fns independent research project

Dr. Sylvia Presto

FFaaiilleedd NNaattiioonn SSttaatteess:: WWiitthhoouutt PPoolliittiiccaall SSeeccuurriittyy,, HHuummaann SSeeccuurriittyy PPeerriisshheess

A Senior Capstone Thesis presented to the Faculty of The

College of Professional Studies at New Jersey City University in

fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Bachelor of

Science in National Security Studies.

2016

Submitted by; Elijah M. Villapiano

Presented to; Dr. Sylvia Presto

22 December, 2016

“The end of law is not to abolish

or restrain, but to preserve and

enlarge freedom. For in all the

states of created beings capable

of law, where there is no law,

there is no freedom.”

- John Locke

Failed Nation States: Without Political Security, Human Security Perishes ~ 1 ~

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

In preparing, “Failed Nation States: Without Political Security, Human Security Perishes”

I wish to acknowledge my indebtedness to the wholehearted cooperation and wealth of

knowledge garnered from the New Jersey City University Professional Security Department for

making my academic venture a remarkable one. Dr. Hurley, thank you for your unwavering

mentorship; your passion for academic instruction is truly admirable. Dr. Cosgrove and Dr.

Rennie, both of you were always there for me when I needed your council the most. Ashley

Manz and Denise Melendez, you both have solved so many internal conflicts on my behalf;

thank you for being valuable team members of mine.

This research was inspired by Dr. Sylvia Presto, whose Current Security Problems class

laid the foundation for my narrative of the Human Security Paradigm and provided me with the

overarching thesis that would make the construction of this research paper possible. Dr. Presto

has been a great ally for me and I would be remised if I did not take the time to acknowledge

where credit is truly due.

NJCU brought out my competitive spirit at every opportunity, whether it was a dynamic

debate in the classroom, gripping the steel barbell knurling in the weight room or pre-checking

my scuba-diving equipment at the Aquatics Center. I believe the National Security Studies

program is strategically designed to accomplish one outcome, breed stronger American

leadership. As a graduate of the class of 2017, I am confident that the curriculum strives to

develop consummate professionals prepared to spearhead the volatile national security and

foreign policy challenges our great nation faces through academic commitment and a devotion to

public service. In Romans 13:12, God states, “We wrestle not against flesh and blood but against

principalities, against powers, against rulers of the darkness of this world, and against spiritual

wickedness in high places.” I am convicted, there is no other program tailored to aid my success

within the profession of arms, where life and death decisions are manufactured every day to

confront the future evils of this world.

This academic paper is devoted to the people who share common human excellences and

to those who are relentless in their pursuits to contribute selflessly to a greater cause then

themselves. To these people, I would like to express my profound gratitude for inspiring me,

uplifting me, and reminding me to continue pressing onward; Rusty Carkcuff, Jordan Allen,

Steven Call, U.S.A.F. Captain Johnson, U.S.A.F. Captain Murray, my father, Gary (who is my

biggest critic), and to my lovely sisters, Rachel Leah and Ariel Rae.

XElijah Moses Villapiano

U.S. Air Force - Reserve Officer Training Corps

Elijah Moses Villapiano


ABSTRACT

The following work provides a snapshot into the complexities of managing Failed Nation

States and the intricacies of establishing Political Security. This academic paper attempts to

focus on a geographic highlight of Near Eastern territories that are subjected to the probability of

failure with two action-points in mind. First, is helping ascertain what role in which non-state-

actors undermine the nation-state order of governance. Second, is understanding the danger

presented once non-state-actors are legitimized as a governing authority and the technological

implications that have contributed the third wave of diplomacy, “informationized warfare.”

These are the two pressing threats to the future of Failed Nation States that must be addressed.

Key Words: MENA, PS, HS, NGO, GCC, IC, UNSC, FNS, DoS, USAID, DoD, AOR, NSA,

CIP, SOF, CRT, ISAF, FTO, PRT, PMC, C4, INFOSEC.

Word Count: 7,843


AUTHOR’S STATEMENT OF PURPOSE

As a foreign missionary teaching English and American History to college students at

Miguel F. Martinez University and being escorted by the federal police throughout the streets of

Mexico City; I witnessed the rampant political disorder and civic instability that plagued society.

As a 2016 Ibrahim Fellow, I interacted with those rooted in the modern unraveling of the

Arabian Peninsula and studied the conflict transformation on the ground in five countries. As an

ambassador of these scholastic institutions, I see it as my ethical responsibility to put myself on

the frontline of global diplomacy. The training I am undergoing and will undertake with the U.S.

Air Force has only strengthened my character as an American Airman to continue engaging with

the world’s people. I am driven to command the language of American intervention abroad, so

that I may one day be put in a position to safeguard the vulnerable sanctity of human life. In Isiah

6:8, the Jewish Profit, Isaiah, heard the voice of God state “Whom shall I send? And who will go

for us?” and Isaiah replied “Here am I, Send me!” The obligation of sacrificing my well-being

for others is a principle in understanding my identity. This academic paper is much more than a

writing sample for graduate school; the action points expressed here will equip me intellectually

to impact my moral decision making abilities and will serve as hands-on preparation for my

active duty military career in the U.S. Air Force.


[THIS PAGE IS LEFT BLANK INTENTIONALLY]


THOSE WHO SURRENDER FREEDOM

Freedom of expression is under attack. The Middle East and North African (MENA)

nations of the world have garnered a reputation for suppressing free will; unfortunately, the

means of protecting individual liberties overseas are rapidly deteriorating day by day. As of

2016, the World Press Freedom Index published its annual Reporters Without Borders Report,

categorizing all sovereign nations and consolidating their freedom of the press rankings. The

report indicates that out of the twenty two countries that make up the Arab world, (out of 180

countries surveyed, Libya-164, Saudi Arabia-165, Somalia-167, Iran-169, Yemen-170, Dijibouti-

172, Sudan-174, Syria-177) over one third are considered closed to media inquiry.1 What has

been unfolding for the last two decades has been a culmination of sectarian violence motivated

by political instability due to an absolute collapse in the rule of law. These MENA nations have

been plagued by a lack of robust civil institutions, whereby armed insurgency militias have been

ushered in to act as stunt doubles on behalf of the government’s absence of taking responsibility.

There is an ever-increasing deficit of freedom to protest and demonstrate politically. A

Pew Research Study conducted in July 2016, found that laws prohibiting apostasy (abandonment

of religion) and blasphemy (sacrilege acts condemning God) are most common in MENA

nations, where (90%) criminalize blasphemy and (70%) criminalize apostasy.2 These are the

public policies of repressive autocratic governments that refuse to acknowledge the spiritual will

of their people.

The world is witnessing a true “Deep State,” coercively driven toward opposing any

initiative that favors democratic reform, a tactic that was heavily used throughout the Egyptian,

1 The World Press Freedom Index, (France: Reporters Without Borders, 2016), 1. 2 Angelina Theodorou. Which countries still outlaw apostasy and blasphemy? (Washington, DC: Pew Research Center, 2016), 1.


Turkey, and Iranian revolutions where activists were labeled as political prisoners in the name of

national defense. These governments use vague national security semantics to dance around the

vexing problems while attempting to justify the suppression of western media content and

accessibility of information. Take Saudi Arabia, where “antiterrorism” laws are declared by royal

decree prohibiting the common citizen from demanding constitutional revisions or social change.

The most alarming threat to the Arab world is orchestrated censorship. In short, it is a

panic campaign which illustrates the evil that America and its allies are committed to defeating.

There are two concepts that the international community must put at the forefront of the

MENA nation agenda to recapture the significance of an Arab identity. They are Political

Security (PS) and Human Security (HS). PS cannot be substituted by any other measure; one

cannot experience the benefits of HS without the foundation of political authority.

PS lacks luster in the Arab world because monarchs naively believe they can outlast

Washington’s locked-on approach to democratization. An alternative to strongmen rule and a

nation’s “controlled liberalization” would include four measures to undergird PS solutions paved

through democracy. First, promotions in public service must be based off qualified merits, not

patronage. A leader’s presidential cabinets are no longer selected on the validity of credentials,

consisting of scholars or professionals, but cousins and brothers of the royal family bloodline.

The appointment of military posts for example in Iraq and Afghanistan where throughout the

War on Terror, Generalships were bought and sold only adds to the ethical miscarriages of public

administration in the Middle East. Those decisions are carried out by autocratic leaders in hopes

of preventing a political cue. Second, engage school age populations. Capturing the hearts and

minds of adolescents trapped in war-torn territories may be a great way to uplift the spirits of

those unable to escape anarchy. The mission should be to restore nonprofits or Non-


Governmental Organizations (NGO) in these regions to provide deeper civic education, work

opportunities abroad, critical language training, and promote people-to-people community

engagement. Third, reconstruct border controls. The opacity of sovereignty threatens critical

infrastructure and does nothing to prevent conflict spillovers. A reestablishment of security

check points would provide MENA nations with the authority to disseminate resources and

oversee an interstate transportation, communication delivery, and trading highways. Moreover,

MENA nations would regain jurisdiction to collect taxes and draw financial revenue from the

goods and services flowing through the Levant, including the monitoring of arms routes and

reinforcement weaponry caches flowing to rebel opposition groups. Fourth, Develop

counterterrorism strategies to counter the Re-emergence of al-Qaeda; MENA states should

consider adopting legal amendments that impose sanctions and global ramifications of UN

Member or Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) States (a political and economic alliance of Middle

Eastern countries) that harbor, aid, fund, supply, or shield foreign terrorist fighters.

Retracing our steps to HS, HS is the unabated pursuit of ensuring the preservation of

human life (socially, politically and economically), emboldening the precedence of judicial law,

and the unwavering commitment to upholding the principals of universal human rights and

humanitarian law. When those three qualifiers are met, one has the basic formula for a thriving

democracy. Without democracy, political stability becomes dangerously fragile and makes it

tremendously harder for HS to transpire. The promotion and defense of a political democracy is a

pathway toward achieving global development and by default encourages the blossoming of HS.

HS is built on the philosophical premise of social ingenuity, empowering the people by creating

political, environmental, economic, military, and cultural systems that reflect the national


sentiment. When unified together, they can provide people with the building blocks of survival,

social mobility, prosperity and benevolence.

The UN 1994 Human Development Report analytically categorizes HS dimensions to

encompass seven categories (Economic, Health, Personal, Political, Food, Environmental, and

Community), this is not a comprehensive list, but merely an indicator of likely components that

balance and reach a state of equilibrium within the Human Security Paradigm.3

HS is dependent upon the assurance of sustainable development over a prolonged period

of time. HS is not a tool that can be implemented quickly. Alleviating the pain of human

suffering is done so by prosecuting organized criminals, denouncing state-sponsored genocide,

resisting the pitfalls of sectarian conflict, promoting equal political representation and fighting

for the defense of human rights. The concepts of HS as proposed by the Commission on Human

Security revolve around protecting the “vital core of all human lives in ways that enhance human

freedoms and human fulfillment.”4 HS by its nature is people-centered, people-oriented, and

people-driven, it always will be.

The people suffering from civil insurrection who pray for HS feel isolated by their

destitute conditions and abandoned by the International Community (IC). These people have

decided to die in dignity rather than flee in fear. As Colin Powell famously remarked in his 2003

speech to the United Nations Security Council (UNSC), ‘Hope is not a strategy.’5 A fair and

impartial election will not bring about democracy alone and pivoting the means of military assets

and humanitarian aid will never be enough to bring these people to deliverance. As a fortunate

3 United Nations Development Programme, Human Development Report, (New York, NY: Oxford University Press, 1994), 24-33. 4 United Nations Trust Fund for Human Security, HUMAN SECURITY IN THEORY AND PRACTICE, An Overview of the Human Security Concept. (New York, NY: The Human Security Unit, 2009). 5 Kenneth Pollack, Options for U.S. Policy Toward Iraq, (Washington, DC: Brookings Institution, 2016), 1.


son of this country, I refuse to accept this narrative, the MENA nations can rest assure, America

has their back.

HISTORICAL PRECURSOR

The building blocks of world order are built upon the premise of nation sate identity. The

elements of what constitutes statehood were and many times still today are linked by multiplex

values, cultures, and national interests (including geographic location, language, ethnicity,

religion, and kinship). This belief is a reincarnation of the international affairs theoretical

paradigm of Constructivism, where the ideals of a nation’s foreign policy agenda are driven by

the nation’s identity; that identity is constructed by the free will of the people and over time that

national identity can and will change.6 The most successful states are often born out of violent

rebellion, and once the victors of war rise triumphantly, the process of state consolidation was

rarely ever peaceful; look to the German unification,7 or the Italian reconstruction of

governance.8 From the earliest years of statecraft, the global consensus agreed that it is a noble

aspiration to take troubled societies and reintroduce them into the world as a functioning state.

What this insinuates is that the IC believes that the concept of creating a state is the only

effective means of organizing large groups of people in the modern world.9 There is much

evidence to present with great confidence that the order of the modern state is a failed approach

to governing. The last five U.S. National Security Strategies, beginning with 1998, have all

pointed to threats emanating from states that are deemed as Failed Nation States (FNS), using the

interchangeable language described as weak, failing, fragile, vulnerable, precarious, in crisis or

6 Cox, Michael and Stokes, Doug. U.S. Foreign Policy. (Second Edition, Oxford University Press). Chapter1, P(s) 7, 201, 307. 7 Snyder, L. Lewis. Varieties of Nationalism: A Comparative Study. (Dryden, 1976). P(s) 90-94. 8 See Synder (cited in note 7). 9 Hegel, Friedrich Willhelm Georg. The Philosophy of History. (Dover, 1956). P(s) 39.


collapsed.10

FNS tend to be among the least developed and most underperforming states in the

world.

FNS lack critical infrastructure and reconstruction experts, because of this; they have a

far greater difficulty achieving the United Nations Millennium Goals as compared to the

advanced world. Some of the UN goals include raising primary school enrollment rates,

addressing malnourishment, eliminating extreme poverty, fighting transmitted diseases, and

reducing mortality rates.11

These are some of the intrinsically most difficult conflicts to

spearhead and that burden is put upon states that do not even have a functioning political body of

representation, yet these states are expected to contribute. Making matters worse, U.S. foreign

aid packages and U.S. humanitarian assistance is granted to states that embody liberal principals

(democracy, individual liberties, free and open markets), under the Millennium Challenge Act

(22 U.S.C. 7701 et seq.), this precludes FNS from receiving the necessary fiscal means to meet

those obligations set by the UN.12

According to works published by the World Bank, FNS grow

only one-third as fast and have one-third the per capita income, 50% higher debt-to-gross

domestic product ratios, and double the poverty rates to that of other balanced countries.13

The Word Bank study also found that nearly all states identified in 1980 as FSN are still

considered “fragile” today.14

Combine this with statistical analysis that strongly estimates that a

fragile state is likely to remain in its unchanged deteriorating condition for approximately 56

10 White House. National Security Strategy of the United States. (Washington, DC: White House, 1998, 2002, 2006, 2010, 2014). 11 United Nations Development Programme. Millennium Development Goals. (UNDP, 2016). 12 The Council on Foreign Relations. Millennium Challenge Act of 2003. (P.L. 108-199, H.R. 2673, 22 U.S.C. 7701 et seq.). 13 World Bank Independent Evaluation Group. Engaging with Fragile States: An IEG Review of World Support to Low-Income Countries Under Stress. (Washington, DC: The World Bank, 2006); Chauvet and Collier, “Helping Hand? Aid to Failing States.” Oxford University Working Paper (2006). 14 See World Bank (cited in note 13).


years;15

along with the probability that the FNS experiencing a “sustained turnaround” in any

regard or given year is projected at a mere 1.8%,16

and this sets the stage for an unhinged

American response.

As it stands today, the U.S. does not have an official strategy or best practices doctrine to

manage the blunders of FNS. However, political pundits have done a fantastic job at creating

bureaucratic hurdles by creating larger administrations to dip their hands into the business of

ministering to the world’s people. U.S. foreign policy has been redirected to think that office

titles correlate to the demanding work ethic of diplomatic engagement. The Department of State

(DoS) created the Office of the Coordinator for Reconstruction and Stabilization to coordinate

U.S. efforts for conflict prevention and congressional response to failures of foreign

governments,17

or how about the DoS transformation development initiative which authored the

Office of the Director of Foreign Assistance Resources to determine need and allocation of U.S.

foreign aid packages,18

what about the United States Agency for International Development

(USAID) Office of U.S. Foreign Disaster Assistance that provide emergency disaster response

services,19

or utterly reforming the Department of Defense’s (DoD) nine combatant commands

that encompass various tactical and geographical Areas of Responsibility (AOR):20

U.S. Arica Command – Builds relations with African nations and Unions.

U.S. Central Command – Covers the Levant, operation capacity is 20 countries.

U.S. European Command – Works closely with NATO.

U.S. Northern Command – Domestic homeland security and civil support.

U.S. Pacific Command – Asian theatre, 36 nations.

U.S. Southern Command – Oversees 31 nations in Latin and South America.

15 See World Bank (cited in note 13). 16 See World Bank (cited in note 13). 17 State Department, Office of the Coordinator for Reconstruction and Stabilization. Fact Sheet: A Whole-of-Government Approach to Prevent, Resolve, and Transform Conflict. (23 August, 2006). 18 Office of U.S. Foreign Assistance Resources. F at 10: A decade of Impact. (Washington, DC, 2006). 19 United States Agency for International Development. Office of U.S. Foreign Disaster Assistance. (Washington, DC, 2016). 20 U.S. Department of Defense. Unified Command Plan. (Washington, DC, 2016).


U.S. Special Operations Command – Staging direct combat-action missions.

U.S. Strategic Command – Nuclear, space, and cyberspace realms.

U.S. Transportation Command – Creates joint mobility and force deployment.

all of which each command now boasts a new Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for

Stability Operations and a Defense Reconstruction Support Office,21

the official labels of these

offices contribute more than the lack of enduring impact. A brief search within the U.S. National

Archives and Records Administration will produce an extensive list of additional agencies from

the Department(s) of Justice, Agriculture, Interior, Commerce, and Defense that assume some

sense of responsibility for handling foreign affairs. Nationally recognized analysts would agree

in harmony that the U.S. approach to FNS is a disheveled amalgamation of names, irrelevant

policies, and ineffective programs. Criticism from officials, points to overlapping and redundant

controls, a lack of specific strategy to pinpoint and execute plans and cross-agency guidance

which only blurs the chain-of-command and interrupts a seamless availability to access critical

information.22

Never-mind American led efforts, the UN has orchestrated a willing coalition of

multilateral international organizations, 34 to be precise, all which specialize in the process of

nation-building.23

With all of these resources at direct disposal, it is hard to imagine a world

where little to no progress has been made.

The answer of why little to no impact has been made is quite more complicated. In

simple terms, America has abandoned its commitment to strengthening weakened states; in the

larger imposing paradigm, this is not America’s own doing, but rather an erosion of the modern

state’s capacity to prevent or mitigate conflict, protect its civilians, promote regional stability or

21. Serafino, M Nina. Peacekeeping and Related Stability Operations: Issues of U.S. Military Involvement. (Congressional Research Service, Washington, DC, 18 May, 2006). 22 Brown and Patrick. Beyond Goldwater-Nichols: U.S. Government and Defense Reform for a New Strategic Era. (Center for Strategic and International Studies, Phase II Report, 2007). See Defense Science Board Task Force (2005). 23 United Nations. Funds, Programmes, Specialized Agencies and Others. (New York, NY, 2016).


enforce the just application of judicial law. This leads many scholars to question if nation-states

will continue to act as the dominant unit of global order. The genuine viability of statehood is a

fair and important dialogue to bring forward, but what would be another alternative to

governance? With memory serving as our intellectual compass, there were many trials and

tribulation of political arrangements that were forsaken:

Colonial Imperialism (Governing of a territory without significant settlement or consent

of the host nation).

Territorial Dependencies (A nation-state that does not possess whole political

independence but remains partially detached from the controlling state to operate freely).

Condominia (Where joint sovereignty is enacted by two or more nations and the territory

is never actually “owned” but “rented,” hence, “condominiums.” Condominas flourished under

the joint control of Bosnia by the Ottoman Empire and Austria-Hungary from 1878-1908).24

Protectorates (Whereby security maximization is provided to the unfit nation, the

protectorate nation-state controls the subordinate nation-state, essentially keeping the protected

state under seize. The relationship is based on a Quid-Pro-Pro philosophy to meet specific

obligations by either party. Modern examples of British protected states would be Oman, The

Persian Gulf States (Qatar, Kuwait, Bahrain), and Brunei).25

Government Mandates (The operating authority wields legitimate authority granted by a

constituency (We The People) to act as the nation-state representative (Congress). America’s

representative democracy would be the most significant example).

24 Perritt, Jr. H. Henry. Structures and Standards for Political Trusteeship. (8 UCLA Journal of International Law and Foreign Affairs 385, 2003). 25 United Kingdom Government. Protectorates and Protected States. (Government uploads, Data File#268033).


Trusteeships (Public administration of a country’s internal and external affairs are

regulated or commissioned by the UN. Trustee Agreements which were crafted by the

Trusteeship Council in 1994, Chapter XIII, of the UN Charter authorizes this for examining and

undertaking special missions within the selected territories. Some examples of UN Trusteeships

include Greenland, Cambodia, Vietnam, Fiji and many more).26

Dubious Sovereignty (As seen with the disputed territories of Judea and Samaria).

It would be dangerous to undermine international law and order by suggesting that

societies may flourish from another method of political representation other than the modern

sovereignty of statehood. If states ceased to exist, diplomatic lines would need to be refashioned

on the employment of “hard power” (inducing state compliance by force), “soft power”

(inducing state compliance under persuasion without coercion or use of force), and the new

developments of “soft power” (a combination of carrots and sticks).27

The National Intelligence Council recognizes in its “Mapping the Global Future” report,

that state failures and its regional implications pose an enormous cost in resources and time to

the United States that goes above-and-beyond the call of duty.28

Even more frustrating were the

official development assistance numbers at the height of Operation Iraqi Freedom in 2005, where

48% of total foreign assistance was controlled by agencies outside of the DoS and USAID who

should be spearheading the FNS conundrum; meanwhile, research also indicates that the foreign

assistance that flows to fragile states tends to be irregular, uneven, and fragmented from all

26 The United Nations and Decolonization. Trust and Non-Self-Governing Territories (1945-1999). (New York, NY), 27 Nye, Jr. S. Joseph. Get Smart: Combining Hard and Soft Power. (Foreign Affairs Magazine, July/August, 2009 Issue). 28 National intelligence Council. Mapping the Global Future, Report of the National intelligence Council’s 2020 Project. (Pittsburgh, PA, December, 2004).


major donors countries, including the United States.29

This catastrophe of operational control

reinforces the imminent threats to the successful implementation of Political Security which stem

beyond U.S. jurisdiction, and they are twofold. One, are the rising common phenomenon of Non-

State-Actors (NSA) accumulating and conducting a growing amount of governmental business.

NSA play a crucial role in the reconstruction and diplomatic efforts in foreign theatres of war

and peace. However, their widespread use has created an unstable dependency militarily and an

unsettling image politically. Two, is the third wave of diplomacy known as “informationized

warfare.” Bill Clinton’s 1996 Executive Order 13010, established the President’s Commission

on Critical Infrastructure Protection (CIP); this became the first national effort to highlight

emerging cyber threats and categorizing the developing vulnerabilities that would transpire from

the new information age.30

As former Secretary of Defense, Robert Gates, explains that in the

following decades to come, the most lethal threat to the security and safety of the U.S. stems

from a city reduced to rubble by a terrorist attack, more so, which is likely to emanate from states

that cannot adequately govern themselves or secure their own territory. Secretary Gates

continues on to suggest that “Dealing with such a fractured or failing state is….the main security

challenge of our time.”31

The political security of these nations must be built on a foundation of

human dignity, benevolence, and a mutual reassurance to uphold the vulnerable sanctity of

human life.

29 OECD-DAC Fragile States Group. (2006). 30 Anderson, H. Robert, Molander, C. Roger and Wilson A. Peter. U.S. Strategic Vulnerabilities: Threats Against Society. (RAND Corporation, VA). 31 Patrick, M. Stewart. Why Failed States Shouldn’t Be Our Biggest National Security Fear. (Council on Foreign Relations, Washington Post Op-ED, 15 April, 2011).


VICTORY FOR HIRE: NON-STATE-ACTORS

There are many flashpoints directed against the augmentation of Political Security and

how that change coexists alongside Human Security. The 2015 National Military Strategy put

forth by the Joint Chiefs of Staff critiqued three prominent threats to HS as a whole;

Globalization, Technology, and Demo/Geographical Shifts.32

Globalization is furthering

international competition rather than refueling international cooperation. People, products,

services, trade deals, and information are transmitted without human intervention or a helping

hand from another UN Member Nation. Governments are becoming more anonymously

independent, operating under the cloak of shadowy darkness, which strays away from putting

and ensuring the public interest first. Over time, this results in social isolation, community

division, and political instability.33

Technology has provided human civilization with privileged

access to a plethora of knowledge, so much in fact, that as the bandwidth access to information

expands so too will the capabilities of public intelligence gathering. Eventually, the functioning

governments of this world will be competing against self-declared public intellectuals and the

brainpower of individuals who see their decision making as far superior to that of an established

government of a nation-state. With social media platforms (Facebook, YouTube, Twitter) it has

never been easier to cultivate a following of loyal support. Moving forward, within the next

twenty years, it would not be a farfetched miscalculation to suggest that public policy influence

may be cradled in the hands of solitary populates; thus, undermining the craft of democracy and

the strength of governing nation-states as an institution.34

Finally, Demo/Geographic shifts, the

world is not as round as it used to be. Youthful populations of Africa and the Middle East are

32 Joint Chiefs of Staff. The United States Military’s Contribution To National Security, The National Military Strategy of the United States of America. (Washington; DC, June, 2015). 33 Villapiano, M. Elijah. The Relationship of Human Security to America’s National Security. (New Jersey City University; May, 2016). 34 See Villapiano. (cited in note 31).


growing by unprecedented numbers while European and Asian hemispheres are set for steady

decline. This means the people of this world who deserve the protections of HS the most, may

not be the same people that need that protection ten to twenty years from now; creating an

unnerving, unbalanced, and unhinged response to HS.35

With globalization and the wide dissemination of information technologies this puts a

tremendous strain on the ability of states to govern. Growing connectivity and the wide

proliferation of virtual communities has resulted in the creation of global social movements

(radical Islam, Civil Rights Movement, Arab Spring, Amti-Apartheid Movement, Kurdish

Nationalism, Nazism, Occupy Wall Street, Pro-Life Movement, LGBT, Zionism, Black Lives

Mater, Wikileaks, Farm-to-table Movement) which have been the most effective means of

generating social change for at least the last half of a century. What this means is that the IC is

becoming familiar with the idea emerging of regional powerbrokers rather than states that were

never really states to begin with in the first place; the Congo, 36

Afghanistan,37

Sierra Leone,38

Somalia,39

are all examples of FNS, by technical means, they never truly existed as nation-states.

Using Afghanistan, the Soviet occupation threw the idea of governance into absolute disarray;

one could make the argument that because most of Afghani law and order is facilitated at the

local level, ethnic and tribal political structures (central authorities) never had the window of

opportunity to ground, stabilize and recover to exercise any effective control.40

Rosa Brooks,

35 See Villapiano. (cited in note 31). 36 Edgerton, E. Robert. The Troubled Heart of Africa: A History of the Congo. (St. Martin’s Press, 2002). 37 Williams, R. Paul and Schark, P. Michael. Report of the Committee of Experts on Nation Rebuilding in Afghanistan. (36 New England, L Rev 709, 711, 2002). 38 Fyle-Dixon, Mac and Morgan-Conteh, Earl. Sierra Leone at the End of the Twentieth Century: History, Politics, and Society. (Peter Long, 1999). Ferme, C. Mariane. The Underneath of Things: Violence, History, and the Everyday in Sierra Leone. (California, 2001). 39 Little, D. Peter. Somalia: Economy Without State. (Indiana, 2003). 40 See Williams. (cited in note 37).


from the Georgetown University Law Center provides a convincing case; the proposal of abiding

by nation-states is projected as an arbitrary solution, “in a world where the Solomon Islands and

China are formal equals seems hardly worth preserving-especially when we know that in practice

states are very far from being equals, 41

and that the state-centered international legal order

serves mainly to preserve the power and privilege of those in successful states at the expense of

everyone else.”42

This leads to an illuminating image where states will need to rapidly discover

the means to respond to powerful NSA. Increasing pluralism and diversity is aiding religious

groups, Multi-national corporations, and terrorist cell networks to fulfill obligations on behalf of

the government.

Using Iraq and Afghanistan as a case analysis of reaching self-determination,

Washington’s national security objectives strangeled that vision from self-actualizing, due to the

eagerness of leaving a “light footprint.” The fractured foreign policy landscape allowed for

American troops to be deployed overseas without a clear diplomatic objective in mind. Military

force and political objectives go hand-in-hand along with the repercussions of aysemmetrical

warfare, if one cannot clearly communicate the means to define both, then the solution becomes

quite simple, a nation does not go to war. American statecraft was built upon a message that

called for “diplomacy backed by force,” whereas today’s campaign embodies “peace through

strength.” These two opposing ideological positions craft the narrative that speaks to what is

inherrently wrong with leaving a “light footprint.” There is no feasible way to restructure and

reinvigorate a sociey if the NSA intends to do it ever so “lightly.” A light footprint means that

the longer American resources restrain themselves from entering and acting, the longer

41 Brooks, Ehrenreich Rosa. Failed States, or the State as Failure?. (Georgetown University Law Center, 72 U. Chi. L. Rev. 1159-1196, 2006). 42 Goldstein, Judith. Introduction: Legalization and World Politics. (MIT, 2001).


America’s enemies will have to prepare, the more battle-hardened tested they will become and

this surely would only increase the likely probability of collateral damage. A light footprint

sends an urgent message to the Afghani and Iraqi people that death is most certain. In all reality,

the endorsement of leaving a light footprint is always the weakest military option available. A

nation is either heavily engaged, or heavily disengaged.

The Afghan people longed for commitment, they sought after stability, they yearned for

heavy engagement, they trusted the men covered in Battle Dress Uniform, sporting kevlar plate

carriers with the distressed infrared American flag patch mounted high up on their right

shoulders. Instead, U.S. Central Command Commander, General Tommy Franks, whose prior

AOR encompassed the Middle East, envisioned a hair-splitting total of 10,000 American ground

forces along with durable helicopter assault crews and in-country air support.43

This would help

lead the charge of initial proposals to the early defection of American combat forces originally

set for 2004. By entertaining this strategy, Washington effectively stiff-armed the noble

aspirations of the Iraqi and Afghani people, leaving an entire civilization ostracized. Slowly but

surely those who felt marginalized began to resort back to the emerging insurgency that

transitioned into the third intifada (Arabic translation – an religious revolt or political uprising).

The commencement of Operation Iraqi Freedom was wildly successful initially, with a small

convoy of 300 U.S. Special Operation Forces (SOF) dismanteling a vast majority of Al’Quaeda

network strongholds. What the DoD failed to plan for contingency wise would be the

desovement of the Iraqi Army and the security vacum that formed as a result which drew in

foreign fighters from across the Gulf States. This abysmal strategy that led to the adoption of

these sad state of affairs became commonly known as the Lead Nation strategy.

43 Franks, Tommy with McConnell, Malcom. American Soldier. (Reagan Books, p.324, 2004).


Lead Nation strategy is a popular international development tool that is used to priortize

reconstruction efforts. Here, support in the arenas of finance, technology, trade, labor, food,

physical security, and sustainable energy, are tackeled by more powerful countries whose

geostatic reach and contributions will leave a long-term lasting affect. The structure is set up so

one nation will typically spearhead the brunt of the workload, while the contributing second-

string international donors and assortment of other countries await for further instructions. With

the case of Afghanistan, the nation-building collaboration was divided into priority sectors; the

United Kingdom became the lead nation for counternarcotics, the United States became the lead

nation to rebuild the Afghan National Army, Germany became the lead nation taking on

retraining the Afghan National Police Force, Japan was the lead nation charged with disarming

existing tribal militias, and Italy’s priority as a lead nation was to establish a Judiciary; this

puzzeling arrangement of authority became dysfunctionally disasterous.44

Some states could not

contribute adequete resources to sustain a response that would be considered effective. Germany

only had twelve commissioners working to retrain an entire Afghan police force, it took Italy

over a year to begin assigning judges and legal staff to serve overseas in such a capacity with no

return date (nevermind that the Italian judicial system is notoriously corrupt), the Bristish were

highly successful in apprehending narcotics traffickers but there was no functioning legal system

to prosecute and punish.45

Combine this mangeled diplomatic projection of Cross Fuctional

Teamwork (CRT) with the starteling revelation that NATO would assume command and control

of the International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) of Iraq and Afghanistan, and one can

predict with a high degree of confidence which way this science project would turn out. To

capture the significance of the unmitigated circumstances or utter chaos that ensued, when

44 Waltz, G. Michael. Warrior Diplomat. (University of Nebraska Press, Potomac Books, p.30, 2014). 45 See Waltz. (cited in note 44).


soldiers from NATO are deployed, each country has dimetrically opposite or opposing

regulations on which combat-centric missions their soldiers are allowed by law to engage in.

Additionally, these forces are accompanied by an attache who acts as the national respresentative

from each country and whose orders could potentially trump the ISAF commander’s orders.46

Foreign Terrorist Organizations (FTO) seized upon this window of opportunity and seized it by

taking advantage of less capable and less resilient NATO forces.

As the Providencial Reconstruction Teams (PRT) attempts moved along unremittingly, to

this day they have largely failed. On the opposite side of the ideological spectrum, now that

powerful states were woefully unsuccessful in establishing benevolent change, why would any

Peace Corps volunteer, subject matter expert, or NGO be incentivized to donate their time and

attention a failing cause? There became an insufficient imbalance between military personnel

and civilian reconstruction experts that were intended to assume leadership roles. The DoS could

not find Foreign Service Officers to relocate because on a normal career trajectory, an

assignment to a PRT was unsual and did nothing for reaching promotion tracklines. Along with

USAID, the manpower was simply not there when it needed to be. According to records, USAID

and the DoS working in conjuction were able to deploy 1,000 civilian personnel during the

height of the Vietnam War;47

Secretary Robert Gates testified before Congress in which he stated

that, “When I left government they had about 16,000 employees, dedicated experts who were

deployed, who were accustomed to working in insecure conditions in developing countries, and

46 North Atlantic Treaty Organization. ISAF’s mission in Afghanistan (2001-2014) (Archived). (Brussels, Belgium). 47 See Waltz. (cited in note 44).


all the specialties: agronomy, rule of law, education. When I came back into government in 2006

[USAID and DoS] had 3,000 employees and mainly was a contracting agency.”48

Aside from the historical context, another inference that can be plainly drawn is that the

growing Private Military Contrating (PMC) occupational specialty that was born out of a dire

need for underrepresented countries to assert their authority upon a particular region or to

provide a time bufferzone for the weakened state to prosper (PMC would fulfill actions on behalf

of the state which could not be facilitated). It is important to note, that although the PMC

industry choosees to broadcast their affairs as being strictly related to enhancing peacekeeping

operations, humanitarrian rescue missions, project management, sturctural engineering, and other

human services; this creates an obscure illusion far from the unvarnished truth. It would be naïve

to believe that private military corperations are solely interested in accepting government

contracts that only foster global good will. In fact, many times their work abroad incites more

violence in this world and has only donated to the unethical privatization of warefare.

Legitimate NGO and NSA are needed to guide the interactions of government, but they are not

designed to manhandle governmental affairs. At no point in time should a NSA assume temporary

authority, this is one of the root causes of FNS. A great proposal would be the reformed installation of an

Active Response Corps, which reinvigorates the philosophy of civilians being the “first responder” to

uplift their communities and provide the surge capacity to support and sustain U.S. stabilization and

reconstruction efforts abroad.49

Now, if a NSA does obtain credentialed access to assume command to

govern, with modern technology, it is frightening to imagine and even more ignorant to assume that NSA

will abide by international law.

48 Baron, W. David. Gates: ‘Congress Is Part of the Problem’ in State, USAID Shortfalls. (23 Aug, 2010). 49 Wyler, Sun Liana. Weak and Failing States: Evolving Security Threats and U.S. Policy. (Congressional Research Service, 11 January 2008).


TECHNOLOGY IN THE HANDS OF THE ENEMY:

ETHICAL DILLEMAS & LEGAL IMPLICATIONS

To explore the realm of the new cyber nexus we must first grasp the legal language

engulfing cyber-warfare that has dramatically altered the scope and application of today’s

battlespace. Before the United Nations Charter was drafted in 1945, there was no standard

international consensus on what measures created legitimate authority to wage war. There are

four critical components that integrate the UN Charter with the Laws of Armed Conflict. First,

Article I of the UN Charter, recognizes human rights as a universal principal stating that any

being is entitled to self-determination, protecting the vital core of all human life in ways that

enhance human freedoms and human fulfillment (economically, socially, politically,

militarily).50

Any national government identified in committing atrocities that are sponsored on

behalf of state actions violating Article I, surrounding Member states are contractually obligated

by international humanitarian law to intervene by forceful or peaceful means to subdue any form

of state-sponsored violence that threatens human security.51

Second, Article II, Section 4,

explicitly outlines that a country may not wage war under any circumstance that compromises

the territorial integrity or the political independence of another state. Third, under the guidance

of Article 42, an exception to the rule expresses that a state may wage war, contingent upon the

United Nations Security Council approving military action (this Article was relied on in the case

of South Korea).52

Fourth, Article 51, clearly articulates that a state may only wage war under

50 United Nations Trust Fund for Human Security. HUMAN SECURITY IN THEORY AND PRACTICE, An Overview of the Human Security Concept. (The Human Security Unit, New York, NY 2009). 51 Dormann, Knut and Serralvo. Common Article 1 to the Geneva Conventions and the obligation to prevent international humanitarian law violations. (International Committee of the Red Cross, 21 September, 2016). 52 United Nations. ACTION WITH RESPECT TO THREATS TO THE PEACE, BREACHES OF THE PEACE,


the premise of collective self-defense; should an armed attack take place against a Member of the

United Nations.53

This is universally accepted as a natural right.

With these four standards in full effect, a peculiar legal question arises; when, if ever,

does a cyber-attack become an armed attack, and does the respondent retain their rights to

engage in acts of war as a self-defense mechanism? This is the where cyber ethics become vital.

In testimony, before the Senate, Lt. General Keith Alexander (former NSA Director and U.S.

Cyber Command Commander), explained that there is no international agreement on the precise

definition of adequate force inside or outside of cyberspace.54

General Alexander alluded to the

fact that because of this, individual nations or NSA (who will not subscribe to international

norms) may interpret different definitions and frugally apply varying thresholds for what

constitutes a legally justified use of force. This offsets the burden of legal interpretation not to

the international community (as it should be) but leaving it to the host agency conducting those

particular legal or illegal cyber-activities; so long as the agency’s interpretation of the law (at

that moment in time) is a reasonable one, compliance will stand if Congress has not addressed

the precise question of issue.55

In other words, Congress will provide organizations and

individual entities with the benefit of the doubt and the United States government holds no

warrant to limit the actions of malicious cyber activity outside its borders, even if that “agency”

is a byproduct of American Capitalist markets.

AND ACTS OF AGGRESSION. (Charter of the United Nations, Chapter VII, 216). 53 See United Nations. (cited in note 52). 54 Waxman, C. Matthew. Self-defensive Force against Cyber Attacks: Legal, Strategic, and Political Dimensions. (U.S. Naval War College, International Law Studies (Volume 89) p.109-122, 2013). 55 Chevron v. Natural Resources Defense Council. U.S. Supreme Court Docket [No. 82-1005]. (Cornell University Law School, Legal Information Institute, 25 June, 1984).


What this exacerbates is the difficulty of calculating proportionality of an armed

response. Excluding philosophical texts (Art of War- Sun Tzu), there are very few, if any,

modern war doctrines that value proportionality of response as a mission objective. There is no

legal language prohibiting a nation-state from proactively defending themselves militarily before

the attack has spawned. It would be an unrealistic expectation to leverage self-defense rights

upon UN Member states, only to respond to the aftermath of enduring an attack. With this, one

cannot justify escalation of force (overwhelming military might that surpasses the initial threat)

to retaliate in self-defense.

Moreover, this loose legal loophole eliminates the prospects of international

accountability. A cyber-attack may be launched by a nation-state or NSA from any forward

operating base; it becomes exponentially difficult to attribute cyber-initiated acts of war to an

authentic identity in space or cyberspace. Pfleeger, acknowledges this basic truth in his scholarly

research that computer crimes in general are hard to prosecute for three main reasons: (a) lack of

physical evidence to capture (due to unknown IP addresses or no physical tangibles), (b) lack of

recognition of assets (no one can foresee a state’s motive or national interests at stake), (c) lack

of political impact (hacking is a common occurrence in today’s realm).56

Now apply those

evident truths the international dimension where cyber liability is null and void with NSA.

Pfleeger uses the example of a cyber-criminal initiating an attack from country A, directing the

attack from country B, gaining access to an internet service provider in country C, using a

compromised host in country D, to then launch the attack against country E.57

Unfortunately, by

56 Pfleeger, Lawrence and Shari, Pfleeger P. Charles. Security in Computing. (Pearson Education, fourth edition, Chapter 11, p. 682 and 686, 2007). 57 See Pfleeger. (cited in note 56).


the time law enforcement are privy to connecting those letters and the Communication Data

Warrants are issued, the opportunity to seize digital evidence has been permanently erased.

With these conditions, there is no state responsibility to uphold if these attacks are

cloaked under the covert guidance of military grade cyber appendages. Additionally, if an attack

is launched by a NSA, then technically, a state would not have a strong foothold to respond

militarily. Theoretically, if the malicious cyber-action in question commenced without state

affiliation, then we are dealing with an act of “cyber-terrorism,” not, “cyber-warfare.” This

would render the victim state unable to respond under the legitimate right to self-defense.

Additionally, NSA are not UN members, and any action taken in defiance of the United Nations

Security Council or multilateral agreement would certainly render probable cause to pursue

further means of either bypassing or eliminating that NSA from interfering with state actions.

What is known about the current cyber-security-paradigm is that cyber-warfare violates the

fundamental commandment of computer ethics; which is “Thou Shalt Not Use A Computer To

Harm Other People.”58

However, as noted earlier, some nation-states and most NSA do not

adhere or subscribe to this philosophy, which is dangerous to imagine.

In summation, whether a cyber-attack inflicts harm or hostilities imminent in intent and

sufficient in its execution to permit or invoke a military response, let alone a response from a

NSA, this has yet to be determined. Restricting U.S. forces on the battlefield engulfed by the fog

of war is one thing, provoking a military response is another. America has been on the receiving

end of anti-access/anti-denial and anti-satellite weapons which cause the denial of information or

denial of availability to an opponent, which is a key aspect of Chinese military grand strategy;

58 Computer Ethics Institute. Ten Commandments of Computer Ethics. (Washington; DC, 2016).


defeating the superior with the inadequate and the inferior.59

Command, Control,

Communication and Computer (C4) functions are crucial to American military power. So what

happens when a nation-state or NSA takes it upon themselves to interfere with combat

communications using the threat of “Jamming” (electronically rendering a circuit or network

unusable by disrupting it) to interfere with American operations? Jamming along with every

other cyber-initiated act of war is at the sole discretion of the enemy. The U.S. holds global

military responsibility and by obstructing its defensive posture, by default, that cyber-attack

inflicts harm upon unintended recipients that ultimately causes excessive collateral damage.

Commander of U.S. Pacific Command, Admiral Samuel Locklear, pinpointed the discord; “we

still have to be able to operate the networks that allow us to produce combat power.”60

If one

was to deny or restrict a country’s combat power, there could not be a much more pronounced

declaration of war. The next step is the proliferating weaponization of space, which is primarily

due to a lack of international oversight and insufficient specificity in the Outer Space Treaty.

Informationized warfare has transformed into a third wave of diplomacy. Informationized war

falls outside the bracketed context of “hard” or “soft” power, and will require disciplined

Information Security (INFOSEC) professionals to provide a moral compass for the ocean of

developing information technologies.

FNS & AMERICAN BENEVOLANCE

Fostering global good will is a job that has been interminably abandoned by the United

Nations and left over for only blossoming countries to quarterback. To date, the United States

alone manages foreign policy assistance programs in over 100 nations and is projected to spend

59 Cordesman, H. Anthony and Kendall, Joseph. Chinese Space Strategy and Developments. (Center for Strategic & International Studies, Washington: DC, 19 September, 2016). 60 Heisig, Alan & Wilgenbusch, C. Ronald. Command and Control Vulnerabilities to Communications Jamming. (National Defense University, Second Quarter [issue 69], p.56-63, 2013.


$33.7 billion dollars for the fiscal year of 2016, and $34 billion planned for 2017, that is roughly

one percent of the national budget.61

Notwithstanding, this confirms America is the world’s

largest donor of foreign aid.

The most inspiring revelation about American generosity is that our diplomatic

consciousness does not discriminate. There are no qualifications or safeguards that hinder

foreign entities from receiving financial assistance other than being labeled by the U.S. State

Department as a blacklisted State Sponsor of Terrorism. Here is a thought, in totality; the U.S. is

sending eight billion dollars to our allies in the Middle East: Israel – 3.1, Afghanistan – 1.5,

Egypt – 1.4, Jordan – 1.0, Pakistan – 0.8.62

With that amount of diverse investment in enhancing

foreign relations, these handouts should seem sufficient enough to build a coalition to spearhead

this crisis.

Foreign aid as of contemporary measures is largely concentrated on two major priorities.

1.) Peace and security, which targets stabilizing operations (joint table top exercises/live

missions) and security sector reform (training/advising military personal), along with leading the

discussion on countering transnational crime. Procuring actionable intelligence to prevent the

expansion of Weapons of Mass Destruction programs remains vitally important when it comes to

underpinning counter-terrorism practices.

2.) Health epidemics (medical treatment/consultation) spreading across Southern Africa,

specifically, the HIV/AIDS pandemic. The structural integrity of human life matters, that is why

America actively reengages new innovative concepts that provide treatment for some of the most

potent diseases such as Malaria, Influenza and even more essential, the upkeep sanitation of

limited fresh water supply.

61 Foreignassistance.gov. Map of Foreign Assistance Worldwide. (2016). 62 See Foreign. (cited in note 61).


Attempting to search through for strands of hope for FNS is a common theme many

return to because there is not much great news to look forward to. Snapshots of world

development tell many according to the United Nations Development Programme, that an

estimated 14,000 people are infected with HIV/AIDS every day, 30,000 die each day of treatable

or preventable diseases.63

A quarter of the world’s people live in extreme poverty and 40% of the

world’s children are born in absence of nationality.64

Even more disturbing concerns the

percentage of world countries (1/3) that have experienced “serious societal warfare of one form

or another,”65

another study recounted 39 cases of genocide since 1955.66

A Pentagon official

reported that forty out of forty –eight nation-states in sub-Saharan Africa were and or are still not

in control of their borders and could harbor terrorists; this is excluding common countries on the

brink of becoming FNS such as Libya in transition of power agreements, Syria with sectarian

violence, Turkey with its recent political cue, and Greece with its recent financial crisis.67

These stark realities do not apply to and deter the men and women who believe in

liberating the human spirit. President Woodrow Wilson addressed a joint session of Congress in

1918 as World War I closed its curtains; he pointed to the transformation of MENA and

demanded that non-Turkish speaking nationalities that were ruled by the Ottoman Empire be

reassured the, “undoubted security of life and an absolutely unmolested opportunity of

autonomous development.”68

The Arab world clenched onto those words and never let go.

Wilson’s name became a household favorite across the Levant and his mandate rebuked the

63 United Nations Development Programme. Human Development Report 2002-2010. (2016). 64 See United Nations. (cited in note 63). 65 Marshall, G. Monty and Gurr Robert Ted. Peace and Conflict 2003. (Maryland, 2003). Hylland, Thomas Eriksen. Ethnicity and Nationalism: Anthropological Perspectives. (Pluto, 1993). 66 Goldstone A. Jack and Ulfelder, Jay. How to Construct Stable Democracies. (Wash Q 9, 11 Winter, 2004). 67 See Cox, Michael. (cited in note 6). 68 See Cox, Michael. (cited in note 6).


autocratic regimes, while lifting the cloth being used to suffocate the freedom of their people.

There is no right to Political Security and there is certainly no right to statehood. Human Security

on the other hand is an anomaly to the rule. America will be there when duty calls, knocking on

doorsteps to ensure of it.


AUTHOR’S BIOGRAPHY

My close friends know me by my call sign as, “Ironman.” I am a graduating senior at New

Jersey City University, completing my B.S. in National Security Studies. Simultaneously, I

currently serve with the U.S. Air Force Reserve Officer Training Corps; with high aspirations

of conducting ISR operations and crafting counterterrorism defense strategies.

I am a staunch supporter of the Second Amendment, working part-time as an NRA Firearms

Instructor (Rifle, Shotgun, Pistol) and Range Safety Officer. I am very proud of the work I do to

develop the public’s firearms skill sets and I know I am making a direct contribution to the

fortification of a well-regulated, ethically abiding, American militia, one safe shooter at a time.

My near future aspirations include attending the U.S. Army’s Air Assault School in the fiscal

year of 2017, becoming a certified Emergency Medical Technician and attending Georgetown

University to pursue my M.P.S. in Applied Intelligence.

I would define myself as someone who enjoys the high octane thrills of athletic competition or

problem-solving under stress. Being raised in Hell’s Kitchen, New York City, I became a coffee

connoisseur and a political wonk at heart. My hobbies include baking with my two sisters

(Rachel & Ariel) and rescue athlete training. Please feel free to contact me directly with any

inquiries or professional development offers at: [email protected]

fns independent research project

Documents