US Cyber Command Wants Greater Attack Mentality 257
superglaze writes "Lieutenant General Robert J Elder, Jr, a senior figure in US Air Force Cyber Command (AFCYBER), has told ZDNet UK that communication issues are hampering the division's co-ordination. 'IT people set up traditional IT networks with the idea of making them secure to operate and defend,' said Elder. 'The traditional security approach is to put up barriers, like firewalls — it's a defense thing — but everyone in an operations network is also part of the [attack] force. We're trying to move away from clandestine operations. We're looking for real physics — a bigger bang resulting in collateral damage.'"
Re:Just what we need (Score:5, Informative)
Off the top of my head, I can think of 4:
1998: US launches cruise missiles at Sudan and Afghanistan
1999: US launches airstrikes against Yugoslavia to get it out of Kosovo
2001: US provides air support to forces in Afghanistan to overthrow the Taliban
2003: US invades Iraq
Re:Just what we need (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Just what we need (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Fantastic (Score:3, Informative)
Re:It'll be too hard for them to staff up (Score:3, Informative)
That may be the case, but more likely the Chinese government just puts them to work. The same thing happens here in the US. There were a couple of guys who went to the LA 2600 meetings in the early 1990s who got visits from the government. The conversation always went along the lines of, "Stop doing what you're doing or we're going to arrest you. Or if you want to continue doing what you're doing, come work for us." Those who didn't stop ended up dealing with the FBI. Those who took the offer ended up working with the NSA.
Re:They are right (Score:2, Informative)
The first rule of war is: don't go to war.
The second rule of war is if you have to go to war make yourself invulnerable before you attack.
"Attack is the best defense" did not work for Germany in the 2nd world war. It didn't work in Vietnam or Korea. It's certainly not working for the US at the moment.
Fast forward to Vietnam and Iraq and you'll see why an attack mentality fails. How many years did it take the U.S. to realize that continuously being in attack mode in Iraq even AFTER the capture of Saddam Hussein did far more harm than the actual invasion itself? By the time the U.S. realized that we needed a peacetime force and not a full blown-out military force, the citizens of Iraq wanted us out and temporarily joined forces with al-Qaeda to form a resistance. (Only later did the Iraqis realize that al-Qaeda was far more interested in their own agenda than they were with helping the Iraqis, and turned against them too.)
And since you brought up Douglas MacArthur, read his bio [wikipedia.org], specifically:
Re:collateral damage (Score:3, Informative)
I thought there was an obligation to try to minimize collateral damage?
The title and summary are incorrect. (Score:2, Informative)
TFA is not about the US Cyber Command. There is no such thing. It is about the Air Force Cyber Command (AFCYBER) which is a new organization that doesn't even have a home yet.
A "US * Command" is our uppermost echelon and they are called Unified Commands. US Strategic Command is the closest Unified Command to anything Cyber since they are responsible for the Cyber mission in addition to lots of other stuff.
Lt Gen Elder doesn't even work there. He works at US Strategic Command's Joint Functional Component Command for Global Strike and Integration. A big reason he was at the conference is that he is also in charge of Eigth Air Force which currently hosts AFCYBER. The guy in charge of AFCYBER is Maj Gen Lord. You may recall that Gen Lord participated in a Slashdot interview recently. Here is the link: http://interviews.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=08/03/12/1427252 [slashdot.org]