My Photo

Your email address:

Powered by FeedBlitz

January 2015

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
        1 2 3
4 5 6 7 8 9 10
11 12 13 14 15 16 17
18 19 20 21 22 23 24
25 26 27 28 29 30 31
Blog powered by Typepad

Become a Fan

« The Only Way to Actually Win the (Long) War on Terror | Main | Hacking the 2007 Brazil Ironman Triathlon in Florianopolis (May 27, 2007) – Strategy, Tragedy and 100% Pure Agava Tequila »

May 11, 2007


Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.


Interesting article. It doesn't sound like Katz and Devon have a serious problem with "Web 2.0" as a set of technologies, they are more talking about ways that radicals are using the web to spread information. Some of the strengths of Web 2.0 are also its weaknesses: the SITE institute gathers a great deal of intelligence by monitoring those jihadist web sites.

About this phrase:

"...we are currently losing the war on terrorism..."

Is this really true? Is there a single war on terrorism? And are we losing?

There are lots of small battles, and a few big battles, but the more we think of them as all part of the same war, the farther we are from being able to deal with the problem. If you consider the problem as a single grand war, your only real option is to destroy all of the opposing armies. If you consider the problem as lots of small wars instead, you open up lots of new strategic options: you can destroy some of your enemies, coopt some of the opposing forces into fighting on your side, and find ways to move other enemies out of the battle entirely. There is not one single motivation or grievance that leads to terrorism. Different groups are trying to achieve different ends. Because of the diversity in motivation for terrorism, we have lots of room for diversity in our response. You might be interested in some of the stuff David Kilcullen has written on this topic.

(By the way, we met at the TLE in Anaheim last month. I was the guy who wanted to know more about the cryptography behind anonymized information sharing.)


Darryl Williams


I personally believe that we spend too much time focusing on the adversary. There is the quote that says: We have met the enemy and he is us. Today, the product development cycle (idea, innovation implementation, immitation) has been reduced from 30 years to 30 weeks. This means that the adversary is able to adapt and morph into new technology every 30 weeks. The world's governments are producing outstanding tools to prosecute this war; however, the government product development cycle is measured in years versus weeks/days. In other words, they are producing tools for the fight last year verses today. The only way to win--or at least make an effect--is to create partnerships between governments and the private sector. The private sector understands rapid product development. After all, their livelihood depends upon it.

Dental Spa

Thanks for the very interesting read and comments.



Verify your Comment

Previewing your Comment

This is only a preview. Your comment has not yet been posted.

Your comment could not be posted. Error type:
Your comment has been saved. Comments are moderated and will not appear until approved by the author. Post another comment

The letters and numbers you entered did not match the image. Please try again.

As a final step before posting your comment, enter the letters and numbers you see in the image below. This prevents automated programs from posting comments.

Having trouble reading this image? View an alternate.


Post a comment

Comments are moderated, and will not appear until the author has approved them.

Your Information

(Name and email address are required. Email address will not be displayed with the comment.)