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.
X
Elijah 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.
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: elijahvillapiano@gmail.com

FNS Independent Research Project

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

What's hot

What's hot (20)

Viewers also liked

Viewers also liked (13)

Similar to FNS Independent Research Project

Similar to FNS Independent Research Project (10)

FNS Independent Research Project