Air Force Suspends Cyber Command Program 166
AFCyber writes "The Air Force on Monday suspended all efforts related to development of a program to become the dominant service in cyberspace, according to knowledgeable sources. Top Air Force officials put a halt to all activities related to the establishment of the Cyber Command, a provisional unit that is currently part of the 8th Air Force at Barksdale Air Force Base in Louisiana, sources told Nextgov.
An internal Air Force e-mail obtained by Nextgov said, 'Transfers of manpower and resources, including activation and re-assignment of units, shall be halted.' Establishment of the Cyber Command will be delayed until new senior Air Force leaders, including Chief of Staff Norton Schwartz, sworn in today, have time to make a final decision on the scope and mission of the command."
I wondered about this (Score:3, Insightful)
Why the Air Force? It seems like such a reach outside their normal scope. I would think that the Army would be the proper place for such a command.
Of course, the Air Force should never have been split off from the Army to begin with; they should have told Curtiss LeMay to go get bent when they still had the chance.
Translation (Score:3, Insightful)
So much for optimism in this arena.
Air Force losing relevance? (Score:4, Insightful)
I've never understood why the Air Force had to be split from the Army. It just ads more bureaucracy and as a result more overhead and costs to the taxpayer. I don't see any reason to keep the Air Force as a separate branch anymore. It should be folded back into the Army.
I think it would also improve its effectiveness. I'm greatly impressed with the air and ground integration of the Marines which, from what I've read, is lacking with the Air Force and Army. Reading some military history, many battlefield problems were the direct result of the lack of communication between ground and air: Has to go up one chain of command (Army), then over and down the other chain of command.
And now with "Cyber warfare", the other branches are currently doing the job; whereas, the Air Force is just getting started. WTF were they doing the last decade?
At least this is the way I perceive it.
One China (Score:2, Insightful)
Why step down our efforts just as China is ramping up theirs?
Dismantle? No way, now its a black program. (Score:5, Insightful)
I think this is more likely a response to the Georgia-Russia "cyberwar". Having a public cyberwar program invites others to do so and provides a way to study and attack your program.
I think now this will be a black program to avoid drawing attention. They are probably doing this to prevent others from learning from our public information.
-molo
Momumentallty stupid (Score:5, Insightful)
I say that without fear of hyperbole. Perhaps senior command missed how Al Qaeda is running circles around us online, how China bats around like a cat toy in cyber-space, and how even Georgia and Russia are firmly entrenched in cyber-war right now.
The US has more to lose in a cyber-war than our enemies, we're more vulnerable, and we're not even going to try and focus on that battlefield.
Monumentally stupid.
Re:Air Force losing relevance? (Score:5, Insightful)
Well, I stated my reasoning in another post in this thread, but did not explain it well or clearly, so apologies for some repeated material...
The military, as an institution, is pretty resistant to divergent thinking. People complain about the groupthink here at slashdot, but I imagine anyone with military experience would snigger at what gets called groupthink here.
The one thing that the Air Force provides that cannot be done by another branch of the military is an external thoughtline. The extra branch of the military creates more opportunity for different opinions, different strategies, and different analyses of strategies. It allows the high command an extra input for decision-making.
The downside of having the Air Force conatained within other branches is that it risks being a bastard stepchild, neglected for surface vessels and ground units. The Air Force has been a deciding factor in a lot of engagements, and I question whether the Navy's air capability would be anywhere close to what it is now without the Air Force looking over its shoulder. Having the Air Force as a separate branch has allowed, and will continue to allow, lots of focus on ensuring we use our air capability effectively, and continue to develop new capability.
Re:Translation (Score:3, Insightful)
Negative. Their mission must be clearly defined before they can proceed with that mission. If the mission isn't clearly defined, well... then they have no real bounds to what they can do. And the ClearCube boxen are part of a military-wide shift to thin client computing.
Not to mention without a clearly defined mission they could possibly step on toes of other similar divisions within other military branches. Even though they may not actually exist yet. This would be a large concern.
I agree with other posters that this should be a consolidated effort. Perhaps a new branch even.
Additionally the issues raised about SIPRNET and NIPRNET being physically close to each other has absolutely no merit. The SIPRNET network hardware is likely to be located in an entirely different building/room than the NIPRNET hardware. Which would be further physically secured than the NIPRNET hardware even. Although both would be physically secured. Not to mention that the users would probably have a separate smart card to authenticate themselves to each network.
Re:Dismantle? No way, now its a black program. (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Coincidence? (Score:3, Insightful)
What a load of rubbish, the black boxen are ClearCube "Digital Fiber C/Port" thin terminals connected to a workstation somewhere in a cabinet, if you were to swap them around you'd have the computer connected to the top-secret network on the other side of your desk.
The question wasn't "what would happen if you swap them around" it was "what would happen if you plugged them into each other with an ethernet cable"
Why would the SIPRNet box/terminal even have an empty ethernet port?
Re:Air Force losing relevance? (Score:2, Insightful)
I'm greatly impressed with the air and ground integration of the Marines which, from what I've read, is lacking with the Air Force and Army.
Well, yes, if you have a narrowly defined mission, a small force custom built for it consisting only of elite troops, and design your own stuff from start to finish, it's a lot easier to get tight integration with the components. The Marines exist for short duty assault and offensive operations. The army and air force have to handle everything else.
Comparing the two is like saying "boy, those Rangers sure fight better than the National Guard.
As the saying goes... (Score:4, Insightful)
Complete Waste of Time (Score:4, Insightful)
In six months, Obama will be president, and this program will get changed yet again by yet another chief.
Since every Bush "Cybersecurity Czar" has resigned in disgust since Bush created the office, that entire program will also have to be ripped out, too.
America's Internet defense system also has to protect us from nonmilitary lawbreakers like phishers, crackers and leakers. Plus those somewhere between, like the Russian mob crackers who joined Russia's government to attack Georgia this week, but spend most of their time just breaking banks and extorting corporations and individuals.
I'm really glad that we're going to get a new president who's actually smart for a change. We're really dodging a bullet with the Internet-illiterate WcCain offering a third term of Bush's catastrophic failures to protect anything except his own ass. Heckuva job, brownnose!
Re:Complete Waste of Time (Score:1, Insightful)
Who do you think we'll be getting? It can't be the pro-Telecom immunity, pro-offshore drilling, pro-special interest, pro-PATRIOT act, presumptive Democrat nominee.
Sadness for Shreveport/Bossier (Score:5, Insightful)
Home of the "Cybercommand"? (Score:5, Insightful)
Why the Air Force? It seems like such a reach outside their normal scope. I would think that the Army would be the proper place for such a command.
The whole "Cybercommand" thing was yet another attempt by USAF to dominate an emerging military technology. It was a power grab. After WW II, they argued against other services having airplanes. They managed to get missiles and fixed wing aircraft taken away from the Army. They got the Army's Cheyenne gunship helicopter killed because it looked too much like a fighter plane. In Vietnam, they got SecDef McNamera to issue an order stating that Marine F-4's were to be limited to ground attack only... the fighter mission inland was for USAF alone. They could defend themselves if attacked by MiGs, but could not go MiG hunting on their own. Last year they tried to monopolize robotic aerial drones. And Cybercommand tried to monopolize military computer ops. USAF has a long history of not only protecting their turf, but moving in on others if it benefitted them. They have a reputation for arrogance. The Air Force Association's description of the branch was "first among equals"... as if any such thing could really exist.
Just like any other military tactic or technology... intelligence, airpower, any single military technology... each service should have their own "cybercommand", with a unifying leadership and authority over all branches at DOD. And I think we're heading in that direction, with SecDef Gates sacking the USAF leadership recently. There was a lot of resentment in the other branches at the Blues' attempt to hog the cyber mission, and I think this stand down is at least partly attributable to Gates trying to bring USAF leadership back on the reservation and play nice with the other kids.
On Hold Because... (Score:5, Insightful)
I think AFCyber may just be on hold because a new Chief of Staff of the Air Force started work yesterday and he want to see what this is before it goes any further. It's likely this may be part of a larger review of all the services cyber-warfare programs to make sure they don't overlap or compete in the same space.
Also, this new CoS isn't a fighter pilot like the last 20 years of AF leadership, he's a special ops guy who flew cargo aircraft. He's probably more interested in business management than flash and, with a special ops background, may belive that if you're going to build a secret ninja hacker cyberforce, you might want to do it with a somewhat lower public profile.
Re:The Air Force is doomed (Score:5, Insightful)
Reducing the number of branches in the command structure will lead to even more institutionalized thinking
More or fewer branches has little effect on the amount of institutionalized thinking, it just varies the amount of parochialism. The Air Force was formed in 1948 on the premise that the US Army shouldn't be in the business of strategic bombing and air superiority. Unfortunately, the agreement that split the AF off from the Army also forbade the Army to operate aircraft. As a result the Army still has trouble getting the AF to provide adequate close air support. Under consideration at the same time was a proposal to attach the Marine Corps to the Army (where it more logically belongs) and transfer naval aviation assets to Air Force control; but Navy Secretary Forrestal had spent WW2 building up the Navy into his own little self-sufficient kingdom with its own air and ground assets. It's a completely asinine duplication of effort, but he had enough pull to kill the consolidation proposal. As a result of this sort of bureaucratic feudalism, we have:
4 1/2 air forces
Air Force, Naval aviation, USMC aviation, Coast Guard aviation, and Army helicopter aviation
1 1/2 armies
the real Army, and the Navy's light infantry, the USMC
2 1/2 navies
the Navy, the Coast Guard, and all the small watercraft operated by the AF and Army to fill the gaps the Navy won't cover.
So you see, while splitting up the services seems like it should promote efficiency by allowing each service to specialize, what you end up with is services narrowing their focus to the stuff that's completely "theirs", while neglecting the "overlap" areas where other services need their support. As it turns out, the Army is inevitably the biggest loser in all of this. They are the backbone of any sizable conflict, but can't get decent close air support or timely theater airlift support from the Air Force, and are forbidden by law to provide it for themselves. Likewise they can't get theater level waterborne transport from the Navy. Meanwhile, naval aviators whine about the Air Force getting to drop all the bombs in Iraq, when the justification for having them flying over Iraq is already weak at best. Then there's the USMC lobbying to be given sole operational responsibility over Afghanistan because they want to get out of Iraq, as their tactics there have only resulted in a greater casualty rate, rather than "upstaging" the Army as is their normal goal.
The root of the problem is that all the branches are run by politicians. They may wear uniforms full of ribbons and stars, but they're no different than your typical pork-barrel politician. They're always looking for some way to expand their power base so they can justify a bigger bite of the defense "pie". This silly Air Force "Cyber Command" is just more of the same. The Air Force hasn't a single justification in its charter for claiming "cyberspace" as their own, but they hope to get it by virtue of being the only service with applicable combat assets in-theater when the time comes to decide whose responsibility it is. Frankly, I think the military is ill suited to the job. I reckon the NSA is the better tool for the job. I wouldn't be surprised if at some point the Air Force was told "your Cyber Command is a needless duplication of assets already fielded by the NSA--- kill it". Heck, they may have been told that already...
Re:As the saying goes... (Score:4, Insightful)
To be fair, though, the US is prepared to fight without the internet, it will just be an inconvenience. The Future Warrior program was supposed to rely heavily on digital information systems, but it is now mostly canceled. The military is still using the same methods they did in the 80's and 90's (dedicated sat-links and voice channels)before the net got so integrated into daily life. The real problem would be on the civilian front where massive cyber-attacks could blackout good-sized chunks of infrastructure.
It's worse then that, you're thinking only of warfighting elements of military life. How do you think the military would fare if its pay system was shut down? Do you think they have a backup system ready that isn't computerized? Okay they're military, you can compel them to work until the pay issues get sorted... but what about all the elements that moved to contractors, such as gate guards?
And I'm still assuming they're only targeting military. Our whole economy is completely dependent on computers and telecommunications. If a true all out cyber-war was conducted I have no doubt many people will die. Perhaps simply because they were unable to call 911 because the cell system was out of service.
Re:I wondered about this (Score:3, Insightful)
Wow, given your description, it's a miracle the AF hasn't nuked the our own country into oblivion yet since it's clearly all filled with dumbasses while the army is loaded with geniuses. I never would have guessed it given that the AF has a higher standard for ASVAB scores and education than the Army. Not that you're biased or anything...
His post is a bit extreme--- and undoubtedly hyperbole--- but having been in the Army myself, I know exactly what he's talking about. The Air Force is, in a way, a sort of "Bizarro World" armed service. The vast majority of AF personnel are non-combat, pure support staff. Subsequently, AF basic training is largely devoid of purpose. Army and Marine Corps training are both based on (to varying degrees) the "infantryman/rifleman first" theory, and even Navy personnel have to learn the basics of the rather serious business of surviving shipboard combat. Army, Navy, and Marine Corps enlistees need to possess a certain degree of drive, discipline, and maturity to get through such training. This tends to weed out the lazy, slack, and childish ones early on. Air Force basic training consists mostly of learning to make your bed and march in a straight line. The road marches, bayonet fighting, shipboard rescue, and the like just aren't there. It does require something to get through Air Force basic, getting up early 6 days a week and exercising regularly; but it just doesn't require as much of it as the other services training does.
The practical upshot of all of this is that by the time enlistees get to their advanced training, you're going to see a lot more wrinkled shirts and immaturity among the Air Force folks. This isn't just anecdotal, it's universally recognized. Lots of Air Force guys won't admit it or might not even realize it, for that matter; but ask any member of the Army, Navy, or USMC who's served in a multiservice environment which service has the most goofballs, dingbats, and "ragbags", and you'll nearly always get the same answer: the Air Force. It's just the nature of the training. I served with plenty of sharp, squared away Air Force personnel, but there were a lot of exasperating dweebs too. It's nothing inherently wrong with the Air Force per se, it's more of a lack of purpose to the initial training.