Critique of "Strike Back: Offensive Actions in Information Warfare"
This paper summarizes and critiques "Strike Back: Offensive Actions in Information Warfare" by Donald J. Welch, Nathan Buchheit, and Anthony Ruocco (2005). The authors argue that the United States must adopt an offensive posture in cyberspace, applying traditional principles of warfare to protect the nation's information infrastructure against terrorism. The critique evaluates their central claims — including the "center of gravity" strategy, the analogy to Vietnam-era defensive failures, and the call for legal reform — while challenging the feasibility of aggressive information warfare against decentralized, largely invisible terrorist networks. The paper ultimately advocates for stronger defensive measures and civil liberties protections over escalating offensive cyber operations.
- Introduction and Overview: Authors argue information protection equals military obligation
- The Case for Offensive Information Warfare: Targeting enemy center of gravity over defensive posture
- Applying Traditional Warfare Principles to Cyberspace: Classic warfare principles adapted to cyber threats
- Critical Evaluation and Alternative Perspectives: Counterarguments favor defense, civil liberties, and preparedness
✍️ How to write this paper — guide, tools & examples ▾
What makes this paper effective
- The paper clearly separates the summarizing function from the critical function, first presenting the authors' claims faithfully before challenging them in the endnotes.
- The critique is grounded in concrete contemporary examples — the Gulf Coast response, the London bombings, and U.S. nuclear negotiations — lending real-world weight to the objections.
- The endnote format allows the student to embed analysis alongside summary without disrupting the flow of the main argument.
Key academic technique demonstrated
This paper demonstrates the "summary-then-critique" technique, a foundational academic skill in which a student first accurately represents a source's argument before subjecting it to independent evaluation. The student uses the endnote apparatus creatively to layer in counterarguments, showing awareness of the source's logic while pointing to its practical and ethical limitations — particularly the tension between offensive cyber operations and civil liberties protections.
Structure breakdown
The paper opens with a paragraph-by-paragraph account of Welch, Buchheit, and Ruocco's argument, organized around three thematic moves: the urgency of information protection, the strategic rationale for offensive action, and the applicability of classical warfare principles to cyberspace. Four numbered endnotes then provide the critical apparatus, each targeting a specific claim. The final endnote delivers the paper's thesis: that defensive infrastructure investment and civil liberties protection are preferable to the escalatory offensive posture the authors advocate.
Introduction and Overview
In their essay "Strike Back: Offensive Actions in Information Warfare," Welch, Buchheit, and Ruocco (2005) argue that in the Age of Information, protecting the nation's interests against threats to the information highway is just as important as any military or social obligation that accompanies the war on terrorism. The authors proceed to explain that changes in how the country approaches these threats are needed immediately, but that such changes will require fundamental shifts in how people think about information and terrorism, as well as revisions to the laws governing these issues. They insist they are not advocating anything "illegal," since anything made legal cannot, by definition, be illegal.
The authors quickly invoke a Vietnam analogy to emphasize that simply reacting to threats is no longer a viable option in the 21st century. They argue that identifying more appropriate responses requires a better understanding of the nation's goals and how it should go about achieving them.
The Case for Offensive Information Warfare
To win a war more effectively, Welch and his colleagues suggest that simply throwing military might at an opponent is a waste of resources. A better approach, they argue, is to target the enemy's so-called "center of gravity." The war in Vietnam was a defensive war in this regard, and the authors insist that such defensive measures alone are inadequate. A more proactive approach is required today — one in which the United States assumes the role of aggressor. Given the elusive nature of most terrorist organizations, traditional methods of fighting wars are no longer appropriate. Gaining a clear understanding of the enemy and how it operates is therefore an essential element in actively prosecuting an effective war on terrorism.
Create your account
Always verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.