US Cyber Command Wants Greater Attack Mentality

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.'"

Comments

Re:Just what we need

[jayveekay]

"In the past 10 years the US has initiated 2 military actions against foreign powers."

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

[jonnythan]

NATO is not the US.

Re:Just what we need

[Marcika]

Well, the US makes up 75% of the NATO forces (by budget) and both strategic commanders of NATO are Americans by law (SACEUR and SACLANT), so nothing happens in NATO against the will of the US. The primary decision maker about any NATO bombing campaign is always first and foremost the White House/the Pentagon.

Re:Fantastic

[dave562]

This idea has come up many times in the past. The stumbling block always seems to come down to the matter of computer trespass, or unauthorized access to a computer. Even if you are doing it with the best intentions, you are still breaking the law to do it.

Re:It'll be too hard for them to staff up

[dave562]

I would hazard to guess that the reason that China is able to keep its black hats at bay is the ability of their government to make you disappear in the middle of the night and wake up the next day in a labor camp if they even suspect you of compromising government systems.

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

[Clandestine_Blaze]

You're right. I guess Douglas McArthur, like you, really UNDERSTOOD the art of war. After the bombing of Pearl Harbor he withdrew all marine craft from the pacific and focused entirely on defense. The next several years saw Japan make several unsuccessful invasions of the American heartland, thankfully America's invulnerable defense ensured our safety. Eventually Japan became disheartened and gave up attacking America, thus ending WWII. Sure we lost the Philippines, Australia, and eastern China is still part of the Great Japanese Empire, but that's all history. I know you were being facetious, but you misunderstood their point. I don't recall the poster advocating focusing primarily on defense after being attacked. Reread the part of the post that says:

Spoken like someone who has no understanding of the art of war.

            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. You thought the poster meant "let's withdraw all forces, hunker down, and let everyone attack our defenses." Actually, MacArthur followed the second rule. The point being made was, an aggressive preemptive mentality often leads to defeat, which is why Japan and Germany lost their respective wars. The U.S. entering WWII was not an "attack mentality", but, an act of defense after we were attacked by Japan.

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, specifically:

President John F. Kennedy solicited MacArthur's counsel in 1961. The first of two meetings was shortly after the Bay of Pigs Invasion. MacArthur was extremely critical of the Pentagon and its military advice to Kennedy. MacArthur also cautioned the young President to avoid a U.S. military build-up in Vietnam, pointing out domestic problems should be given a much greater priority. Shortly prior to his death he gave similar advice to the new President, Lyndon Johnson. Even the great General you were referencing earlier warned Kennedy and Johnson about an aggressive military build-up in Vietnam.

Re:collateral damage

[Oddster]

Isn't it some kind of war crime to intentionally TRY to inflict collateral damage?
I thought there was an obligation to try to minimize collateral damage? That rule is moot for quite a number of reasons. See firebombing of Dresden. And remember, the term "war crimes" is either an oxymoron or redundant, depending on how you look at it.

The title and summary are incorrect.

[TAiNiUM]

The title and summary are incorrect.

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