In keeping with Politics By Other Means's venerable tradition of posting articles too long to read during the work week on Sundays, we bring you the White House Cyberspace Policy Review in all of its 76 page of glory (Pro Tip: You don't actually have to read the appendices).

Teaser:

The globally-interconnected digital information and communications infrastructure known as “cyberspace”underpins almost every facet of modern society and provides critical support for the U.S. economy, civil infrastructure, public safety, and national security. This technology has transformed the global economy and connected people in ways never imagined. 

Yet, cybersecurity risks pose some of the most serious economic and national security challenges of the 21st Century. The digital infrastructure’s architecture was driven more by considerations of interoperability and efficiency than of security. Consequently, a growing array of state and non-state actors are compromising, stealing, changing, or destroying information and could cause critical disruptions to U.S. systems. At the same time, traditional telecommunications and Internet networks continue to converge, and other infrastructure sectors are adopting the Internet as a primary means of interconnectivity. 

The United States faces the dual challenge of maintaining an environment that promotes efficiency, innovation, economic prosperity, and free trade while also promoting safety, security, civil liberties, and privacy rights. It is the fundamental responsibility of our government to address strategic vulnerabilities in cyberspace and ensure that the United States and the world realize the full potential of the information technology revolution.

Normally, we recommend the Sunday Afternoon Reads be enjoyed with a refreshing beverage such as lemonade or a beer. After reading this, you will probably need something a bit stronger. It's frankly scary how little progress has been made since the CPR was originally published in May 2009.

What do the Populzai, Alikozai, and Barakzai all have in common?

Don't know? Well then you need the NYT's quick and dirty 5-step guide to understanding the Afghan tribal system.

Nader Mousavizadeh makes the claim that the rogue state paradigm, so influential over the past 20 years, is dead. Money quote:

What Washington has failed to fully recognize is that the world that created "rogue states" is gone. The term became popular in the 1980s, mainly in the United States, to describe minor dictatorships threatening to the Cold War order. Then, after the Soviet Union collapsed in 1991, the main challenge to American dominance came from those states unwilling to accommodate themselves to the "end of history" and conform to U.S. values. The idea of "the rogue state" assumed the existence of an international community, united behind supposedly universal Western values and interests, that could agree on who the renegades are and how to deal with them. By the late 1990s this community was already dissolving, with the rise of China, the revival of Russia, and the emergence of India, Brazil, and Turkey as real powers, all with their own interests and values.

"Compared to 10 years ago, Turkey is more ______." The default answer from most Turkey experts for this fill in the blank is religious. There is some truth to this (I would argue that Turkey as a country is no more religious than before; religion has simply become more prevalent in public life), but I don't think that this rather obvious answer captures the most important shift in the Turkish psyche during AKP's tenure.  

I'd answer the question like this: Compared to 10 years ago Turkey is more confident. At the beginning of AKP's rule, Turkish foreign policy amounted basically to acting like a precocious teenager in response to the US decision to invade Iraq. Turkish foreign policy has since matured greatly.

AKP deputy chairman for external affaira Suat Kiniklioglu's recent op-ed in the Christian Science Monitor on the diplomatic spat between Israel and Turkey is a prime example of this confidence. Kiniklioglu argues that it is time for Israel to deal with the fact that Turkish foreign policy has shifted and understand that this doesn't have to be the end of relations between the two countries:

Despite some Israeli and American efforts to paint Turkey’s objections to Israeli policies as “anti-Semitic,” people in the business of statecraft understand very well where Turkey is coming from.

They recognize that disagreements between Turkey and Israel are likely to continue provided there is no recognizable change in issues such as improving the humanitarian situation in Gaza. They also recognize the complete and immediate freezing of settlements and the overall posture of Israel toward the peace process – if one can still talk about such a process.

I remember vividly the days when the United States criticized Turkey for engaging with Syria at a time when Washington and the Europeans were trying to isolate Syria. Today we see a full reversal of US and European policies; both the US and Europe now recognize that engaging with Syria is the right course of action.

Then, Turkey’s views on the Middle East were shunned and disregarded – in my view, primarily due to the inability to make the mental shift about Turkey and its new posture.

Now you too can read the confidential cables that the US Ambassador in Afghanistan, Karl Eikenberry, sent to the U.S. Secretary of State (and ultimately, President Obama) on his doubts about the U.S. troop surge in Afghanistan. 

Basically, Ambassador Eikenberry is arguing that Afghanistan lacks the civilian capacity to build on or institutionalize any security gains made by an increase in America forces. He doesn't think that Karzai has what it takes. Secondly, he points out that without any comprehensive way of addressing the Taliban's sanctuary in Pakistan, there cannot be a long-term solution to Afghanistan's problems. His alternative suggestion--basically more deliberations--leaves something to be desired.

Only in the United States do secret documents get leaked in part immediately and released in full 3 months later.

Justice being taken away, then, what are kingdoms but great robberies? For what are robberies themselves, but little kingdoms? The band itself is made of men; it is ruled by the authority of a prince, it is knit together by the pact of the confederacy; the booty is divided by the law agreed on. 

If...this evil increases to such a degree that it holds place, fixes abodes, takes possession of cities, and subdues peoples, it assumes the more plainly the name of a kingdom...

Indeed, that was an apt and true reply which was given to Alexander the Great by a pirate who had been seized. For when that king had asked the man what he meant by keeping hostile possession of the sea, he answered with bold pride, ‘What thou meanest by seizing the whole earth; but because I do it with a petty ship, I am called a robber, whilst thou who dost it with a great fleet art styled emperor.

- St. Augustine, City of God: pg. 112-113

Very interesting documentary. Check out part one. For most years since 1991, abortions have outnumbered births in Russia.

The common held view that life for our ancestors was fairly short doesn't stand up well to evidence.

It never quite made sense to me when I would read about the age of famous ancient Greeks and Romans, who often lived until their 60s, if not 70s.

Aside from dramatic modern improvements in infant and childhood mortality, which makes life expectancy from birth much longer, life expectancy for people who survive childhood has not increased that much from ancient times. People then regularly lived into their 60s. In the Old Testament (Psalm 90:10) it is recorded that the age of men is 70 years old.

Although its difficult to know for sure how long people lived in prehistoric times, 30 years old is not considered an old man in contemporary hunter-gatherer societies, as some parodies assume.

All in all, perhaps we have not come as far as we would like to think.

Political jobs would be torture for most people.  You have no freedom.  You are underpaid and over-bugged.  You lose a lot of your privacy.  You have to stop writing emails or saying what you think.  You don't get to read many good books or go for many quiet walks.  It's hard to be a non-conformist.  And so on. 

Yet it's really hard to get top political jobs.  So who gets them?  People who truly, deeply love the power.

- Tyler Cowen