“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
 

That question is currently the subject of discussion in Blog Policy Flawed? and other posts on the Combined Arms Center (CAC) blogs at Fort Leavenworth, KS. A few highlights from the discussion:

A Fort Lee student (Army Major) originally wrote:

In addition to possibly violating DoD and Army guidance on public release of official information, mandating that private individuals make public blog postings also threatens ILE students’ privacy interests.

Chris Paparone (Associate Professor, Fort Lee) offered:

While I would agree that telling the “Army story” is important in terms of public relations and recruitment, I am concerned that this top-down “forcing” of communicating to the “outside” may backfire, producing the opposite effect that well-intended senior leaders meant.

These discussions include a response from BG Cardon (Deputy Commandant, U.S. Army Command and General Staff College):

Many OSD and Army policies have not yet caught up with these changes, but the intent of these same senior leaders is clear [….] Gone are the days of centralized communication – both the environment and recent experience has taught us that waiting for high level centralized approval undermines the potency of the information and often delays critical information engagements beyond the point of any utility.

Also, LTC Shawn Stroud (Director of Strategic Communication, CAC) weighed in with:

Perhaps we should stop considering this as a requirement and instead embrace it as our duty as members of this time honored profession… a duty to continue to share the stories of our Soldiers and their families. Once we see it in that light, the rationale and reasoning behind the program becomes obvious.

For background on CAC’s strategic communication initiatives, read At Fort Leavenworth, officers are marching on a new target: the blogosphere. (The Pitch, 3 Feb 2009) In that issue’s cover story, Nadia Pflaum writes about how:

Each war-college student must complete a course of “strategic communication” in order to graduate. It’s an extracurricular activity — no class covers it exclusively. Officers must participate in an interview with a television, print or radio reporter, publicly address a community group, write an article or opinion piece for publication (it need not actually be published), and blog under his or her real name.

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.

Installation Instructions

Usage Instructions

Closing Remarks

I’ve decided I’m going to try (and it will be hard) to not be bitter about the results.

I’m going to strive to measure President Obama (the first time I’ve put those two words together on my own) by his actions, and not by his past.

- how he arranges his cabinet
- how he works with Congress
- whether or not he “reigns in” the far left segment of his party
- etc

Despite my misgivings, we are a Democracy and he was elected.  I think the process was flawed, I think he raised money illegally, and I think that ACORN and other such organizations may have introduced illegal votes intro the process.  But the outcome is the outcome.

I went through 8 years of the Clinton administration hating our President.  And I don’t use that word lightly - I thought he was the Devil incarnate at the time.

Although I may still feel that way about Obama, I refuse to dwell upon it.  Let’s see what happens.

So, I’m going to remain positive about the future and see what happens.

A German doctor and his family, desiring to become permanent residents of Australia, rejected because his 13-year old son has Down syndrome.

“A medical officer of the Commonwealth assessed that his son’s existing medical condition was likely to result in a significant and ongoing cost to the Australian community,” a departmental spokesman said in a statement issued Thursday by the Department of Immigration and Citizenship.

REF: Australia: No residency for boy with Down syndrome

Further in the article, they explain how the health requirement, a restriction on immigration, is based on affordability.

“If we did not have a health requirement, the costs to the community and health system would not be sustainable,” the statement said.

Well, if the government did not have to provide the health care, then it would not be a problem, would it?

Expect situations like this to occur if we end up with a universal, federally managed health care system.

Democrats are beaming that their party is outperforming the Republicans in early voting, releasing numbers Wednesday that show registrants of their party ahead 54 percent to 30 percent among the 1.4 million voters who have gone to the polls early.
Poll gives McCain lead in Florida early voting

Yet, a poll of early voters in Florida provides a curious anomaly.

A Los Angeles Times/Bloomberg poll gave McCain a 49-45 lead over Democrat Barack Obama among Floridians who have already voted.

Then we have all the Hillary Democrats, at sites like HillBuzz, reporting on potential McCain victories in Pennsylvania, Florida, Iowa, New Hampshire and even Maine!

In Pennsylvania, Democrats hard at work not just voting, but campaigning for McCain!

DEMOCRATS are staffing McCain offices across the state. DEMOCRATS are phone banking and canvassing for McCain. DEMOCRATS are raising large sums to fund this last week of campaigning.
HillBuzz on Pennsylvania

As mentioned above, key indicators that Democrats in Florida are voting for McCain.

analysis indicates Democrats voting early in Florida are voting for John McCain in huge numbers
HillBuzz on Florida

Disenfranchised Hillary Democrats in Iowa, New Hampshire and Maine also shifting to McCain.

And all of us agree that on election night, the media will be spinning and sputtering and trying to explain things that those of us on the ground have seen coming for months now.
HillBuzz on New Hampshire, Iowa and Maine