USAF Cyber Command (catch all)

[BobKing]

Interesting concept, I guess from your comment about going to your blog you aren't interested in comments here, but I'll take a swing. I'm not very well versed in this cyber stuff, but you know what the heck.

While I'd certainly appreciate comments on the original article, that is not mutually exclusive with comments here. I'll continue to follow this discussion.

Many of your points are irrespective of what organization does this. These type of operations are already occurring. So the questions you pose are beyond theoretical.

As far as Posse Comitatus, that Act had the intention of "substantially limiting the powers of the federal government to use the military for law enforcement." The oath taken by every military member includes the phrase "I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic" (emphasis added)

There is a significant difference between enforcing the law and protecting the nation. I'll give you that our world is becoming more complex and it's getting more difficult to clearly identify those lines.

The intent of my article was not to address or question the legal issues. Rather, assuming this is going to happen anyway, what is the best way to accomplish the mission?

Tying Space [...] to Cyber is as fallacious as tying submarines to aircraft.

To a certain extent I agree with you, but the various specialties within the two fields have more in common than they do with most of the other military professions. I considered suggesting splitting off two services, but saw that as a "bridge too far" from our current organization.

Perhaps it could be organized as one at first, with an underlying premise that as manned spaceflight becomes more prevalent, a future split would follow?

An entire essay could be written just on the redundancies across all of the services in the area of space. I doubt the other services would stand idly by and agree to let their capabilities be absorbed by the Air Force, so creating a new force may be the only viable solution to streamlining space operations.

No such thing as Cyber "Warfare." Warfare is the conduct of war. There might be "Cyber Operations," but that is not war.

William - I understand your objection. That was a direct quote from the source article referenced. That subject of "[adjective] Warfare" and "[adjective] War" is central to ongoing discussions here at Small Wars Journal and our own CAC blogs at Fort Leavenworth. Example: The Nature of War: Has it Changed Fundamentally? and On War Modifiers (updated)

Oh, someone might want to tell the Estonians! They have a very high profile conference coming up in June - Conference on Cyber Warfare. The call for papers is long past, but it might not be too late for them to change the name.

...a fit body is a fit mind, and if he hasn't got the self-control and determination to get to do 40 push ups, I don't want him walking my dog, let alone part of my army. [....] They probably look like that for a reason. If they want to serve why didn't they sign up? [...] The armed forces is a not a place for the "physically and socially challenged"

This is where I vehemently disagree with you. First, they would not be in "your army" - they would be in some new organization, something completely unlike anything that currently exists.

Second, I know many people that are healthy - perhaps even "fit" - but that would never succeed in our current military due to their natural body composition. I utterly reject the "they have to look like me" mentality embraced by promotion and selection boards.

Third, our country and our military has changed over time. Minorities and women, widely represented throughout all our services and rank structures, were not always welcome.

I'm not suggesting changing the mold. I'm suggesting creating an entirely new one, with a new purpose and with a broader net.

To all - thanks for the discussion thus far.

[William F. Owen]

William - I understand your objection. That was a direct quote from the source article referenced. That subject of "[adjective] Warfare" and "[adjective] War" is central to ongoing discussions here at Small Wars Journal and our own CAC blogs at Fort Leavenworth.

...and I have been part of that discussion for the last 18 months. My views are pretty well known. War is war. It does not change. If no one dies, or no one is killing, it simply isn't warfare. Technologies and societies evolve, but war stays fundamentally unchanged.

Attacking a military network is an EW skills sub-set. My guess is the same for a civilian one. This is fairly well trodden since 1999.

This is where I vehemently disagree with you. First, they would not be in "your army" - they would be in some new organization, something completely unlike anything that currently exists.

Why? They would be EW operators. They would be part of an existing force, and they would have to conform to military discipline, and standards of behaviour.

Second, I know many people that are healthy - perhaps even "fit" - but that would never succeed in our current military due to their natural body composition. I utterly reject the "they have to look like me" mentality embraced by promotion and selection boards.

I am not looking to exclude skilled folks on the grounds of body type, but having trained recruits I can tell you that there are few fit folk who cannot get fitter. I am far more concerned about the mental attitude, which produces someone who wants to "fight," virtually or not, but lacks the discipline to get in shape to sustain his mental acuity. Doing 27 hours shifts at a desk, in an OPS room requires you to be physically fit.

I'm not suggesting changing the mold. I'm suggesting creating an entirely new one, with a new purpose and with a broader net.

Again, why? It's already being done by Military EW and NSA/GCHQ/CANAUSUS, for the all the "civilian" entities. Why do we want yet another entity that brings nothing new to the party?

[BobKing]

LTC Conti (Ph.D. Computer Science, U.S. Military Academy) provided the link to his new article (January 2009) after I emailed him regarding this blog post.

For anyone interested in this subject, his Is it Time for a Cyberwarfare Branch of Military? is in the "must read" category.

Army, Navy, Air Force, and Cyber—Is it Time for a Cyberwarfare Branch of Military?
LTC Gregory Conti and COL John “Buck” Surdu
IAnewsletter Vol 12 No 1 Spring 2009

Excerpts:

"The cultures of today’s military services are fundamentally incompatible with the culture required to conduct cyberwarfare."

"To understand the culture clash evident in today’s existing militaries, it is useful to examine what these services hold dear—skills such as marksmanship, physical strength, and the ability to jump out of airplanes and lead combat units under enemy fire. Accolades are heaped upon those who excel in these areas. Unfortunately, these skills are irrelevant in cyberwarfare."

"Ultimately, the role of fighting and winning in cyberspace is a military mission, which demands a military organization—one that can recruit, train, and retain highly qualified cyberwarfare combatants."

[Ken White]

"Ultimately, the role of fighting and winning in cyberspace is a military mission, which demands a military organization—one that can recruit, train, and retain highly qualified cyberwarfare combatants."

In fact, I'm pretty sure it's wrong on several levels.

I also submit that if we elect that route, it will adversely affect both the Armed Forces and our ability to rapidly react to and block or defeat cyber threats or, conversely, to pose a cyber threat to others.

Have you talked to and observed your DCSIM folks lately...

[BobKing]

Have you talked to and observed your DCSIM folks lately...

Ken - By DCSIM, I presume you are referring to Fort Leavenworth's DOIM?

I also submit that if we elect that route, it will adversely affect both the Armed Forces and our ability to rapidly react to and block or defeat cyber threats or, conversely, to pose a cyber threat to others.

Why? I don't understand. All of the functions currently performed would still be accomplished, but with "slices" or support teams from the core cyber service.

[Ken White]

Ken - By DCSIM, I presume you are referring to Fort Leavenworth's DOIM?

Those folks have a different drummer. That's not an insult, just a simple statement of fact. Ponder that for a second and hold the thought.

Why? I don't understand. All of the functions currently performed would still be accomplished, but with "slices" or support teams from the core cyber service.

I Have watched the armed forces add a number of ancillary functions over a good many years. Most of those functions, if they have a political element have been detrimental to the services. Each of those functions that entailed an erosion of focus by the services invariably ended up adversely affecting competence at core missions.

Thus I think that the loose attitude required for cyber efforts would adversely affect those military folks who came in contact with it -- innovation and initiative are desired traits in Soldiers and such but an excess is not going to fly (It really should but it won't). Selil's comment above is also appropriate.

The flip side of that is the far worse fact that the services would constrain the cyber hunters who need a license to prowl and no time constraints.

An old Cav Colonel was heard to say about reconnaissance "we don't have the patience to snoop; so we just go out looking for trouble..." I don't agree with him; patience can be taught -- the problem is not that the units don't have the patience, it is that some Commanders and a great many staff persons don't have the patience to wait for a good job and rush things. That wouldn't work in the cyber space battles...

I believe the services should be able to protect their own cyber resources and should be able to attack potential and actual opponents military cyber efforts. Any attacks on the civilian political or infrastructure and thus economic cyber activities of an actual opponent should be by a civilian organ under tight political control. Doing cyber battle comes under the heading of the old 'Be careful what you wish for; you may get it' rubric.

[Surferbeetle]

I believe the services should be able to protect their own cyber resources and should be able to attack potential and actual opponents military cyber efforts. Any attacks on the civilian political or infrastructure and thus economic cyber activities of an actual opponent should be by a civilian organ under tight political control. Doing cyber battle comes under the heading of the old 'Be careful what you wish for; you may get it' rubric.

How does one successfully compartmentalize and contain these things? Mutation/innovation rates are very high and last weeks fence may not be good enough for this week. Here's a biology example from Wired

At the time, hypothesize scientists, the pinnacle of life was the RNA replicon: a chunk of ribonucleic acid that didn't copy itself by making proteins, as DNA does, but instead pulled them from the primordial ooze.

Whether hammerhead viroids are descended from replicons isn't known. But in a study published Thursday in Science, University of Valencia plant biologists led by Rafael Sanjuan say the viroids at least resemble that long-lost link in the evolutionary chian.

Their traits could explain how RNA learned to make proteins — the next critical step towards self-assembling DNA and the complex life that flowed from it. And no other hammerhead viroid trait is more remarkable than its mutation rate.

"It's extremely high," said Irene Chen, a Harvard University systems biologist who studies the evolution of molecules. Chen was not involved in the study . "It's right at the Eigen error threshold" — the mutation rate at which replication becomes intrinsically self-destructive because every copy is so error-ridden.

[selil]

You are going to have a hard sell to a HIC military basically a LIC problem when you add an entire new terrain. I can give you a 100 kinetic effects via cyber delivery using primarily the principles of small wars. They will be ignored. The HIC world will simply not accept the parasitic losses on their c2 structures. I value the commentary of Col. Gentile highly as his arguments against COIN are the foil of cyber too.

[William F. Owen]

"The cultures of today’s military services are fundamentally incompatible with the culture required to conduct cyberwarfare."

History would say otherwise, especially when it comes to the history of EV commencing in 1904, with the Japanese.

"To understand the culture clash evident in today’s existing militaries, it is useful to examine what these services hold dear—skills such as marksmanship, physical strength, and the ability to jump out of airplanes and lead combat units under enemy fire. Accolades are heaped upon those who excel in these areas. Unfortunately, these skills are irrelevant in cyberwarfare."

Actually not true. How does military intelligence function then? How does the EW world function? The military has tons of skills relevant to so called "cyber."

"Ultimately, the role of fighting and winning in cyberspace is a military mission, which demands a military organization—one that can recruit, train, and retain highly qualified cyberwarfare combatants."

No one in cyber warfare is a combatant. They are an operator. I agree it's a military mission, with military organisation (and discipline and dress standards), but the organisations to do this already exist.

If there is any evidence to the contrary, I'm all ears!

[Entropy]

I agree with Wilf on all this, except that I think EW will eventually become a subdiscipline of so-called "cyber" operations and not the other way around.

What is the compelling reason/need for a new military service? I don't see one. I could see an argument for, perhaps, a new agency and, in fact, that's a debate that's taking place now. But a military service? Doesn't make any sense to me.