Cyber Command- Why Stop There?

[BobKing]

In Cyber Command - Why Stop There? I pose for discussion the creation of a new force. A "CyberSpace Force", created from the other services for space and cyberspace operations, just as the Air Force was created in 1947.

The full article is too long to post here. An abridged excerpt is listed below - I encourage anyone interested in the topic to visit the Joint Chatter blog and offer your comments.

---------------------

The Pentagon is likely to take the rare action of adding a new combatant commander, this one for cyber warfare.

Why stop there?

Why create just a cyber combatant command? Why not step back and consider whether a more substantial reorganization is needed?

Last year the term cyberspace was officially defined and last fall elevated to a new domain.

cyberspace - A global domain within the information environment consisting of the interdependent network of information technology infrastructures, including the Internet, telecommunications networks, computer systems, and embedded processors and controllers. (CJCS CM-0363-08)

To further the discussion, it is also necessary to present the definition of another domain medium from the same publication:

space - A medium like the land, sea, and air within which military activities shall be conducted to achieve US national security objectives. (JP 3-14)

With all of the redundancies across the various services, why not consolidate them into a new service? Analogous to the National Security Act of 1947, which created the Air Force from the Army Air Force, a 21st century reorganization could create a CyberSpace Force. (The exact name is not significant, using CyberSpace Force as a generic moniker.) This new force, formed from components in all of the services, would concentrate the existing disparate and duplicative efforts into one organization. No service would lose capabilities, because we fight as a Joint team now. Personnel from the newly created force would join operations and command structures as dictated by mission requirements.

As it exists right now, each the services are devoting significant resources and efforts into solving the cyber challenges "in their own lane."

(Full blog article includes examples of redundancy)

In September 2001, a day prior to the terrorist attacks, Secretary Rumsfeld pointed out "Each service branch has its own surgeon general and medical operation. At the department level, four different agencies claim some degree of control over the delivery of military health care." in his Bureaucracy to Battlefield speech of 10 Sep 2001.

Similarly, why should each service recruit, organize, train and equip information assurance professionals and other related specialties?

Each of the services would resist this reorganization, just as the Army did over 60 years ago. Looking back, are there many today that would question the wisdom of having the Air Force as a separate service? (Funding issues and differences in MWR services aside...) In addition to eliminating redundancy, all the services would benefit in that they could each put more focus on their core mission.

I first asked this reorganization question seven years ago, while on a field trip staff ride to Colorado Springs, CO as part of a Space Operations elective. The general officer speaking to us answered along the lines of "it may happen eventually, but we're not there yet." That time it was more about a space reorganization. Last week, while in DC to attend Phoenix Challenge 2009, I asked a similar question regarding creating of a cyberspace force. Generally the response was "good idea, probably the right thing to do, but we can't afford it" and "maybe in 20 years." Others suggested that it should be an agency - incorporated into, or similar to, the National Security Agency.

If it's the right thing to do, why wait? The cumulative cost of duplicated efforts, followed by an eventual reorganization, surely exceeds the startup cost of doing the right thing now.

Additional Advantages

This new CyberSpace Force, if done right, could expand the pool of available personnel. Numerous reports over the last several years lament the shrinking percentage of high school graduates physically qualified for military service. Why does a programmer need to run 3 miles? We have an entire generation growing up comfortable using the complex controllers associated with Halo 3 and Guitar Hero, just to name a couple popular titles. Does it make sense to say to them, "Sorry, we can't use you to monitor and adjust the orbit of a satellite if you can't do 40 push-ups in two minutes?"

Consider the stereotypical images conjured up of "uber geeks", college IT support staff or attendees at a hackers convention (e.g. DEF CON): long (sometimes different colored) hair, may not pass a uniform inspection, may not even fit in a uniform. But does that mean we should keep them out of the cyber fight if they are willing to serve?

(Blog article includes links to images of DEFCON attendees)

Many Americans may choose to serve that otherwise would not consider traditional military service. As Noah Shachtman (Editor, Danger Room) said last week in his keynote speech at Phoenix Challenge: (paraphrasing) the military is not a popular option in Manhattan, but there a lot of people that want to feel like they are part of something.

This should be a service and not an agency. In our nation's defense we need the ability to send people where and when we need them - we can't afford to face the same challenges other departments have faced when necessary to send their personnel "down range."

Questions

What are the advantages and disadvantages of creating CYBERCOM as a new combatant command?

Is it time to perform a new reorganization of the Defense Department, creating a force focused on the Space and Cyberspace domains? What challenges would be faced in a large-scale reorganization? What opportunity costs do we continue to pay by a failure to address the root problems?

Further Reading

Additional references available in the full article

[selil]

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.

First, I guess I'd ask the question of who this combatant command is going to fight? As a military force what are the targets it will engage? If from Krzygistan, Georgia, and Estonia we can ascertain the non-state actors were in fact non-uniformed adversaries, are you going to use a military force to attack these non-state actors? Under what purview of just-war or law-of-war will this occur? I'm just curious after all it is likely nothing but an academic excercise.

Second, if what General Lord (Cyber command provisional) said about 70 percent of all attacks being generated from inside the United States (backed up by CSI/FBI stats) will this combatant command be attacking United States companies and citizens? What effect will that have on posse commitatus or should we simply dispense with that as trivial in these trying times? I wonder where you are going to find a force that can act as an international military, a state militia, a federal crime buster, a disaster response agent, and can be found in all territories and states?

Third, this CYBERCOM combatant command will use what tools as a method of waging war? I don't want to bring up mutually assured destruction, but there it is.... My gosh I wonder what nation in a battle of the bits and bytes has the most to lose in a cyber engagement? In fact if you think about small wars, insurgencies and guerilla actions (there is really great website that looks at all that stuff) you might find the concept of an adversary using their opponents tools against them. Some guy named Nagl talked about eating soup with a knife of something like that.

Fourth, since cyber space I guess defined, as ill and mistaken as only the department of defense can butcher a well understood concept, made up by a science fiction writer (in 1984), who unfortunately is still living to laugh about it, exists. I guess since cyber space exists and is part of that woefully misunderstood information world we might think about those hundred year old treaties that talk about neutrality of the telephone system. The long standing tradition of spying but not using the telephone system of friendly neighbors to wage war. The various telecommunication acts and laws that are currently on the books protecting citizens and friendly allies should just be tossed out as well. I mean, all is fair in love and war, right?

Fifth, when you dig down past the world wide web, and burrow into the Internet heading towards the gold, you end up looking at the world bottom up. There floating below the Internet you have the kinetic aspects of military action available to your digital fingers (redundant?) and wallowing in the morass of the data stream all telemetry is accessible. Think about that wonderful global information grid "GIG" (beer barrel) model the whimsical military throws up on power point slides from times to time. As an aside does the military have some perverse relationship with power point? I like that GIG concept. All the people, procedures, transmissions, telemetry, command and control floating around in more than a bit/byte internet protocol world.

What could I do with all those command and control circuits in air bag controller systems you find in cars programmed in foreign countries? What might I do with the phase controller circuits on generators and power transmission equipment attached to a variety of networks? How could I operationalize kinetic stored power thousands of times more powerful than a nuclear weapon stored behind a major dam that is remotely controlled by the lowest bid contractor? What legal resources do you have to fight attacks against targets with minimal evidence of attribution when we can't even find paperwork for foreclosed houses?

When you operate at the C2 layer and no longer see the Internet as some be all/end all those pesky effects based outcomes (oops some general will be angry using that little phrase) become easier to operationalize. I know what we should do! Let's have a 60 day cyber investigation because 30+ years of research, literature, and recommendations just isn't enough to make a relevant decision. We need 60 days more.

I'm not sure creating a strictly hierarchical organization (likely top heavy with officers because that is the Air Force way), so an entrenched bureaucracy can slow response time, and erode effectiveness as only large organization can do, is going to be a good idea. Of course, you could make it really really really big as a large highly hierarchical organization is exactly how you should fight an insurgency that is likely following a swarm networked model of attack by intention rather than direction. It is always highly effective to have a strict chain of control in those situations where flexibility is incredibly important.

If that isn't your cup-of-tea let the National Security Administration do it along with the rest of the intelligence community. They will refuse to tell us what they are doing but they will spend buckets of money doing it. I'm not sure how the intelligence community would interact with the corporate world except to refuse to talk to them. The corporate world being the largest target of opportunity.

I'm a bit of contrarian.

[Ron Humphrey]

Originally Posted by selil

I'm a bit of contrarian.

But that little contrarian outburst of yours carries a couple of gems which better be looked at very carefully

[William F. Owen]

Originally Posted by BobKing

The Pentagon is likely to take the rare action of adding a new combatant commander, this one for cyber warfare.

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

Why create just a cyber combatant command?

Why indeed. Doesn't the NSA already do this?

Similarly, why should each service recruit, organize, train and equip information assurance professionals and other related specialties?

If this was indeed correct, then for the same reason each has it's own AIR, EW, and Logistic support. They are domain specific.

Why does a programmer need to run 3 miles? We have an entire generation growing up comfortable using the complex controllers associated with Halo 3 and Guitar Hero, just to name a couple popular titles. Does it make sense to say to them, "Sorry, we can't use you to monitor and adjust the orbit of a satellite if you can't do 40 push-ups in two minutes?"

because 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.

Consider the stereotypical images conjured up of "uber geeks", college IT support staff or attendees at a hackers convention (e.g. DEF CON): long (sometimes different colored) hair, may not pass a uniform inspection, may not even fit in a uniform. But does that mean we should keep them out of the cyber fight if they are willing to serve?

They probably look like that for a reason. If they want to serve why didn't they sign up?

Yes, I am being deliberately confrontational for constructive reasons. The armed forces is a not a place for the "physically and socially challenged" and Cyber is more than likely an EW activity and folks are already doing that.

[Van]

I second the previous comments about the "Cyber" element - No Such Agency has the ball, let Congress hold their feet to the fire about performance, information sharing, operations, etc, and require them to cooperate and collaborate with the FBI for U.S. persons issues.

Re: The Space element - Tying Space (for the sake of a convienient definition from the ionosphere out [ionosphere — That part of the atmosphere, extending from about 70 to 500 kilometers; JP 1-02]) to Cyber is as fallacious as tying submarines to aircraft. Yes, there is a connection, but it is not a natural or obvious one.

This being said, space is an operational environment waiting for its Billy Mitchell. And this bears considerable thought. Had that insubordinate, and arrogant fighter jock not made his case, the air force probably would have split off eight to ten years later and along TAC/SAC lines (with transport being divided similarly) rather than taking all armed fixed wing and almost all transport. If the services accept gracefully that a Space Fleet is a clear and unavoidable necessity, we can approach the organization logically rather than emotionally, proactively rather than reactively. For exactly the reasons Douhet cites for an independent air service to be organized along naval lines, plus the similiarities between a space craft with a crew of more than a dozen (and that seems like a logical possibility in the long term) and a maritime vessel, an independent space service should be organized along naval lines. Sadly, in the U.S. the more likely scenario will be like the air force. The Air Force split off the Army Air Corps as its main body, then made up the rest as it went. I suspect the Air Force Space Ops community will break off and then stumble through the rest of their requirements in a similar fashion.

And we need to get this one moving. Orbital kinetic bombardment has sooo much potential [energy].

[BobKing]

Originally Posted by selil

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]

Originally Posted by BobKing

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]

Originally Posted by BobKing

"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...

[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.

[BobKing]

Originally Posted by Ken White

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]

Originally Posted by BobKing

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]

Originally Posted by Ken White

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.

[Ken White]

As for 'containing' the armed forces by restricting them to military targets, that's easy in principle and difficult in practice. The solution is to define the principle and stick to it with full acknowledgment that there will be occasions when the civilian agency will want the service effort directed to an economic or infrastructure target that the services have morphed into access and there will be occasions when the services need the civilian agency to do something specific to a military target. That's called cooperation so it seems to me that cooperation can contain compartmentalization and compartmentalization will entail cooperation to effect containment of the other folks efforts. Or something like that.

The issue is that just as attacking the opponents population centers with iron bombs by an Air Force is no longer acceptable, cyber disruption of the civil side of things with the massive potential for physical civilian harm by a military force should not be acceptable.

Hybrid warfare will, regrettably, make likely that lack of acceptability a moot point and it may become a necessity even if undesirable but just as Britain's WW II SOE LINK used a mix of civilian and military assets to do a mix of civil and military tasks under firm civilian control, so the US Cyber Operations Executive should be under firm civilian control. That means non-DoD. Lest the bureaucracy stifle it...

[William F. Owen]

Originally Posted by BobKing

"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.

[Steve Blair]

Originally Posted by Van

This being said, space is an operational environment waiting for its Billy Mitchell. And this bears considerable thought. Had that insubordinate, and arrogant fighter jock not made his case, the air force probably would have split off eight to ten years later and along TAC/SAC lines (with transport being divided similarly) rather than taking all armed fixed wing and almost all transport.

Mitchell was actually a bomber guy if memory serves...

I agree with Entropy and Van on this...cyber doesn't need a new "service," it needs someone to focus an existing agency (and NSA is a good fit) on the situation and develop it properly. NSA is already a hybrid of sorts, with lots of military folks working with civilians, so no need to reinvent a wheel. I don't happen to think cyber command is a good fit for the AF. They have enough issues in their core competencies without adding a new one.

[Ron Humphrey]

Originally Posted by Steve Blair

Mitchell was actually a bomber guy if memory serves...

I agree with Entropy and Van on this...cyber doesn't need a new "service," it needs someone to focus an existing agency (and NSA is a good fit) on the situation and develop it properly. NSA is already a hybrid of sorts, with lots of military folks working with civilians, so no need to reinvent a wheel. I don't happen to think cyber command is a good fit for the AF. They have enough issues in their core competencies without adding a new one.

especially this


[QUOTE](and NSA is a good fit) on the situation and develop it properly. NSA is already a hybrid of sorts[/QUOTE]

[selil]

In my opinion with a civilian head of the NSA (I know generals get posted there), and another directorate the NSA with appropriate scoped civilian (non-contractor), military, corporate, and law enforcement support might be able to stand up in this arena. I personally believe in inherent governmental activities and don't support contractors/mercenaries as war fighters regardless of the history. I worry that the NSA signal gathering intelligence activity would be decimated by taking on an offensive role unless those two missions had procedural barriers between them.

Though Mr. Owen blithely enacts his own sig quote by tossing cyber out the window it is regardless of his opinion a multi-faceted, cross-domain, deeply entrenched part of the modern world, capable of real world kinetic effects. I imagine that the analogy of our current position in cyber is some dark ages king sitting tidy in his besieged castle watching the building of all those new trebuchets wondering what all the hullabaloo is about. The evidence is all around you of the possibilities you just have to understand the context of that evidence.

Many fine scholars of cyber have failed to understand the nature of warfare in cyber space. I had it pointed out to me today that most don't understand the technology under-pinnings well enough to grasp the principles. Sort of like the marksman who can't clean his own rifle, or perhaps worse. I don't really have a dog in this fight though. The longer the military doesn't understand the more relevant my dissertation when completed.

[William F. Owen]

Originally Posted by selil

Though Mr. Owen blithely enacts his own sig quote by tossing cyber out the window it is regardless of his opinion a multi-faceted, cross-domain, deeply entrenched part of the modern world, capable of real world kinetic effects.

Not quite sure what your implied gripe here is. I (Mr Owen) recognise "cyber" as important, in the same way I recognise EW as important. - and EW has a proven track record.

Now considering that networks are either transmitted in the electromagnetic spectrum or via physical links, then they use identical methods to those which the 100-year-old field of EW is well versed.

If you are talking about passive radar air defence networks being run off WIMAX linked Lap top computers, there is an obvious and real operational connection, which the EW community, with which I talk recognise, and are cognoscente of. So no big leap there.

Logically "Cyber" - silly word, - is merely an evolution of EW, in the same way that SIGINT evolved from COMINT, in the 1940s. Radar didn't change the EW game that much. It just gave them more to play with and I see "Cyber" as no different.