Military Appoints General To Direct Cyber Warfare

An anonymous reader writes news from The Guardian, excerpting: "The US military has appointed its first senior general to direct cyber warfare – despite fears that the move marks another stage in the militarisation of cyberspace. The newly promoted four-star general, Keith Alexander, takes charge of the Pentagon's ambitious and controversial new Cyber Command, designed to conduct virtual combat across the world's computer networks. He was appointed on Friday afternoon in a low-key ceremony at Fort Meade, in Maryland."

Comments

Qualifications

[dward90]

TFA doesn't seem to have any information on how General Alexander might be qualified for this position, and what his command will involve.

Here's hoping the guy actually knows something about cyber security, and isn't simply the management figure for actual security experts, or he could easily f*ck this up hard.

Re:Qualifications

[Anonymous Coward]

You said,

He does have Master's degrees in physics and electronic warfare, and well, from his picture he looks like a slightly older version of the typical Slashdotter. ;)

I sure hope this "Cyber Warfare" General knows something about computers, because consultants, and especially computer consultants are very high priced (around half a million dollars a year over-priced).

Richard Feynman seems to portray the definitive experience such a consultant can have with the military:

After the war, physicists were often asked to go to Washington and give
advice to various sections of the government, especially the military. What
happened, I suppose, is that since the scientists had made these bombs that
were so important, the military felt we were useful for something.
Once I was asked to serve on a committee which was to evaluate various
weapons for the army, and I wrote a letter back which explained that I was
only a theoretical physicist, and I didn't know anything about weapons for
the army.
The army responded that they had found in their experience that
theoretical physicists were very useful to them in making decisions, so
would I please reconsider?
I wrote back again and said I didn't really know anything, and doubted
I could help them.
Finally I got a letter from the Secretary of the Army, which proposed a
compromise: I would come to the first meeting, where I could listen and see
whether I could make a contribution or not. Then I could decide whether I
should continue.
I said I would, of course. What else could I do?
I went down to Washington and the first thing that I went to was a
cocktail party to meet everybody. There were generals and other important
characters from the army, and everybody talked. It was pleasant enough.
One guy in a uniform came to me and told me that the army was glad that
physicists were advising the military because it had a lot of problems. One
of the problems was that tanks use up their fuel very quickly and thus can't
go very far. So the question was how to refuel them as they're going along.
Now this guy had the idea that, since the physicists can get energy out of
uranium, could I work out a way in which we could use silicon dioxide --
sand, dirt -- as a fuel? If that were possible, then all this tank would
have to do would be to have a little scoop underneath, and as it goes along,
it would pick up the dirt and use it for fuel! He thought that was a great
idea, and that all I had to do was to work out the details. That was the
kind of problem I thought we would be talking about in the meeting the next
day.
I went to the meeting and noticed that some guy who had introduced me
to all the people at the cocktail party was sitting next to me. He was
apparently some flunky assigned to be at my side at all times. On my other
side was some super general I had heard of before.
At the first session of the meeting they talked about some technical
matters, and I made a few comments. But later on, near the end of the
meeting, they began to discuss some problem of logistics, about which I knew
nothing. It had to do with figuring out how much stuff you should have at
different places at different times. And although I tried to keep my trap
shut, when you get into a situation like that, where you're sitting around a
table with all these "important people" discussing

Re:Qualifications

[MacGyver2210]

Just curious... ...where does one obtain a Masters degree in Electronic Warfare? Can it be obtained with, say, a BS in Computer Science as a foundation?

Re:Qualifications

[identity0]

Why should he? It's not like we expect generals to fight in the trenches and shoot the enemy, why should a gerneral be expected to work exploits and hack code? Isn't a general's job by definition managing others who are experts in the field?

A serious question, can someone provide examples in industry of good leaders who were so because they knew the details, or who were bad because they didn't?

Re:Qualifications

[Stargoat]

I don't know that this could get f*cked up. It's operating out of Fort Meade, so it's basically operating in NSA territory. It's mandate is already being filled by the NSA, assuming that the CyberCommand cannot operate on US territory. (That should be assured, as the fellow is a general. But it no longer is; probably never was.)

What I don't get is - how is this not the NSA?

Internet 2 is not the full answer

[TheMiddleRoad]

Yes, the military can (and probably does already) have their own network. However, damage will be done to our country via the regular internet. Imagine if, one day, all the bank accounts in the country went to millions of dollars or to zero? The military is, hopefully, going to take care of those kinds of scenarios. We need a central command to handle such attacks.

How is this not NSA

[qbzzt]

The NSA is an intelligence agency, I assume this means their primary purpose is to collect information. They might hack into a computer, but that would be to the purpose of obtaining information. The military is supposed to conduct offensive operations. Things like breaking into computers running dams or the electric grid to disable them. Psychological warfare by breaking into Web sites and changing what they show. Spreading disinformation into enemy communication channels.

Basically, this is probably about doing low level nasty things when the situation doesn't call for an all out shooting war, and making sure an enemy can't trust his networked computer systems in case of an all out war. I'm pretty sure the US isn't the only one doing this.