Military Leaders Seek Higher Profile For Pentagon’s Cyber Command

Richard · 05-01-2012, 20:18

OK - who gets "dibs" on this one?

And so it goes...

Richard

Military Leaders Seek Higher Profile For Pentagon’s Cyber Command Unit
WaPo, 1 May 2012

Senior military leaders are recommending that the Pentagon’s two-year-old cyberwarfare unit be elevated to full combatant command status, sending a signal to adversaries that the U.S. military is serious about protecting its ability to operate in cyberspace, officials said.

(Cont'd) http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/...eck=0&denied=1

Badger52 · 05-02-2012, 05:43

Sounds to me like the issue is size of the rice bowl and nameplate at the table (which is nothing new). Comes with a new list of activities/agencies/units who can now answer 'Y' to the question, "Are you operating directly in support of a Combatant Command?" That translates to re$ource$. In a practical sense, retired VCJCS Gen. Cartwright probably said it best in the article.

The offensive IO operations will be getting conducted against their own. Where rubber meets road there will be 3x the normal bulletins/OPORDS that a unit will have to respond to verifying that it only applies to the 1% of the command they should've targeted in the first place, with shorter suspenses naturally, and 2x the normal datacalls to respond to their needs to respond to oversight committees. All accelerated because the service-based commands they must filter through will ruminate over them while the clock ticketh. Are the post-grad techies in BeiJing trembling behind their servers? Doubt it.

Given the increasingly blurred line between mil/civ auth and NSA already having the foreign charter, and current state of the onion, the blogosphere will get some mileage from this one.

Someone else can tackle the eval of operational funding supporting the deployment of combat geeks, which has Comedy Zone potential but has probably been done.

Size of the paring knife needed grows daily.

lindy · 05-02-2012, 07:22

In my opinion, Cybercom has similar potential to defending the Nation as SOCOM in that a small group of servicemen with high levels of training are able to affect the battlefield via precise and focused actions. It would seem the real goal here is to coordinate operations, with CC being the lead, and standardize training for cyber warriors.

Defensive operations? Could one argue that DA, either in the real-world or cyber-world, is actually preemptive defense?

Badger, I'm not sure where you're going with the deployment of combat geeks (ever seen a MI unit?

) but cyberwarfare doesn't require close in/direct support like some of the other -INTs.

05-02-2012, 08:07

Reactive, or proactive when it comes to defense? And the same question can be asked of offensive capabilities. Reactive, IMO, is not the place to focus capabilities and resources. China, in the last couple of years has been a bit meddlesome in cyber attacks, as have various hacker groups.

Ultimately, I think it will come down to a team effort, as in how well do they fit in and play with other branches/units, and a huge reliance on both accurate and current intel.

mark46th · 05-02-2012, 08:58

With the reports of Chinese cyber attacks, Iranian cyber threats and Russian Mafiocracy supporting cyber crimes, I would be paying big bucks to a Sp4 who can write code that can keep up with the bad guys. I can just see some 4 star GO approving a pay rate of $500K for that young man/woman...

Richard · 05-02-2012, 09:17

Shades of Cyber Knights - Harold Coyle's short story about cyberpunks who are recruited by the US Army to combat the growing swarm of hackers and their shadowy masters who orchestrate their brand of online terrorism around the world - it's in Stephen Coonts' collection of short stories, Combat, and a good read.

And so it goes...

Richard

afchic · 05-02-2012, 10:23

Just what we need, another 4 star billet

Badger52 · 05-02-2012, 10:35

Quote:

Originally Posted by lindy

Badger, I'm not sure where you're going with the deployment of combat geeks (ever seen a MI unit?

) but cyberwarfare doesn't require close in/direct support like some of the other -INTs.

I probably should've made judicious use of pink font; familiar with MI units. Combat geek is just a term I've seen used before; usually not in a perjorative sense, but with some good-natured poking.