Rabkin in Weekly Standard: Warn Our Enemies, Reassure Our Friends
"If the Obama team is going to boast about the president's cyber prowess, it really should try to do more to warn our enemies and reassure our friends—and perhaps inform Congress—what rules it thinks will apply to this new weapon," Professor Jeremy Rabkin comments in his article appearing in The Weekly Standard. "There are serious and still quite contentious policy issues in the emerging field of cyber strategy. A president preoccupied with personal preening makes it much harder to mobilize support for reasonable policies."
In the article, entitled "Boasting Without Explaining," Rabkin and co-author Ariel Rabkin criticize leaks by White House officials about a secret plan to disable the Iranian nuclear program through targeted cyber attacks, saying while there is a place for covert action in national security, leaks followed by silence are not a good national security approach.
Boasting Without Explaining, The Weekly Standard, June 18, 2012. By Jeremy Rabkin and Ariel Rabkin.
"What a president really shouldn’t do is leak details of a secret operation that seems unlawfulâ€‹—â€‹if judged by standards that have been previously embraced in public by American officialsâ€‹—â€‹and then say nothing more. But officials in the Obama White House leaked a great deal of detail about a secret plan to disable the Iranian nuclear program through targeted cyber attacks. The White House did not deny the account published in the New York Times on June 1. It did not even say that the leaks were unauthorized and that there would be an investigation to punish the officials involved. It said nothing to explain or clarify the policy revealed in this way.
"The White House seems to have regarded the story about the cyber program as a mere follow-on to previous reports in the same newspaper about the president’s immersion in decisions on proper targeting for drone strikes. But the cyber story is in a quite different category. It says much about the administration’s indifference to actual security policy that it has let all these policies be folded into the edifying narrative of the president’s personal focus on facing down our enemies.
"One obvious difference is that there has never been any doubt that the United States was launching drone attacks on terrorists in Pakistan and Yemen. And because the policy was openly avowed, it has been subject to a fair amount of public debate. Questions about the legality of drone strikes have been raised by many critics, including legal analyst Philip Alston, former United Nations special rapporteur on extrajudicial executions.
"But representatives of the administration, including State Department legal adviser Harold Koh, have defended the drone policy as proper under international law. They have characterized the drone strikes as acts of self-defense against ongoing terrorist plots, which carefully target actual jihadist combatants while seeking to minimize harm to civilians. Koh and others also claim the drone strikes are proper under U.S. law, in accord with Congress’s authorization after 9/11 to deploy force against the terror networks responsible for such attacks. There is controversy about whether these legal analyses are fully compelling. They do at least mark some legal lines to indicate when, where, and how the United States thinks it is justified to launch drone strikes.
"We don’t know what the Obama administration thinks it can or can’t do in launching cyber attacks. And the questions aren’t mere brain teasers for legal scholars. In May 2011, the White House issued a formal paper on U.S. cyber strategy, which acknowledgedâ€‹—â€‹almost in passingâ€‹—â€‹that the United States reserved the right to use 'military force' to stop severe cyber attacks on American computer networks. Whether 'military force” included cyber attacksâ€‹—â€‹even in retaliation for such attacksâ€‹—â€‹was left entirely unclear."