Following up the Washington Post article I discussed in my last post: It seems that Foreign Affiars is now following suite in advocating a separation of the NSA and Cyber Command after General Keith Alexander retires. Check out the aptly-titled "Divide and Conquer: Why Dual Authority at the NSA and Cyber Command Hurts U.S Cybersecurity" by James G. Stavridis and Dave Weinstein.
Their key argument is this: Bureaucratic squabbling naturally exists between any two agencies, even when they have the same mission, and higher-ups are supposed to be impartial arbiters in disputes over who gets priority in operational planning and execution. They argue that this is NOT what happens when someone like Gen. Alexander is running both organizations:
"Given his often conflicting obligations to cyberspace operations under
Title 10 of the U.S. Code and signals intelligence under Title 50, he is
compelled to arbitrate in favor of one or the other, rather than
advocate on behalf of either side. This is an unprecedented phenomenon
that has created a dizzying conundrum for his staffs in both
organizations, who find themselves having to read between the lines to
ascertain which hat their boss is wearing at any given time...The practical result has been that the NSA has ended up dominating Cyber
Command in domain-related arbitrations. This should come as no
surprise: The NSA is a significantly older, more established institution
-- it was founded more than 60 years ago, whereas Cyber Command is
still shy of its fourth birthday -- and consequently has a stronger
gravitational pull in Washington. In the absence of a high-level
advocate offering a full-throated argument on behalf of Cyber Command’s
interests, the military organization is likely to find itself on the
short end of appropriations, personnel, intellectual capital, and
technical capacity."
Stavridis and Weinstein will never make this argument, but I'd also say that the function that CyberCom serves right now is far too important to neglect, but subordinating CyberCom to the NSA can only be to CyberCom's detriment following the Snowden-inflicted controversy that now affects the NSA. Regardless of how one views Snowden's revelations, the short- (and possibly long-term) damage to the NSA's reputation is undeniable, and I'd rather CyberCom be free to act unsullied by the same reputation. The Snowden affair has made Alexander a bogeyman in the hacking community (witness the heckling he received at Black Hat this year), while anything associated with him has negative connotations. And this comes at a time when CyberCom needs cyber operators more than ever. It would be nice to keep CyberCom a little more distanced from the controversy surrounding the NSA.
Another point to consider: Gen. Alexander is an Army general, even though the Army is way behind the Air Force when it comes to cyber operations doctrine and education. The Air Force already leads the other services in terms of cyber operations and security spending, and it also has a head start on forming the equivalent of "Top Gun" training schools for cyber operators. And this summer, when I studied up on cyber Joint Professional Military Education across the services for a research project, I found that Air University and the Air War College had far more courses and far better syllabi than their equivalent institutions in the other services. So right now, I'd say that if anyone's going to get CyberCom off the ground as a new branch of the intelligence community, it should be an Air Force officer. Not that anyone would listen to me, of course, but I'd suggest Major General Suzanne M. Vautrino of the 24th Air Force or Col. Jonathan Sutherland of 50th Network Operations Group as the first CO for the newly independent CyberCom.
(To be clear, I do not think the USAF should lead all of the military in all things cyberspace; that idea was already proposed, considered and rejected under SecDef Gates, and for good reason. But I do think that if CyberCom does become its own entity and I were given the chance to pick its leader, I'd be looking in the direction of the USAF.)
No comments:
Post a Comment