(By Joseph W. Koletar) On March 28, 2016, Niall Ferguson, Professor of History at Harvard, published his thoughts that to defeat a network such as ISIS will require a countervailing network of countries, agencies, and people in many fields.

This is not unlike the movie, The Imitation Game, which recounted the efforts of Alan Turing, the head of the British team that broke the Nazi Enigma code in WW II, saving perhaps 14M lives in the process. Although Turing’s team had the best and brightest minds at its disposal, he came to the realization that only one machine could defeat another machine. (The Enigma machine had about 159 billion, million, possible combinations, which changed each day.)

Thus, he built a machine called a “computer.” Crude by today’s standards, but it broke the Nazi code.

Professor Ferguson makes somewhat the same argument regarding terrorism. He argues that only a network can defeat another network. The ISIS network is not only leaders, suicide bombers, and fighters. It is a worldwide, sprawling thing of many parts, great and small. It may number in the millions.

To date, the U.S. and some other countries have taken a tactical approach to the issue (e.g. killing or capturing its leaders.) While briefly satisfying, Ferguson argues it is not an effective long-term solution. As an example, he cites the work of U.S. Army General Stanley McChrystal, who broke down the silo mentality of military service branches and created the Joint Special Operations Command (J-SOC in military slang.) It has been very effective, but its scope has largely been limited to tactical operations. It is trying to expand its reach but it needs cooperation from many entities throughout the world.

All of this is interesting, but what does it tell us about corporate corruption? It tells us that while the actions of a given agency or country are useful, they are limited in an increasingly international economy, where not only people, but corporations, and political regimes may themselves be corrupt.

What happens in China can affect Kansas.

To deal more effectively with an international problem will require an international response. (A “network” if you will.) It need not be some massive life-form housed in a great building, but does have to have the resources and willpower to agree that what hurts one hurts all. (China and Kansas again.)

Do we have such resources at our disposal? Do we have leaders, and organizations, and financial resources at our beck and call? Yes, and No. They do exist, in bits and pieces, but they have yet to form much more than an elemental “network” to counter the tide of corruption that has flowed through recorded human history for thousands of years (read the Annals of Imperial Rome, by Tacitus.) This is not new.

So, here we are: aggrieved, hopeful for change, but powerless. I disagree. From the mud huts of Africa, to the cities of China, to the halls of Congress, to the suites of corporate empires, corruption is our common companion.

To quote a line from an old movie:

“I’m mad as hell and I’m not going to take it anymore,”

Once we agree on that simple proposition, we may be on our way to forming a “network.”

© Joseph W. Koletar, 2016.

Join us for more insights into behavioral forensics (behind fraud and similar white collar crimes) from the authors of A.B.C.s of Behavioral Forensics (Wiley, 2013): Sri Ramamoorti, Ph. D., Daven Morrison, M.D., and Joe Koletar, D.P.A., along with Vic Hartman, J.D. These distinguished experts come from the disciplines of psychology, medicine, accounting, law, and law enforcement to explain and prevent fraud. Because we are inspired to bring to light and address the fraud problems in today’s headlines, we encourage our readers to come back and revisit us regularly at BringingFreudtoFraud.com.