Gents: we need some intellectual honesty and parameters in this debate.
Are we talking about this topic in broad and academic terms, unconstrained by actual policy? Clearly two correspondents here are not focused on the processes by which the DOD funds it's operations, and therefore how DOD can posture itself to operate in this new realm.
It is cute and smarmy to rail against "concrete thinkers" when the subject of doctrine is raised. And, if correspondents are not actually responsible for implementing policy, it is easy to claim to have the answers.
Want to know why the non-DOD interagency is handcuffed? They don't have anything akin to "doctrine" and therefore no way to justify the capabilities it requires to operate in the cyberspace domain. Consequently, they are unfunded or woefully underfunded.
Private concerns or other Nation-States may not use the term "doctrine" but they have something like it that helps them establish parameters for what they want to be able to do, how they want to operate in cyberspace, how they will defend and, if such is in their interest, how to conduct offensive operations.
Originally Posted by Brett Patron
Bookmarks