Traditional threats to national security are still relevant

I have always been fascinated by the "Middle Road" philosophy, somewhat inspired by Aristotle's "Ethics", and in more modern times, by Popper's approach to social processes. In the specific context of national security strategy and intelligence, I am constantly thinking about the balance between conservatism and innovation. Between remembering the past, yet understanding that history never truly repeats itself. Never preparing for the previous war, yet acknowledging that not everything changes overnight. Analyzing the "future of warfare" does not mean forgetting the "history of warfare".

Now, think about several events in the context of strategy. First, just recently, a failed mass terrorist attack, intended to hijack an airplane on its way from the UAE to Israel. Second, the Hamas mass surprise attack and invasion into Israel in October 2023. Third, the Russian military invasion into Ukraine in 2022. All these events might seem like they reflect traditional and even obsolete challenges. Plane hijacking? Reminds us of 9/11 in 2001, or perhaps of 1970s terrorism. A mass surprise military attack and and invasion into a sovereign country, in order to conquer territory and destroy that country? Reminds us of 20th century wars.

Think also about several challenges in the context of intelligence. Strategic deception, such as that conducted by Hamas against Israel prior to October 2023? This once again sounds like a phrase taken from the Cold War age. Many experts claimed in recent years, for instance, that the battlefield has become "transparent". Technologies, AI, and OSINT which can reveal "digital footprints" - make it hard for adversaries to truly hide their secrets. But unfortunately, as seen in October 2023 in Israel, this is not always the case.

I am not advocating for an approach which sees the future of strategy, warfare or intelligence as not truly different from the past. Definitely not. This is, by the way, the reason for me rejecting lessons in the spirit of "back to basics" which are sometimes learned from military or intelligence failures.

But acknowledging idiosyncrasy does not mean rejecting knowledge about the past. And this is a good reason for strategy, military and intelligence professionals to remember the "Middle Road" philosophy. Don't assume that present and future events are always new. Don't underestimate traditional professionalism or knowledge about the past. But put this knowledge in the proper and current context.

Because as we can unfortunately see, traditional threats to national security are still relevant today.