Why the United States will lose a Cyber War

Unfortunately for Western nations, synchronicity has its origins in the East. Western nations have a tradition in causality, not synchronicity. And the U.S. Defense Department is deeply grounded in traditional western thinking and practicality. The decision to call cyberspace a domain was based on organizational necessity. That’s how the Defence Department is set up. It’s how budgets are created and funds distributed. It’s how contracts get assigned. Simply put, it’s how things get done at the Pentagon. This is why the United States will lose a war fought in cyberspace. A strategic doctrine built upon a flawed vision can’t yield a victory against an adversary whose knowledge of the battle space is superior to our own.

Is COIN losing its academic focus?

Crossposted to Attackerman:

I have maintained for quite some time that COIN, now that we know at least what it is and attempt to put its principles into action, is yesterday’s war. See Into the Fifth Generation…

If academia has her hands on the topic, it already is old news on the war front. For the most part, many academics are not fighting in today’s wars (for comments on the academia-military divide in America see Why We Should Get Rid of West Point and ROTC and the Ivies). Academics read accounts that are old, come up with ideas to counteract old problems, and are not as focused on the future as they should be… especially since our enemies are always adapting. In my view, the Ph.D.s in the ivory tower should be attempting to figure out what the next move our adaptable enemies are going to make. I am willing to bet 5GW will be a war on our technology… as I stated in October 2008, “perhaps we should be focusing on the emerging threat of cyber war or other possible forms of war as we leap into the Fifth Generation?”

Finally, I leave you with a link to a post I wrote in June 2008 about cyber war and how vulnerable we are -
Cyberspace Wars: Militarization of Virtual Front.

Cyber-Command Update

A Pentagon Cyber-Command is in the Works

This idea has good intentions, but how is adding another level of bureaucracy going to help this situation? The key is to place emphasis on cyber-warfare within the existing commands. The key is to recruit competent soldiers and officers who have computer knowledge. The key is to prepare for 5GW throughout the entire DoD. How is having another four-star general with no real command authority over troops going to help the situation? Here is an excerpt from the article:

The Obama administration is finalizing plans for a new Pentagon command to coordinate the security of military computer networks and to develop new offensive cyber-weapons, sources said last night.

Planning for the reorganization of Defense Department and intelligence agencies is underway, and a decision is imminent, according to a person familiar with the White House plans...

One question is whether the new command's leader would be a military commander with a four-star rank. The NSA is currently led by Army Lt. Gen. Keith B. Alexander, who has three stars.

News of the proposal comes on the heels of a 60-day White House review of cybersecurity efforts. Federal agency deputies are expected to meet Friday to consider the recommendations of the review team.

Into the Fifth Generation...

If it hasn't been clear for quite some time, counterinsurgency is "back in vogue," yet, at the same time, yesterday's war... I'm happy to see even Abu M is starting to expand his posting repertoire beyond yesterday's war. The minute we start to adapt to a type of warfare, it is already out the door. Perhaps more of our military budget will focus on combating cyber attack (5GW) and lessening our dependence on technology in the war zone; just a thought.

Support For Lockheed Joint Fighter is 'Very Strong," Gates Says

The pricetag of this project - $298 billion - will probably double once a contract is signed and suddenly a new technology is developed that absolutely must be added to the F-35. This is one of the many reasons why the bottom-up defense appropriations process must be changed. Instead of the Secretary of Defense telling the service secretaries what their budgets are, at the DoD the Secretaries of the Army, Air Force, and Navy, tell the Secretary of Defense what they budgeted for. Then, minimal cuts are made and the DoD budget, second in size only to the Social Security budget, is given to the president.

Although Secretary of Defense Gates has done a great job and fought the Air Force on numerous occasions, his support for the Joint Strike Fighter goes against all of the reform he has been preaching. The Joint Strike Fighter is the epitome of Air Force excess. Less than three years ago, the F-22 Raptor, which the F-35 is supposed to replace, entered service (December 2005). Now the same company that developed the F-22 (Lockheed Martin) is pitching the F-35 to the Air Force and is gaining traction. At a time where there are two wars going on, emerging near peer competitors with inferior MiG based aircraft, and a flailing economy, the F-35 does not seem to be the correct use of government money. To top this off, what are the chances of air to air combat happening anytime soon? Perhaps we should be focusing on the emerging threat of cyber war or other possible forms of war as we leap into the Fifth Generation?