Over the last couple decades, the Internet has become vital and central to the global economy as well as to our culture. It is important to understand that the internet itself is an incredible tool, but it is also incredibly complex. Computers have multiple parts all communicating and the internet is composed of millions of computers interacting with one another. There are vulnerabilities in basically every piece of software and there have been numrous examples, especially recently, of people or organizations exploiting them for their own gain. To understand this new world of cyberwarfare, let's define some terms and then explore a devastating cyberweapon as well as a vulnerability that the NSA used for cyberespionage.
Other than the success of the Peshmerga and other Kurdish forces, Iraq is in a pretty dire situation. The President of Iraq, Fuad Masum, nominated a new prime minister to replace the current prime minister, Nuri Kamal al-Maliki. One of the reasons that the United States has refuse to send support to the Iraqi army is that Maliki is a Shi'ite Islamist, and his policies of isolating and oppressing the Sunni minority may have contributed to the rise of the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria and other Sunni extremist groups. Unfortunately, the new Prime Minister is from the same Shi'ite Islamist party that Maliki is from, and Maliki is also rallying certain military units who are loyal to him to take up positions in Baghdad. There is potential for a leadership crisis and even a battle between different factions.
Unfortunately, if a leadership crisis or battle does occur, it will significantly weaken the Iraqi army. The Islamic State is still close to both Baghdad and Erbil, the capital of Iraqi Kurdistan. If members of the Iraqi army were to start fighting among themselves, the Islamic State would have a much easier job of taking Baghdad. Without the Iraqi Army, the Islamic State could then focus on attacking the Kurds, who continue to be the only faction significantly pushing back against the Islamic State, albeit with help from American airstrikes. One course of action for the United States could be to support the Kurds. Unfortunately, such a decision could alienate American allies, including Turkey, where a large Kurdish minority exists which wants its own nation. The establishment of a Kurdistan out of Iraq could encourage Kurds in other nations, including Iran, Syria, and Turkey, to try to establish their own breakaway regions. Supporting the Kurds could anger Turkey, a rising power that the U.S. could need in the future to counter the resurgence of Russia in the region. In fact, Turkey's control of the Bosporus strait potentially eliminates Russia's ability to put its navy in the Mediterranean, a huge strategic advantage for America. In the end, the Middle East is still a powder keg. Nations' borders pay no attention to tribal, religious, or ethnic boundaries. Iraq, Iran, and Syria especially have multiple religions and ethnicities throughout them. The U.S. needs to carefully weigh its options before making a decision. While quick, decisive action should be taken to stop the further spread of the Islamic State, America seriously needs a long-term strategy. Whether that is just the defeat of the Islamic State, or the establishment of a new Iraqi government, or even splitting Iraq into a Sunni nation, Shi'ite nation, and Kurdish nation, the United States needs to have clearly defined objectives. Otherwise our motto could become: "We're pulling out of Iraq, and we always will be." Israel and Hamas are at it again. Hundreds of people have died already, with the casualties tilted heavily towards the Palestinians. With a kidnapped Israeli soldier presumed dead and peace talks falling apart, the conflict shows no signs of stopping. Many people ask why can't both sides agree to a cease fire? The conflict goes beyond just stopping a blockade or stopping rocket fire. Hamas and Israel both refuse to accept the other's demands, John Kerry has botched negotiations, and the rest of the Middle East is a mess. In this conflict, both sides are clearly at fault.
Let's start with Hamas. Hamas is in a tough spot. It has been blockaded by Israel and its longtime ally Egypt, it's people are angry, and it has been losing some support. Hamas has continued to fire rockets at Israeli cities, which is actually a war crime(you'll notice both sides seem to be committing a lot of these). While most of these are stopped by Israel's Iron Dome missile defense system, Hamas has not stopped provoking Israel. Most of the concrete that was supposed to be used by Hamas to build infrastructure was instead used to build tunnels into Israel to kidnap Israelis. On the other side, Israel's counterattack in Gaza has been vicious and committed a few war crimes. Israel has fired on UN shelters in schools and declared plans to attack a hospital that Hamas was using as an HQ(another war crime on both sides). While some people may state that Israel has overreacted, both sides have been continuously provoking the other. Other nations have failed as well. John Kerry botched the peace process. The Arab states are cought between supporting Israel and an Islamist group. In the end, without outside intervention it is unlikely that this conflict will end soon. Hamas refuses to acknowledge the existence of Israel and Israel is viciously attacking Gaza. Without a major change, it is unlikely this conflict will end anytime soon. |