[9833] in Commercialization & Privatization of the Internet
A Few Lessons from Military History and American Society
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Dave Hughes)
Sat Jan 22 13:27:47 1994
From: dave@oldcolo.com (Dave Hughes)
To: com-priv@psi.com (compriv)
Date: Sat, 22 Jan 1994 11:17:01 -0700 (MST)
Cc: COSNDISC@BITNIC.BITNET (cosn)
But let me elevate this discussion a little on the question
of the presence of representatives of real government power on these
lists and on this public net. As one of the very few people with
unapolgetic military or intelligence agency backgrounds and
identities, like Bob Steele, and Ross Stapleton, Frank Burns
(partner running Metanet who was a GREEN BERET!!! no less) who
actively participate (as distinct from lurking) on the nets, from
local hacker BBSs to ultra-liberal discussions on the Well, to
compriv, cosndisc international discussions, I have a pretty
thought-through viewpoint about the merits of such presence.
One does not spend 27 years from the time of taking the oath
of allegiance on Trophy Point where Benedict Arnold betrayed his
country, and from which Dwight Eisenhower sallied forth to help save
it, without thinking hard about the relationship between 'civil' and
'military' (and by extension, 'intelligence agencies') in our
society. But also the ways the individuals in such groups gain and
maintain a shared view of American values.
In fact, upon returning to West Point as an academic
instructor from the Korean War, the first 'limited' one in our
modern history where there was not a national moral crusade to
obliterate an evil empire but the first of a whole string of
ambiguous international conflicts, groups of us (with names most
people on this list would recognize and be startled by the idea
someone here actually *knows* them much less been their classmate and
contemporary) met in each others living quarters to discuss who we
were and where we fit in a democratic society which abhors war, is
morally repulsed by 'spies,' frightened by preparations for war, and
yet is compelled to raise and maintain powerful security forces and
engage in worldwide intelligence operations as a world power. Guys I
played football with, broke bread with, argued Shakespeare with, and
went to war with, with names like Brent Scowcroft, Alexander Haig,
Frank Borman, Bennie Davis (CINCSAC), Paul Gorman (commanding all US
military in Latin America), John Wickham (Chief of Staff of the Army
and member of the Joint Chiefs), Fidel Ramos and scores of others.
Well, a fundemental insight I gained from those debates was
that we were, in same general sense doctors and lawyers, as
'professionals' provide a 'service' to society within the broad
framework of its value system, we were professionals, serving
society, by providing for the management of force and violence in
the resolution of social questions raised and decided by civil
authority. i.e. that being a professional does not mean just 'being
good at' (in vitreo fertilization, defending Janice Bobbitt,
destroying the Republic Guard Divisions, or assassinating KGB
agents.) But in doing so as best can be done within the enduring
value-system of that society, and for it where there are endless
(since 1775) and divisive (such as the 60's) debates in society over
exactly what that value system is or should be, and what
instrumentalities should or should not exist, as well as be used.
But also that, studying world and military history,
realizing that one of the most dangerous long term trends is the
'isolation' of professional military and intellegence persons from
the public. That can lead to Man on Horseback leaders, or a military
that evermore drifts away from touch with 'civil' values, and, in
times of crises, chooses wrong (Lt Calley at Mei Lai).
In this nation, by historically relying on the 'citizen
soldier', and the draft, there was always a leavening of the ranks.
And by broadening the sources of commission of officers from ROTC at
civilian universities as well as closed military 'academies' a
constant influx of a cross section of American society into military
leadership positions. But when you take away the draft, and close
down ROTC and JROTC in a short sighted effort to prevent the
'contamination' of pure young civilian minds with 'militarization'
you ALSO isolate young minds who enter the military from healthy
contact with non-military ideas and civil values in places where -
schools and colleges - the NEXT generation of values evolve from and
are intellectually rationalized. And maybe WORSE, you isolate
American CIVILIAN minds - where ultimate political control of the
fate of our nation rests - from understanding military and
intelligence power, how it works, what it requires, who wields it,
what *their* professional values are and must be, and who to trust
and not trust when a national crises occurs!
And the ability to make a distinction between dangerous
ideologues like General Walker, and exceptional Americans like Colin
Powell.
Well guess what? What BETTER way to keep up those links
between those inside military and intelligence ranks and outside
'civil' life than on the nets? What better way to go from remote
stereotyping of each other by isolated minds, through the flame
stage AT each other, to some slight enlightenment on both sides, and
the building up of some measure of trust and confidence and respect
for each other's viewpoints, values, and passions that, when the
inevitable crises come, that Americans can work together in the most
difficult of all political societies - democracies - to work
effectively at ANYTHING requiring executive direction in the common
and societal, not just the personal and special-group, interest.
Is it risky? Yes. For just as Dave Rothman fears illegal spying
and disinformation if intelligence agencies are 'let into' the net,
well some astute observers and hardened veterans of the spy business
know perfectly well that foreign agents wishing ill-will to the
United States are and will be on the net, generating disinformation,
stealing secrets, (including technological secrets and making deals
with American companies who either don't give a damn what other
nations do with the technology they sell them, or by isolation from
anything other than their technologies all their lives, are naive
unwitting instruments of the policies of foreign leaders and
governments, and do more harm as 'businessmen' and 'researchers'
that all the Division leaders of the CIA.
Some of our military leaders were not amused when they found that
Iraqi command and control used TCP/IP to route packets around
damaged facilities so that we had to risk, and lose, even more
American pilots in trying to destroy their command and control
facilities.
Open nets cuts both ways. And if anyone thinks there are no
foreign intelligence agents saving every byte of compriv
discussions, they are naieve indeed.
But is it, then, for all the risks, worth it?
I think so. For as the nets and the Information Highways
evermore resemble messy public life, and can connect up everyone in
this boat called America, it seems that maybe a little more
dialogue, than less, might help not just survive, but prosper, as a
nation, where even national boundaries are disappearing into
successive IP packet routing, and THE debate about who we are and
where we are and should be going, and how we should harness
technology to our evolving social vision rather than have technology
trap and isolate us from ourselves - should go on.
Which freedom of speech and of assembly, association and of
dialogue, seems to have served us well through the 'dangerous' age
of print and television, and could do the same thing in cyberspace.
a And oh, yeah. Rumor has it the Defense Department
is going to provide all officers of all the armed forces with
Internet accounts. (its just a rumor I picked up, but it sure makes
sense). So gee, maybe its already happening.
But as I said to a class of Air Force Academy cadets and their
instructors when they first set up the Contel academy-wide network
reaching into all cadet rooms, are you going to program function
keys for 'Yes sir' and 'No Sir' and how does one address the
Commandant of Cadets, a Brigadier General, online? As 'Joe' and
'Bob' or 'Sally? Hmmm. What how should hirearchy by represented
in non-hirearchical Cyberspace? Another programming/addressing
headache. :-)
David R Hughes, Col (Ret) US Army, DSC, SS, LM, JSCM, BS, MA, Greek
Cross of War, etc etc etc. (maybe I better do up a .signature file
to compete with all these biggies I see in compriv. Naw. I think
I'll just continue to sign on as
Dave Hughes
dave@oldcolo.com
