Again, this thought process began in my Security Studies seminar. Which is most certainly not a reflection on the module, as security forms the main premise of this article. We were discussing why security is a contested concept, and whether like Baldwin, we would define security as a ‘marginal value’. In comparison to the alternative values, ‘prime’ and ‘core’, a ‘marginal value’ approach certainly appears to be the most practical and pragmatic with regard to policy and spending. But do we have to place greater emphasis and funding on security? The general consensus from my classmates was yes, the threat is too great. I would argue on the contrary, how can we justify increasing security spending when our enemies are no longer known to us?
Instantly, I remembered Skyfall. Not for the action, nor Bond’s clever witticism or the attractive Bérénice Marlohe, but to the committee chair meeting. M (Dame Judi Dench), before the meeting is adjourned, is given the opportunity to present her argument, and says the following. “I’m frightened because our enemies are no longer known to us. They do not exist on a map. They’re not nations, they’re individuals.” Conflict has evolved exponentially since the end of the Cold War, with regards to technology, organisations and targeting. No longer is there the traditional, trench and land warfare of the First and Second World War, nor the cavalry charges of centuries prior. Terrorism and terrorists now dominate mainstream news headlines, as well as dominating security policies and strategies. The terrorist threat can’t be diminished by policy, strategy or spending. Security is still one of our greatest values, but it is no longer one any government can ensure.
Take the recent Charlie Hebdo attacks, a terrorist attack on an institution and its personnel, and if we want to get philosophical an attack on our freedom of speech. An atrocity, but was it preventable? The blinkered would point out that this attack would not have happened if it had not been for the publishing of controversial and perhaps offensive material, but that isn’t what this argument is focused on. Could the French government have prevented this terrorist attack? The three assailants were being monitored by French security agencies, and had even received information from US agencies that Said Kouachi was suspected of training with al-Qaeda in Yemen forces while in Oman. Amédy Coulibaly’s journey to radicalism began whilst in prison, an environment which invokes either an augmentation or reduction in criminal behaviour. There was certainly an awareness of the potential threat these three men posed. But they weren’t the only people being monitored by French security agencies, nor were they the only three French men to have ever been imprisoned. It is not merely a case of throwing more money at these institutions or enterprises to ensure the safety of peoples from terrorist attacks. The organisations backing these individuals are emerging, adapting and evolving. Their motivations appear to change with every Presidential or Congressional speech and statement from Washington, allowing for a greater multitude of potential targets, whether they be civilian, political or architectural. As long as their location and members remain unknown, these organisations, their individuals or cells, will continue to pose a serious threat to our security.
Over the past month cyber-attacks on Sony and Twitter have dominated US news headlines. And rightfully so. Again, we could be drawn into questions over a supposed attack on our rights and freedom of speech, but our focus is on prevention. Could these acts of cyber terrorism be prevented? To my very limited cyber knowledge, the short is answer is no. The cyber world is a domain that alludes me, but it appears to me that no device, however secure, can be free from such attacks. If there are people who can devise these supposedly ‘impenetrable’ codes and systems, there are surely those who can hack them. The individuals or cells behind these attacks have still not been identified, or at least there remains controversy over those accused. Like the terrorist groups associated with attacks on civilians, there are a growing number of these types of groups with increasing motivations and justifications. And, like their counterparts, their identities and locations remain unknown. Fighting a threat we don’t know and can’t see is a losing battle, throwing more government spending at tackling the cyber threat would also be inconsequential.
Our enemies are drifting further and further away from us, and this is frightening. Our enemies’ identities are unknown and their locations allude us. The threat posed to civilian life and the cyber domain has been highlighted over the past month, and rightfully people are scared. It is unfair in my opinion to criticise governments, organisations and agencies for their supposed shortcomings, they are fighting a losing battle. If they were to increase civilian monitoring they would receive criticisms of creating a ‘Big Brother State’ and diverting funding away from other important core values. Security, despite being one of those core values, has failed to adapt to the advancements in warfare and the threat posed by individuals and cells. We are fighting in the shadows, our world has become more opaque and our security has been compromised.
joshcallander23 