How do you change the perception?

[BILL]

The Strategy Page describes how China assembled a force few have heard about. In idyllic 1990s, the Chinese Defense Ministry established a research organization called the "NET Force" geared towards conducting information warfare. NET Force was soon joined by an irregular civilian militia; the "Red Hackers Union" (RHU). "Starting in the late 1990s, China assembled what has now become 30,000 Ministry of Public Security employees manning the Golden Shield Project (also known as The Great Firewall of China), and monitor Internet use throughout the country."

Excellent points: Hard Questions.
Here is a start: Not comprehensive but a taste.

I have read a number of good theories and explanations here at the Council, as well as a number of far-fetched propositions, and that by far is the worst I have seen in some time.

BILL, we have enough of a challenge keeping our equipment and TTPs up to date, and now you expect each of the services to maintain a "cyber" warfare capability? Since you did not define the boundaries of that capability, I'm going to go out on a limb and assume that you mean a dedicated element of Soldiers, Sailors, Airmen, and Marines who do nothing but focus on youtube-centric warfare with opponents who are conducting assymetric attacks against us (pushing their own internet IO, service denial attacks, and generic hacking).

Why does each service need its own force? Please offer some sort of force laydown to convince me that this is a good thing.

Consider the reasons you keep TTPs up todate. The same concepts, motives apply.

Also:
This is an arena in your theater of operations, "they" are using to great effect, some guy in a cave, Sets the Internet Paradigm.
And USA does not dominate this terrain.
I think each Force should be represented in each terrain they are being fought in.

Force Protection. Recent example, on Arabic forum posted "his" brother was starting a sniper cell in "X" small Iraq city, we made appropriate notifications the same day the post was made.

Closed cell penetration, forecasting possible.

and
If you win their "hearts and minds" you don't have to shoot them.
And they won't be shooting at you. KIA reduction.

Force Multiplier: In "Jawbreaker" they utilized no OSINT capabilities, and were using 10 year ? outdated maps they found at the American Embassy.

After Bhuttos attack, Pakistan Army was doing PR that "it wasn't them", and going on the defensive, and offering shopping lists of possible perps, while civilian blogs were posting al Qaeda claimed credit and link references.
The P Army could have been on the offensive instead of the defense with a good OSINT arm. Lack of info just made them look suspect.

It took the Marine Corps a few years to come into the fold of NMCI, and guess what? It works for crap most of the time and actually restrains our productivity to a degree.

I feel your right I have seen all the services represented in our Blog logs except for the Marines.

Staying current with the technology leaps every six months is not a job I would wish on anybody,

Great point, I hadn't thought about, we follow a few venture capitalist news letters that list all the new "social tools" and OSINT techniques and applications, although they don't always recognize those uses. The "Baby Feed" includes These news letters and the data they need to stay on top or up to date. We made our Blog 'cell phone friendly'
in 30 min. through new site they invested in ( Whole new demographic ).


especially since the program is guaranteed to teeter on the whim of budget constraints every year.

Yes at the start of WWII USA had very limited number of tanks, scary.
It will take time to prove its RIO, ( return on Investment ).
It has already lead to al Qaeda's back door, thru tracking webmasters, arrests, and hard drive recovery's.

I think the 'cyber warroir' gives you a new gun, force, Knowledge vector to guide Kinetic force.
A new terrain to destroy enemy initiatives, counter lies, propaganda, spin, track and target.
Bill