When former DCI and prominent neocon James Woolsey writes, we should read. Between the lines.
He has a piece in the Los Angeles Times today, in which he discusses international interdependence in terms of terrorism, natural disaster, and "the butterfly effect" -- the idea that a small event in one place can have massive consequences in quite another. With co-author Rachel Belton, Woolsey writes that "we don't get to choose" between malignant threats and malevolent threats -- that is, between accidents, such as last year's massive power outage, and terrorism. We must try to prevent both. I cannot disagree.
He goes on to discuss a massive restructuring of the nation's energy system, so that an attack in one place will have fewer consequences elsewhere. And here's where his wording gets interesting:
Encouraging "distributed energy production" -- lots of small generating plants linked to portions of our critical infrastructure, rather than a few large plants -- is one way to reduce spillover effects and keep terrorists from knocking out large sections of our grid.
Hm. We've made a rather quick leap from the assertion that the last blackout was "malignant" to the prediction that the next blackout will be "malevolent." Does Woolsey know something we don't know about the true cause of last year's disaster?
In previous posts, I've laughed at the conspiratorialist idea that the 2003 outage occurred by design. Yes, it is true that one alleged Al Qaeda affiliate group (the Abu Hafs al-Masri brigades) took credit for staging the blackout. Many believe that this group is more-or-less fictional; nearly everyone dismissed their claim of resonsibility.
Now I am having second thoughts.
The "terrorists-did-it" theory received sympathetic treatment in -- of all places -- Popular Mechanics. In a piece titled "Blackout: The Conspiracy Theory," science writer Jim Wilson discusses the work of the DIA's Bradley K. Ashley, a Lieutenant Colonel in the Air Force, who has identified a "trapdoor" which may have allowed Al Qaeda to wreak havoc on our energy system.
Supervisory control and data acquisition (SCADA) devices allow remote control of unmanned energy facilities. The article quotes Ashley thus: "Information about SCADA devices and hacking them was found on Al Qaeda computers seized in raids in Afghanistan... Al Qaeda prisoners have informed interrogators about their intent to use these methods to attack the U.S."
More than that:
The files of the North American Electric Reliability Council (NERC), an industry group created after the infamous 1964 Northeast blackout, suggest that a cyberattack dry run took place in January 2003.
According to Charles E. Noble, head of Information Security for ISO New England, a NERC member that operates transmission lines, some sort of probing attack may have occurred during the appearance of the so-called "SQL Slammer Worm" that disrupted many Internet services. It also affected two unnamed utilities. "Both entities lost their ability to execute bulk electric system control from their primary control centers for several hours," Noble says.
The terrorism thesis remains unproven, but the men speculating along these lines clearly have impressive resumes. This isn't just any old conspiracy theory.
And so I ask once again: Does Woolsey know something we don't about that event? His article can be read as a call for prevention of another terrorist attack on our power system -- even though he never actually confesses that such an attack took place last year. Any such admission would scupper the administration's boast that its policies have prevented another 9/11.
Woolsey has discussed terror, the energy grid, and "the butterfly effect" at least once before, at a speech for a conservative function, delivered in November of 2003. He was introduced by David Horowitz, who made the absurd claim that Democrats oppose the war in Iraq because they "hate America." In the course of his speech, Woolsey identifies both Egyptian ruler Hosni Mubarak and the rulers of Saudi Arabia as enemies of America who should be targeted for removal. In my view, this sort of talk exemplifies the neoconservative penchant for belligerencece, arrogance and imperialist over-reach. Of course, I'm one of those allegedly America-hating Democrats.
Even so, Woolsey's reference to Egypt prompts us to make note of two perhaps-relevant points:
1. The Popular Mechanics piece referenced above mentions that American utility companies have shared detailed information about SCADA devices with the Egyptian utility services.
2. The Abu Hafs group -- which may or may not be a scarecrow -- was named after an Egyptian, whose birth name was Mohammed Atef. Atef, a key Al Qaeda leader killed in 2001, was a policeman in his native land, related by marriage to Osama Bin Laden. It is not unreasonable to surmise that an Egyptian cop spoke to someone working for Egypt's power utility. And perhaps the subject was SCADA...?
No comments:
Post a Comment