Cyber Command? CyberSpace Force?
As reported at DoD Buzz:
“The Pentagon is likely to take the rare action of adding a new
combatant commander, this one for cyber warfare. COCOMs, as they are
known, are the four-star generals who actually plan and fight the
nation’s wars. The Joint Chiefs, comprised of the service heads, have
no combat authority. They train, prepare and equip the nation’s
warriors.”
REF: New Cyber COCOM Likely
Hat tip to Danger Room blog’s Twitter feed for this story
This is yet the latest in the wrangling over who will have the lead on cyber warfare, in an ongoing struggle that started several years ago. In December 2005, the U.S. Air Force added cyberspace to their mission statement:
“The mission of the United States Air Force is to deliver sovereign options for the defense of the United States of America and its global interests—to fly and fight in Air, Space, and Cyberspace.”
REF: Air Force releases new mission statement (Air Force Print News, 12/8/2005)
It was not clear at that time whether the Air Force was assigned that mission by the Secretary of Defense or if they took the initiative to expand their mission into cyberspace. Many observers perceived the move as a “land grab” to fill a vacuum and, at the same time, set the stage for and increase in funding and manpower. Others, including the Air Force, explained it as codifying in their mission and doctrine what was already occurring anyway.
Up until the middle of last year they were on the glide slope towards establishing a new Air Force Cyber Command. As reported by Danger Room in Air Force Suspends Controversial Cyber Command (August 2008):
“The Air Force is about to suspend its controversial effort to reorganize its forces to “dominate” cyberspace. The provisional, 8,000-man Cyber Command has been ordered to stop all activities, just weeks before it was supposed to be declared operational.”
Among other issues, including the attention over their handling of nuclear weapons, the location of the new command became a subject of political infighting as various states sought to bring it to their district. (Begging the question, why does a command managing cyberspace require a large physical footprint with all of its personnel co-located? Perhaps a command managing a virtual environment could itself be geographically distributed and connected virtually?)
Proving that they were “down but not out”, last week the Air Force approved the structure for the new cyber organization:
“After two years of delays, reversals and adjustments, the shape of the service’s cyber warfare organization is finally beginning to emerge as it moves toward an official standup in May or June.
Air Force Secretary Michael Donley approved on Friday a plan for standing up 24th Air Force, the service’s new cyber warfare organization, as part of Air Force Space Command, an Air Force official said.”
REF: Donley sets out structure for cyber command (Air Force Times, 26 Feb 2009)
(NOTE: The terms “command”, “organization”, “force” and “wing” are sprinkled throughout the article. I suspect calling it a “cyber command” is still a sensitive issue given the recent speculation of a combatant command with the same name.)
Returning to the concept of a new combatant command, I’ll ask the question from this post’s title:
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 (Defense Department adopts new definition of ‘cyberspace’, May 2008) 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)
REF: Department of Defense Dictionary of Military and Associated Terms (JP 1-02) (12 April 2001 - As Amended Through 17 October 2008)
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.” Recent examples:
Air Force - Cyberspace career fields, training paths, badge proposed
Army - Bridging to a Cyber Career Force
Navy - US Navy also planning Cyberwar Command and Center for Information Dominance
Marines - Corps to establish the Marine Corps Information Operation Center (MCIOC)
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?
DEFCON Attendees (Pic 1) (flickr)
DEFCON Attendees (Pic 2) (photobucket)
DEFCON Attendees (Pic 3) (pdphoto)
flickr link provided for those at Fort Leavenworth and other military installations blocked from accessing photobucket
pdphoto link provided as backup for those not able to access either of the first two (and as evidence that attempting to block all image galleries is a senseless endeavor)
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
Wikipedia’s article on Air Force Cyber Command (Provisional) provides more history and additional references, including the Air Force’s Q&A ABOUT THE CYBER “PAUSE.”
Join the Cyber Corps - A Proposal for a Different Military Service
John R. Surdu and Gregory J. Conti, Department of Electrical Engineering and Computer Science, United States Military Academy, West Point, NY
IEEE Information Assurance Workshop (IAW); Poster Session; June 2002
Disclaimer: The author of the above blog post is an instructor at the U.S. Army Command and General Staff College. The views expressed are those of the author and do not reflect the official policy or position of the Department of the Army, Department of Defense, or the U.S. Government.
