Today, the threat of “cyber attacks” presents a different challenge, featuring often hard-to-conjure weaponry that can disrupt – and increasingly destruct – corporate, national, and personal security. Average Americans might be vexed by the complex language of “cyber security”, but nevertheless, it is important to understand, because it very well may affect their everyday lives.

Consider the recent cyber attack against Spamhaus, a spam-fighting organization, that took the form of a Distributed Denial of Service (DDoS) attack, in which the company’s servers were overloaded.  A planned attack last year against a group of gas pipeline companies involved sophisticated “spear-phishing” techniques, targeting employees with malicious e-mail attachments.

But unlike the “Daisy” ad, threats like DDoS and spear-phishing don’t evoke the same kind of vivid mushroom cloud imagery, even if one web security company compared the Spamhaus attack to “a nuclear bomb”.  Unfortunately, while the average person tends to think that there’s no possible way they can understand this huge “cyber problem”, the effects are starting to impact them directly, too.  If you bank at Wells Fargo or Bank of America, your account could be blocked while attacks take them offline and cost the financial institutions millions of dollars.  If you happen to shop at the St. Louis grocery store chain Schnuck’s, your credit card information may have been compromised after last month’s cyber attack.  The cyber threat is equal-opportunity: it can affect top government and financial institutions—as well as your daily routine.

Cyber security is a priority on every level, but the solution starts on Capitol Hill, as Congress debates the Cyber Intelligence Sharing and Protection Act, or CISPA.  Information sharing between the private sector and the government is crucial to creating a vivid national threat picture and protecting critical infrastructure.  It is an essential step to take: having a framework of how to protect the country from cyber attacks at the national level will allow state and local leaders to deal with the threat more capably.

CISPA, though, needs to be bolstered with clear protections for personal privacy as well, namely removing personally identifiable information so that the government cannot access once-private information on you and your family.The cyber threat is not going away; in fact, it continues to rapidly evolve.  Experts suggest that recent attacks have shown a scary degree of increasing severity.  They note that there is increasingly a new type of attacker – state-sponsored ones, who use cyber attacks as a way to level the playing field. Worse, these state-sponsored hackers are good at covering their tracks, making it hard to decipher where the attack originated. In sum, cyber attacks are becoming wider in scope, better funded and are intended to wreak more havoc.

The growing sophistication of the cyber threat underscores the need to get this done urgently, but it also needs to be done carefully.  A strategy that combines information sharing with personal privacy protections will make sure that its impact is in the right place: creating a vivid image of the threat while also ensuring that both our safety and liberties go on unimpeded.

Just as the threat of nuclear war riveted Americans in the 1960′s, the threat of cyber attacks should be given equal attention. What’s more, they should be dealt with in a balanced, cohesive manner by Congress, which has so far barely budged in addressing America’s cyber weaknesses.  It may take more creativity to illustrate this threat, but it is just as essential that we understand it.

Jessie Daniels is a Truman Security Fellow.

When you look at the fine print, the big picture becomes clear: these cuts will have a significant impact on the states—and on the daily lives of many Americans—in the months ahead.

Cross the Potomac from Washington, DC into Virginia. The Old Dominion State’s large federal workforce and heavy emphasis on defense will be one of the most vulnerable to the sequester.  Estimates suggest that Virginia could lose over 200,000 jobs.  As well, the state could suffer a gross state product loss of $10.5 billion just as a result of the defense cuts.  Already the Navy has already delayed some projects and cancelled airshows because of the impending cuts.  In Virginia “sequester” is becoming synonymous with “recession”.

Next, hit Interstate 81 to Interstate 64 until you get to St. Louis, a city that would be particularly hard hit by the cuts.  A recent analysis by Wells Fargo Economics found that the city would be considerably affected by the sequester because it has “outsized exposure to the aerospace industry and will see growth slow if the military purchases fewer fighter jets, missiles and helicopters”.  At the state level, Missouri’s credit rating could be hurt as well.  Earlier this month, Moody’s changed Missouri’s Triple-A rating to negative from stable because of the state economy’s strong linkage to the federal government.  Lower bond ratings would result in an increase to interest rates and the cost of borrowing.

Then head west and take a right at Denver, winding up through Wyoming and into Yellowstone National Park.  Yellowstone, along with the nation’s other national parks, won’t be immune from the sequester either.  According to the National Park Service (NPS), sequestration could reduce or delay seasonal hiring.  It could also impact other operations like visitor access.  In all, the NPS estimates that at Yellowstone the cuts will affect 78,000 visitors, reduce revenues by more than $150,000 and negatively affect the livelihoods of those who do business around the park.

Finally, take Interstate 90 to Washington State until you hit Olympia, the capital.  Although it’s nearly 3,000 miles away from the nation’s capital, the Evergreen State will still feel the impact of the sequester.  In recent years, federal spending has accounted for nearly a quarter of the state’s budget.  State officials estimate that the loss of $118 million in federal grants could lead to 5 to 12 percent cuts in services at the state level, including special education and social service programs.

Sequestration is a unique thing: a law so devastating it was never intended to pass. It was meant to spur compromise in Congress, forcing legislators to agree on a path to reduce our national debt. With the current state of play in the nation’s capital, it’s not surprising that these extensive budget cuts have only spurred more dysfunction and discord in Washington.  But dysfunctionand discord won’t stop the impacts that will reverberate across the river from Washington, and across the country.

Jessie Daniels is a Truman Security Fellow.

Get to the Rockaways, though, and you’ll see signs of lives.  Stuff –
you name it: furniture, kitchenwares, toys, old books – all
waterlogged and now useless, line the streets.  Superstorm Sandy
flooded homes here, and memories left with the receding surge.
Imagine all the stuff you’ve accumulated over the course of your life.
Now imagine throwing it all away.  That’s the extent of the
devastation.

Though the bay and ocean waters look less menacing now, there is still
much work to be done.  So on Veterans Day weekend, I joined hundreds
of other civilians and veterans in volunteering to help disaster
relief victims.  The project was organized by The Mission Continues, a
group that challenges post-9/11 veterans through fellowships to lead
impactful service projects in their communities, and Team Rubicon, a
group that rapidly deploys military veterans to crisis situations.
The wake of the Superstorm certainly constituted a crisis situation.

Team Rubicon’s motto is “Bridge the Gap,” the “gap” meaning between
when a disaster happens and conventional aid comes.  And so, split
into joint teams of veterans and civilian folks, off we went to bridge that gap,
out into the neighborhood.  Together, we went to work shoveling sand,
de-tiling basement floors, cleaning out garages, and assessing who
needed help with what.  But there was also an added benefit – in its
own small way, a project like this was also helping to bridge another
gap: the civilian-military gap.

The gap has been well-documented in studies in recent years; a
significant number of Americans have little understanding of what it’s
like to be in the military or of what people in the military are like.
Here, though, civilians got to see how former military people
organized priorities, approached tasks, and even what they ate (at
least one person in my group learned that an “MRE” is a
Meal-Ready-to-Eat and how to make one).  On the other side, the
veterans also saw how those who hadn’t been in the military utilized
their own skill sets to work toward the same goal.  On breaks, we
talked about the experience of serving in the military, where we had
gone to school or what we did professionally, about the places we’d
been.  All different, what unified us was an equal degree of amazement
about the impact of this storm and an equal desire to help with the
clean-up effort.

It bolstered us – civilian and veteran alike – to know that we could
do our part while working together.  And by doing so, we not only
helped those who had been dealt a harsh blow by the Superstorm, but
also learned a little bit more about each other in the process.  This
is not a cure-all for the civilian-military gap, no doubt, but it is a
start.  At the end of the day – November 11 – one of the civilian
volunteers, who previously knew virtually nothing about the military,
said “Happy Veterans Day” to one of the group’s veterans.  It wasn’t
just said symbolically; it was said to a friend.

Jessie Daniels is a Truman Security Fellow

That September day was indeed like that 1941 day that will “live in infamy,” another shock heard ‘round the world.

Now, 11 years later, things are a little different. For the first time, the commemoration ceremony will not include speeches by politicians. News stories now often focus more on the squabbles about work at the site than on 9/11 itself. In our daily lives, Americans have gone from complaining that airline security was too lax to complaining that airline security is too cumbersome. Like Pearl Harbor, the shock of 9/11 has begun to fade as well.

This is, to a point, understandable. First, Osama bin Laden is now dead, which has brought with it a degree of closure. Many of bin Laden’s henchmen have also been killed or captured, and at least 30 terrorist plots have been foiled since the attack. And as part of a comprehensive approach, the United States has used other tools, like international development, to help degrade Al-Qaeda’s extremist ideology.

It is also worth realizing that 11 years is a long time. In that time, our military has felt the strain of a decade of wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. Our troops have served multiple tours of duty. Thousands have been wounded or have even made the ultimate sacrifice. It has been a long, hard slog.

As well, the national security landscape has changed markedly as other challenges have emerged. When the attacks were fresh in our minds, the Arab Spring was not. Nor was an issue like cyber security. And amid economic concerns, the national debt is increasingly becoming a security concern as well. Meanwhile, the attacks reinforced the need to reduce America’s dependence on foreign oil as those funds can end up in the hands of terrorist organizations.

At their core, Americans are resilient. We didn’t respond to 9/11 with fear, we responded with courage and strength. But even if they’re not always at the forefront, the September 11th attacks will forever be part of our national memory. See television footage of them again or look up at a clear blue sky and it might seem like 9/11 was just yesterday. More so even, go down to the World Trade Center site and feel the air of solemnity against the backdrop of bustling downtown Manhattan. When you trace your fingers over the etched name of a victim that you either knew or never met, you’ll know that William Faulkner’s famous quote rings true: “The past is never dead. It’s not even past.”

Jessie Daniels is a Truman Security Fellow.

This post originally appeared on PolicyMic

Start With a Good Opening Drive.  For many Americans, conventions are a starting point; it will be the first time they really tune into the Presidential race.  The GOP got the ball first, but gave a middling effort: polls show that the Romney-Ryan ticket didn’t get a real bounce from the convention.  That gives the Obama campaign an opportunity to take the initiative now and put points on the board going into the fall campaign, putting them in the position to look forward and putting the Romney campaign on the defensive.

Exploit Your Opponent’s Weakness.  Good teams notice what’s missing and strike like a cobra.  Mitt Romney left himself open by not talking enough about his agenda at the convention, so there’s an opening for Democrats to define it for him.   So too, Democrats are already seeking to exploit another GOP weakness: diversity.  In Charlotte, Democrats“will tout diversity and sell themselves as inclusionary, sensitive to the most marginalized, and hip to the nation’s changing demographics.”   

Make Positive Short-Yardage Gains.   As important as it will be to exploit GOP weaknesses, it will also be important to tout a positive agenda in Charlotte.  Voters don’t want to hear about the past (“It was bad to begin with”) or the hypothetical present (“It could have been much worse”), they want to hear how President Obama and the Democrats have already helped lay the groundwork for economic recovery and what the plan looks like moving forward.  Most importantly, though, Democrats need to connect with the individual voter – the small business owner, the parents who wonder how they’ll pay for their children’s college now that their salaries have been cut, and the long-term unemployed, to name a few.  How will (and have) the Obama administration policies affect them?

Capitalize on Home Field Advantage.  Excitement among your loyal fanbase matters.  The GOP Convention may not have resulted in a noticeable bounce for the Romney-Ryan ticket, but many of the delegates left the convention feeling more enthusiastic about their party and the election.  President Obama and the Democrats can use their convention to do the same.  Although the President has a tougher road to the White House than he did four years ago, getting die-hard supporters revved up for three days in Charlotte could make that road a little easier to travel in the weeks ahead.

Play for Four Quarters.  With the polls showing a close race, it increasingly looks like this race will be won by turning out your base, winning small (but significant) portions of your opponent’s base, and appealing to a small group of undecided voters.  There are still two long months to go until Election Day, and the President and Democrats need to make that clear to supporters.  Get them excited, but also prepare them for the hard slog.  Standing in an arena full of applause and confetti in early September won’t matter much if volunteers don’t want to brave bad weather to get out the vote in early November.

Jessie Daniels is a Truman Security Fellow.

Last month, the Great Green Fleet – featuring ships and aircraft running on a 50-50 mix of petroleum and biofuels – had a successful test run during the Rim of the Pacific international exercises in Hawaii.  It was a strong sign that our military is moving full steam ahead in investing in homegrown biofuels instead of staying tied like oxen to the yoke of dependence on a volatile oil market.  By embracing ideas that make us stronger, the military is not only lowering its own costs but is also protecting our troops.  According to a U.S. Army study last year, one-eighth of the Army’s casualties in Iraq were the result of protecting fuel convoys.  Moreover, itprovides new opportunities to build relationships with our allies; during the Rim of the Pacific exercises, the US and Australian navies agreed to work together on biofuels research and deployment.

Meanwhile, the White House finalized new CAFE standards that will double fuel efficiency in automobiles by 2025 to an average 54.5 miles per gallon.  The new standards mean that consumers will use less gas, and as such, save more money.  For example, according to a recent report, Floridians, Ohioans, Virginians and consumers in several other states could see overall savings in the billions once the standards go into full effect.

Most importantly, this is not a patchwork of energy solutions.  Dating back to the Second World War, military innovations have continually led to fuel efficiency improvements in American-made cars.  The work our military is doing could directly impact our automakers in meeting the new CAFE standards.  Despite some balking in Washington over potentially higher costs in the short-term, the initiative has long-term benefits for both the military and civilian sides.

When we talk about American exceptionalism, we tend to harken back to the “good old days”. But it is a concept that is just as much about our past as it is about our future.  Our grandfathers probably never could have imagined an F-18 fighter jet being powered by fuel made from animal fat and algae, but neither could their grandfathers have ever envisioned Jeeps with four-wheel drive systems.  America did not become exceptional by fearing change.  Our military’s clean energy program and the new CAFE standards prove that we don’t.

Jessie Daniels is a Truman Security Fellow.

1.      An incredibly memorable chorus

2.      Simple, repetitive lyrics

3.      Musical arrangement

Not surprisingly, Mitt Romney’s foreign policy vision hasn’t garnered the same irresistible attraction.  But the story of a successful pop tune is instructive in understanding why Romney’s foreign policy message is not resonating.

Let’s start with the first reason: “Call Me Maybe” is “methodically easy on the ear, simple enough to stay in your head all day.”  Romney’s overarching foreign policy vision, though, is not.   His July 24^th speech to the Veterans of Foreign Wars (VFW) touched on several different foreign policy issues, but as NBC’s First Read described, “it was long on criticism and short on vision…a Romney Doctrine is not at all clear at the moment.” Even John McCain’s former campaign manager said it was little more than a “paint-by-numbers Republican critique.”

Two, the song has simple lyrics. “The verses have weak rhymes that pretty much anyone can repeat after listening once.”  Now, try to apply that to Romney’s position on Afghanistan and it’s a no go.  Romney seemed to endorse the President’s timeline of withdrawing our troops from Afghanistan by 2014 in his VFW remarks, despite previously criticizing it.  The speech also came on the heels of one of his senior advisors suggesting that real Americans don’t want to talk about Afghanistan (despite the fact that some 90,000 real Americans are still serving there).   Therefore, it’s not surprising that, according to a recent report, even several leading Republican Senators don’t know what Romney’s Afghanistan policy is.  As Senate Minority Whip Jon Kyl (R-AZ) put it: “You would have to tell me what exactly you mean by ‘his policy.’ That’s a long discussion that I don’t want to get into.”

Finally, there’s the musical arrangement, which is “filled with pizzicato strings and boppy rhythms in the drums, that’s infectious.”  The overall tenor of Romney’s foreign policy, though, doesn’t have “an amazing innate sense of pop.”  Through his rhetoric, Romney has either presented himself as uber-hawkish (talking tough on Iran without explaining what he would do beyond current policy to isolate or weaken it) or uber-mawkish (sentimentally painting a picture of what American power looked like in a bygone era as his view of the future).  It’s no wonder then that the latest USA Today/Gallup poll shows that Americans support the President’s handling of foreign affairs by a 12-point margin over Romney’s, 52 to 40 percent.

The Governor’s international trip could have served as a chance to clarify his positions on national security and international affairs.  Developing an understandable narrative would not only have helped his supporters better articulate these issues, but would have also benefitted the national dialogue and the American people.  Instead, he made a series of gaffes that sounded more like a chorus of “Don’t Call Me, Maybe?”  And that doesn’t make for a hit in any season, especially campaign season.

Jessie Daniels is a Truman Security Fellow

First, there’s the overall impact on the economy.  A recent estimate found that the sanctions are costing Iran more than $3 billion per month as its oil exports drop to half of what they were last year.  Moreover, Iran’s mismanagement of its economy is adding to the impact, as the New York Times described:

“[E]conomists also agree that much of the damage to the economy has been self-inflicted, saying that the Ahmadinejad government went on an import spending spree after oil revenues started hitting record levels from 2005 on.”

With the government buying so many goods from abroad, many domestic producers were forced to lay off workers and close factories. That, in turn, has made Iran more vulnerable to international sanctions, they say. Companies that might have helped produce goods to replace those blocked by sanctions have long since gone out of business, as the owners shifted their wealth to speculation, building and selling properties, foreign currency or raw materials.”

Some Iranian rhetoric may make things seem rosy – President Ahmadinejad contends that the sanctions have been good for the economy – and Iran has taken a hard line on the suspension of its nuclear program.  But cracks in the armor are also emerging.  Mohsen Rezaie, the Secretary of the advisory body to the Supreme Leader known as the Expediency Council (and Ahmadinejad’s rival in the last presidential campaign), offered a rare public acknowledgement that the sanctions are hurting the Iranian economy.   As well, Mohammed-Hassan Asferi, a Member of Parliament’s national security and foreign policy committee, suggested that Iran could consider a temporary suspension of 20 percent enrichment activity if, among other things, the P5+1 (the United States, Britain, France, China, Russia, and Germany) met its enrichment needs and lifted the sanctions.

Then there was the recent Islamic Republic of Iran News Network (IRINN) poll asking Iranians, “Which way do you prefer to confront the unilateral sanctions of the West against Iran?” In a shock, 63 percent of respondents chose “the suspension of uranium enrichment in exchange for gradual lifting of sanctions”, far outweighing the percentage of those who chose resisting the sanctions (18 percent) or closing the Straits of Hormuz (19 percent).  The results set off a firestorm in Iran and IRINN quickly removed the poll from its web site, claiming that results were interfered with and that, in actuality, no more than 24 percent actually chose the suspension of uranium enrichment.  Even more interesting, though, as BBC News pointed out, is that state-owned media generally avoids policy discussions.  It surmises that the poll’s publication was possibly “a deliberate act by some officials in Iran who believe that the time has now come for a review of the media policy of the regime on the nuclear issue.”

At the beginning of this month, the E.U.’s oil embargo against Iran went into effect, further ratcheting up the pressure.  Later this month, another set of talks between the P5+1 and Iran are scheduled to occur.  The sanctions have already provided the P5+1 with more leverage in negotiations.  Yet, we also need to monitor the range of Iranian (and Iranians) reaction to these sanctions.  Managing them in accordance will be imperative to sustaining their coercive value.

Jessie Daniels is a Truman Security Fellow.

For example, our trade and investment policies are helping to create American jobs, as Deputy Secretary of State for Management and Resources Thomas Nides outlined in a recent article.  The President’s National Export Initiative – a plan to double the nation’s exports by 2014 – has so far led to a record $2.1 trillion increase in exports, which has helped to create over 1.2 million new jobs here.  Moreover, Free Trade Agreements – like recent pacts with South Korea, Colombia, and Panama – and increasing foreign investment are expected to lead to even more job creation, proving that “Economic Statecraft” is more than just a slogan.

While these trade and investment policies are creating jobs, our military is implementing a concerted effort to go green in order to cut costs.  While critics are quick to point to the current cost of energy alternatives, the military realizes that currently investing in the promise of homegrown, renewable advanced biofuels – which are expected to be price competitive by 2020 – is better than taking the risk of relying on a volatile global oil market.  The Pentagon estimates that a $1 rise in the price of oil raises its fuel bill by $130 million.  These may seem like just numbers, but the $3 billion unanticipated bill it was stuck with in fiscal year 2011 because the price of oil was significantly higher than expected illustrated the cost of this reality.  Our leaders at the Department of Defense understand that embracing sustainability is vital when the costs of not doing so are unsustainable, and that decision will pay off for the American people in the future.

The Pentagon is also taking a proactive approach to curbing its budget long-term, which is crucial to tackling our fiscal problems.  The winding down of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan is already saving the military money.  In tandem with these efforts, the President’s budget for 2013 would decrease Pentagon spending by $487 billion over the next decade.  Under this plan, we would still remain the strongest military in the world while also helping to reduce the debt and get our fiscal house in order.

These big-picture initiatives impact local communities.  As Deputy Secretary Nides noted, foreign investment by a Canadian auto company helped create 100 jobs in Michigan.  Meanwhile, American businesses, like those in the Minnesota-based Defense Alliance, are helping the military with its sustainability initiatives.  Finally, the money we save from decreasing the Pentagon’s budget can, if used wisely, spur job growth in other sectors.  A smart, progressive foreign policy is not only keeping Americans safe at home, but is also creating opportunities for them to prosper as well.

Jessie Daniels is a Truman Security Fellow. 

In the context of intense sports rivalries, this is clever. But that cleverness doesn’t translate to foreign policy, where failing to acknowledge realities has serious implications. Unfortunately, the foreign policy vision espoused thus far by the presumptive GOP nominee Mitt Romney can best be summed up as: #RealityDoesntExist.

Recent news reports have pointed to Romney’s increasingly hawkish stances, but his hard line hasn’t always been right on. For example, his bluster on Iran conflicts with recent American and allied assessments that the threat of Iran building a nuclear bomb is not imminent. Similarly, his threats to label China a currency manipulator and his dubbing of Russia as the America’s “No.1 geopolitical foe” have been questioned by experts and some of his own supporters and advisors alike.

Yet, Romney’s foreign policy positions are further fortified by Congressman Paul Ryan’s budget plan. The Ryan budget projects a foreign policy vision in which 21st threats are solved exclusively by the military: it increases defense funding but cuts important diplomatic and development tools that are invaluable to America’s success abroad. In effect, the Ryan budget is akin to raising the salary of a star player, but not wanting to pay to field the best team to play with him. Although this is not a realistic plan for the challenges that lie ahead, Romney has embraced it.

The foreign policy landscape has changed, even in the last four years. Since 2008, the U.S. has used its defense, diplomatic, and development tools to – name a few – kill Osama bin Laden, end military operations in Iraq, increase international pressure on Iran, and refocus toward Asia. We still face wide-ranging national security and foreign policy challenges, from dealing with a changing Middle East to cyber security. While there is certainly room for debate for different approaches to these issues, they are too complex to be solved simply by crafting a reactive “Anybody But Obama” brand of foreign policy. In fact, that takes us even farther away from doing so.

Moreover, the U.S. doesn’t need to unnecessarily offend important players that we have to work with on important issues, whether we like them or not. As a businessman, Romney should understand this well. But that is what his foreign stances could ultimately wind up doing on the world stage. A recent Associated Press article summed up the problem:

“The tough talk drives home Romney’s criticism that Obama is an apologist for America, soft on its enemies and too forgiving of its friends. It’s a message that might resonate with Republican voters, who sometimes tend to be wary of the rest of the world. It also raises questions about whether the rhetoric could damage U.S. relations abroad in the event that the former venture capitalist and Massachusetts governor wins the White House.”

And, as Vice President Biden noted in a recent speech, Romney’s “loose talk” could hurt us and help our adversaries, most notably with regard to Iran where such rhetoric could drive oil prices up and ultimately help “Iran’s coffers fill up.”

Some have suggested that Romney’s hawkishness is just par for the course – he must tack toward the party base in the primary, but will move back to the center in the general election. But given the height of Romney’s rhetoric and a budget blueprint that bolsters that rhetoric, it may be difficult for him to move back to the center, even if he wants to. Sometimes, the stronger your words and actions, the harder it is to take them back.

After Kentucky beat Louisville again, in this year’s Final Four, some used the hashtag #LouisvilleDoesntExist #Still to celebrate the victory on Twitter. Let’s hope that this current Republican vision of foreign policy doesn’t persist as #RealityDoesntExist #Still into the Fall and beyond.

Jessie Daniels is a Truman Security Fellow.