college career (I graduated magna cum laude but my twin sister graduated suma cum laude - my family still periodically reminds me of this), I am determined to stick to my career aspirations and put in my two cents, even if that is really all I can afford. From here on out I will be commenting on global issues through the intriguing, at times unforgiving lens of U.S. security interests. With any luck (and a Master's degree) I will find myself working in the field of security policy. For now however, I will stick to the couch, put on my best set of p.j.s and start writing about what the country can do to make us safer.