Air Force To Re-Open Pursuit of Cyber Command

GovTechGuy writes "Top Air Force leadership has decided to pursue forming a Cyber Command to defend Defense Department networks and to launch cyberattacks against foes, after putting the project on hold in August."

Re:Where do I apply?

[Anonymous Coward]

I tried before they put it on hold. I let them know that I am a computer science professor who would not mind joining the reserve to work in cyber command. After a month and a half, I received an unhelpful canned reply and have not heard anything else.

I still think the cyber command is a good idea, but the way it is being handled has removed a lot of the motivation for me joining.

This article is false

[Anonymous Coward]

This whole article is false. What came out of the Corona meeting was the Air Force is looking at creating a Nuclear command to put all nuclear operations under one command. From there they are going to put the Cyber operations under a Numbered Air Force underneath the already established Air Force Space Command. Read more info directly from af.mil 6 paragraphs from the bottem.
http://www.af.mil/news/story.asp?id=123118700

Re:Don't bother applying, you'll just load missile

[imamac]

With two baccalaureate degrees you need to be talking to an officer recruiter--not enlisted.

Re:Huhwha?

[Dun Malg]

There's something I don't get about the U.S. Military. Why is there so much overlapping of functions?

Why does the Navy have its own pilots, for instance? Why can't they train Air Force pilots to work with the Navy?

Similarly, why is there going to be an Air Force Cyber Command when the Army is already working on something similar? It all seems like a huge waste of money.

Hah! I see where you're getting confused. You're assuming the military is run by rational folks with a mind for efficiency and effectiveness, when really it's run by shitheel politicians. They may wear uniforms covered in stars and gold braid, but they're as parochial and scheming as any Louisiana legislator in a polyester suit. A little history (some cut and pasted from my post the last time this came up):

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 on the surface 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.

It all goes back to the political hacks that fill the Pentagon. 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"...

Re:Where do I apply?

[Clanked]

Fortunatly not all of the people in the military are computer illiterate. We are few and far between for sure, but there is a lengthy application process to get anywhere near the jobs where you actually do something. A simple aptitude test already weeds out those that say "hey I wanna be a hacker like on TV" and those that really understand security. Once you are in the door, it is about two years of schooling (not by the military) to teach you what the hell to do. So yes, it will be quite interesting, but restricted to an extreme few. The MAJCOM is more to give the cyber people a voice "as strong as" the fighter guys, the cargo guys, and everyone else. This provides topcover and funding. The other thing this will enable, is Airman Snuffy who works at the comm squadron to add to his performance report "Coordinated with worldwide anti-cyberterrorism organization to ensure local network security. Resulting in 0 penetrations. Promote immediatly." Translation: "He applied a patch cleared by the MAJCOM."

Re:Don't bother applying, you'll just load missile

[Dun Malg]

With two baccalaureate degrees you need to be talking to an officer recruiter--not enlisted.

Doesn't really work like that. You're probably thinking of ROTC. ROTC gets you a degree in (something), with a minor in Military Management. The only folks who get officer commissions based on their education are doctors and dentists. Just having a degree in (something) will only get you in as an enlisted man at pay grade E-3 instead of the usual E-1.

Re:Don't bother applying, you'll just load missile

[Dun Malg]

The saddest part of this story is the boneheaded way the Air Force fills positions... ... the Air Force, and other branches of the military, tend to treat people as interchangeable, identical cogs, rather than individuals with aptitudes, skills, and backgrounds that vary widely. ...I talked to one of the recruiters ...[he] told me I would be placed according to the needs of the Air Force, basically wherever they felt like it. They would not take any look at my background at all.

The funny thing is, I've only heard about the Air Force and the USMC doing that. The Navy gives you some degree of choice, I think, but won't let you pick EXACTLY what you want. The Army, however, will pretty much let you choose whatever job that's available so long as you meet the test requirements. I wanted to be an intelligence analyst, and that's precisely what they gave me. It was in my enlistment contract. Granted, I ended up hopping from my cold-war-centric signal intelligence analyst MOS (98C) to Human Intelligence Collection/Verbal Waterboarder (97E) when I re-upped in 2001, and subsequently ended up drag-assing around Afghanistan with a gaggle of nutcase infantrymen, Rangers, and SpecFor guys, but every step of the way was voluntary.

Re:Don't bother applying, you'll just load missile

[jesuscash]

If you already have a degree you go to Officer Training School to get a comission.

Re:Don't bother applying, you'll just load missile

[aquatone282]

Actually it does work like that. Since you already have a degree, you just go to OTS and become an officer.

No, you APPLY to OTS and IF you're selected and IF you complete the school, you become an officer.

Re:Don't bother applying, you'll just load missile

[Anonymous Coward]

Why do you call it verbal waterboarding? That's a really silly way of putting it. Talking to somebody isn't torture, like waterboarding. Neither is yelling at them. Military interrogators are not allowed to modify diet, put detainees in stress positions, subject to sensory deprivation or sleep deprivation, or touch detainees. The only way we can interrogate detainees is by using our words.

I think this is how it should be. However, we know through the press that more than "just talking" goes on against detainees. If any of the such goes on, it is committed by civilians working for the US government, or by civilians/military of foreign governments that have secret agreements with the US. I have no insider knowledge of any of that, but it is easily gleamed if you read the news on a semi-regular basis.

Rest assured that those doing anything more than just talking to detainees are not military personnel. Those interrogators belonging to the military have such a fine-tooth comb on them that their ability to do their job is greatly restricted. If the interrogator deems it may be effective to run a good-cop, bad-cop "approach" to make the detainee "break" and tell you what he knows, you have to apply in writing for permission from a *colonel* specifically so that you can run this approach.