US Army May Relax Physical Requirements To Recruit Cyber Warriors

HughPickens.com writes Clifford Davis reports that only 30% of young people between the ages of 17 and 24 are qualified to become soldiers. This is primarily due to three issues: obesity or health problems; lack of a high school education; and criminal histories. While cognitive and moral disqualifications have held steady, weight issues account for 18% of disqualifications, and the number is rising steadily. It's projected to hit 25% by 2025. The current Army policy is that every recruit, whether enlisting for infantry or graphic design, has to meet the same physical requirements to join — but that requirement may be changing. "Today, we need cyber warriors, so we're starting to recruit for Army Cyber," says Major General Allen Batschelet. "One of the things we're considering is that your [mission] as a cyber warrior is different. Maybe you're not the Ranger who can do 100 pushups, 100 sit-ups and run the 2-mile inside of 10 minutes, but you can crack a data system of an enemy." "We're looking for America's best and brightest just like any Fortune 500 company out there," says Lt. Col. Sharlene Pigg. "We're looking for those men and women who excel in science, technology, engineering and math." Batschelet admits that a drastic change in physical requirements for recruits may be hard for some to swallow. "That's going to be an institutional, cultural change for us to be able to get our heads around that is kind of a different definition of quality," says Batschelet. "I would say it's a modernizing, or defining in a more precise way, what is considered quality for soldiers."

Comments

Good luck with that

[DoofusOfDeath]

I left the DoD as a software developer largely because they couldn't get their heads out of their asses. The paperwork, mandatory training, and total risk aversion meant I developed code at maybe 25% of the speed that I did before, and after, in the private sector. And the stock options in the DoD were nothing to write home about.

I really don't see how the DoD can win any cyber fight. It would take losing a ground war on U.S. soil for them to give up their worship of bureaucracy.

Re:Good luck with that

[fuzzyfuzzyfungus]

Do you think that they'd be able to settle for the "Buy it for 250% the cost of doing it in house from the contractor with the most congressmen" compromise if we lost a land war somewhere else?

Re:Good luck with that

[Anonymous Coward]

I assume "Zero Tolerance" type environment. Anything bad on books puts serious issues on career advancement.

Re:Good luck with that

[khasim]

Not only that but if they change the physical requirements it's going to have a lot of repercussions.

First off, Basic Training. Is there going to be a "cyber warrior only" camp for that?

Secondly, promotions. Will the promotion points for Physical Training be altered for "cyber warriors"?

Also, you have to pass Physical Training tests every year to stay in. Will the guy who cooks the food the "cyber warrior" eats be held to a higher physical standard than the "cyber warrior" is?

I'm thinking that Lt. Col. Sharlene Pigg does not understand anything about morale or esprit de corps.

Re:Good luck with that

[Rich0]

And it's not as if this isn't for good reason either - the Army learned some hard lessons in the Korean war with out of shape soldiers; and if anything, the recent wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have further blurred the lines are between combat and non-combat MOS's.

I can buy that if you're talking about somebody who is in a supply train which is vulnerable to attack.

On the other hand, the biggest hazard facing a cyber warrior is likely to be the morning commute.

Re:Good luck with that

[Kjella]

What do you mean by "risk aversion"? I'm genuinely curious.

I can't speak for the grandparent but generally in de facto non-profit monopolies - there's nobody else competing to be the US army for example - there's very little risk in not pushing boundaries. Projects might run over time and over budget but at the end of the day the politicians have to fund the army next year too and you don't get the fat bonuses like when your software makes money for the company. Obvious flops on the other hand might require scapegoats and if you make your superiors look bad, well they're likely to be a step or two up in seniority for the rest of your career in the same "company". That will permeate the entire environment making any kind of change hard, nobody wants to be the one signing off on anything without a drawn out change process.

Here in Norway the craziest example at the moment is the police. In 2005 our politicians made fairly big changes to the penal code, which would go into effect when the police systems were able to handle it. Well, now it's 2014 and it's still not in effect. But what can you do, not fund the police? No matter how much the schedules slip and it goes over budget we have to keep throwing money at them. If they were a commercial company they'd be out of business long ago. Sometimes I wonder if it would be cheaper if we awarded two companies the contract to write the same module with a bonus to the winner, just to get the competition.

Re:Good luck with that

[fuzzyfuzzyfungus]

I'm thinking that Lt. Col. Sharlene Pigg does not understand anything about morale or esprit de corps.

Arguably, the bigger problem is that the concept of 'cyber warrior' is an iffy fit for the army at best; and just plain incoherent nonsense at worst.

Obviously, now that electronic systems are valuable enough to be worth attacking, defending, and spying on, it's perfectly plausible that somebody is going to end up doing that job; but that's quite different than inferring the existence of 'cyber warriors', much less ones sufficiently closely analogous to conventional warriors that the army would be a logical outfit to have some(not that the Air Force, which seems to be the branch making the most noise about it, is an obviously better fit). Whatever Tron might have told you, 'cyber war' isn't going to be physical combat except more neon...

If the army is serious about a mandate broad enough that 'cyber warrior' actually fits, they are going to have to suck it up and, yes, accept that their current arrangements for training, evaluation, promotion, etc. include elements that are either supported by outdated assumptions or mere nostalgia.

If they aren't, they should get over whatever territorial pissing contest and/or painful misunderstanding of 'cyber war' has them trying to search for a supply of cutting edge IT and security people who are willing to put up with a system bent on evaluating their ability to pick up a rifle when necessary and either contract it or develop a non-dysfunctional relationship with an agency actually suited to the task(ostensibly the NSA, if somebody could pry them away from our email for a few minutes).

They are just going to have to choose: if they want to have one-size-fits-all processes(whether justified by the theory that all their people might actually need combat skills, or by cultural and institutional cohesion considerations), then they just aren't going to get to do everything, at least not well. If they want to do a wide variety of fairly disparate things, they just don't get to keep all their existing practices, at least not well(the only thing that would depress enthusiasts of boot camp and physical training more than just exempting some people from it entirely would be watering the requirements down enough that any pudgy keyboard jockey would be minimally inconvenienced by meeting them...)

Re:Good luck with that

[Cederic]

the only differences are your gender and your age.

Which is clearly discriminatory.

Why should I, as a fat unfit man, have to attain a higher standard of fitness than a fat unfit woman. Either we can both run the same distance and lift the same weights or we can't fulfil the same duties.

Similarly age, why should I as an old person be allowed to damage the effectiveness of the regiment and slow down the youngsters?

Re:Good luck with that

[Cyberdyne]

Not only that but if they change the physical requirements it's going to have a lot of repercussions.

First off, Basic Training. Is there going to be a "cyber warrior only" camp for that?

Secondly, promotions. Will the promotion points for Physical Training be altered for "cyber warriors"?

Also, you have to pass Physical Training tests every year to stay in. Will the guy who cooks the food the "cyber warrior" eats be held to a higher physical standard than the "cyber warrior" is?

I'm thinking that Lt. Col. Sharlene Pigg does not understand anything about morale or esprit de corps.

Should the cook be held to "physical standards" which aren't relevant to the actual job either? Outside movies like Under Siege, shooting at people really isn't part of the chef's job either. (As an Air Force cadet, I was pretty good at Escape & Evasion - and if I'd gone on to be an actual fighter pilot, that could well have been a vital skill if shot down over enemy territory. As a drone pilot, eight time zones from the action where the biggest threat is road rage on the daily commute? Not a chance.)

Supposing Stephen Hawking were a computing genius, rather than a physicist. Does it really make sense to anyone to reject his brilliant contribution, just because he can't do pushups? Isn't it a better army if it includes that talent?

Re:Good luck with that

[Whorhay]

I always thought it was funny that my being fat, while still able to beat the other PT standards, was a big enough deal to possibly get an Admin discharge. Meanwhile so long as you could shoot something like 28% with the M16A2 everything was honky dorry. I qualified expert every damn time I went to the range and when someone actually challeneged me I shot 98% in a timed test, with one misfire and two stoppages. In an organization where shooting at other people is a real possibility, the only reward for being a good marksman is a ribbon for bragging rights.

Re:Good luck with that

[Hodr]

All good points, but the fact is that we already treat people differently based on their gender. I.E. you must run this fast, for this long, to be an effective soldier, unless you are female, then you can be slower and quit sooner. The answer is that we don't put women into the positions that are too physically demanding for them. This is the same concept, if you happen to have an MOS that doesn't require you to be physically active, then as along as you can complete your mission you should be fine.

And why not separate camps for cyber warriors? If that is actually the term, then maybe they should have a cyber camp and a cyber uniform too. If they dress in business casual and work in offices then they would look just like the contractors they are meant to replace.

Re:What a great idea!

[istartedi]

I think "criminal histories" in this case is probably just a code-phrase for "smoked weed".

FUBAR Deluxe

[Anonymous Coward]

Imagine a "cyberwarrior" (whatever the FUCK that is), who is having trouble with military discipline. The chain of command then starts fucking with him. Sooner or later, he does something really stupid. Then the bastards send him to a line unit. HOW THE FUCK is that motherfucker going to cope there?

This is some seriously fucked up shit.

Re:FUBAR Deluxe

[Huge_UID]

I'm sorry, I'm not quite sure I know where you stand. It might help if you would use some more "fuck"s to convey your thoughts.

Re:FUBAR Deluxe

[whodunit]

The United States Army does not punish people by sending them to the "Russian Front." Nor do they have Commisars, nor do they machine-gun anyone trying to retreat. This is nonsense.

There are no shortage of desk jobs in the US military. For every fighting man in the field there are three forklift drivers involved in moving the tons of supplies he consumes, and a desk jockey to do the paperwork for each.

We ar fighting in an age where entire warships can be disabled by computer failures and many enemies are slain by remote controlled drones. We can no longer afford to shut our best and brightest out of the military based on rumors, fear-mongering, pig-headed tradition or machismo.

Sooo.....

[Anonymous Coward]

Does this mean the Army will procure quantities of military issue Diet Coke, Hot Pockets and Twinkies in camouflage packaging?

What a great idea!

[Anonymous Coward]

J-walking, smoking weed, and downloading unlicensed copies of music online are illegal activities. If you want the best and brightest, it's not a good idea to disqualify 96% for no good reason.

Re:What a great idea!

[bjwest]

Did you read past the first sentence in the summery? They're talking about relaxing the physical requirements. High school education and criminal histories will still considered as they are now. Hell, that was made clear in the second sentence.

Physical requirements are not all that tough

[SgtAaron]

When I enlisted in 1990 you only had to be able to complete something like 13 pushups to be assigned to a basic training unit. Those that couldn't were put into a "remedial physical training" unit, where of course they were roundly laughed at by those in real basic. Passing the actual PT test at the end of basic is different, but at 18 were only had to do around 45 pushups and 60 situps in two minutes, and run two miles in less than 17 minutes or thereabouts--don't recall precisely. And as you get older, the requirements lessen. Upon enlistment all we had to do was lift 40 pounds above your head on a weight machine. I was 5'3" and 115 pounds back then (still 5'3", beer has added a bit of weight over time :-)

Re:Physical requirements are not all that tough

[Rich0]

When I enlisted in 1990 you only had to be able to complete something like 13 pushups to be assigned to a basic training unit.

I'd have failed that. Sure, I probably could have spent a lot of time working out and gotten to that point, but what's the point?

Anytime you introduce a selective pressure for one attribute, you're unwittingly selecting AGAINST other attributes. Do you want the best "cyber warrior" you can find, or the best "cyber warrior" who also happens to be able to do 13 pushups too? If the bad guys aren't so picky, she might find herself outclassed...

Re:Physical requirements are not all that tough

[khasim]

I got out in 1990 after serving for 7 years.

Sure, I probably could have spent a lot of time working out and gotten to that point, but what's the point?

So that the other people in your unit know that they can depend upon you to perform the physical requirements of being in a war zone.

Anytime you introduce a selective pressure for one attribute, you're unwittingly selecting AGAINST other attributes.

And I agree with that. 100%. Dr. Hawking wouldn't be physically able to serve (even if he wanted to). But you would want him working on your side.

Do you want the best "cyber warrior" you can find, or the best "cyber warrior" who also happens to be able to do 13 pushups too?

I prefer to substitute "Facebook" for "cyber" in these articles. It puts them in perspective.

But that isn't the question. The question is whether these "Facebook warriors" will ever be deployed to a war zone.

If yes, then they need to meet the physical requirements the same as every other soldier.

If no, then hire them as civilians. Skip Basic and AIT and everything else. Classify them along with all the other GS-whatevers.

Re:Physical requirements are not all that tough

[Rich0]

Don't get me wrong - having physical requirements for anybody who is deployed anywhere near a combat zone or who is responsible for providing physical security is a no-brainer. If the mission requires having a "cyber warrior" join a team that will infiltrate some facility then they certainly should be able to meet the physical qualifications, use a gun, etc.

Re: Physical requirements are not all that tough

[Dahamma]

If you are in your early 20's and otherwise pass the basic health requirements, but can't do a dozen push ups in 2 minutes or stand for an hour, you probably should *not* be in the Army.

If you don't have any other health issues besides being so out of shape you can't accomplish those, then yes, I think spending the month or so it would take to get in a bit better shape to pass it would be a good sign of someone who might actually take pride and responsibility in their work.

Re:Physical requirements are not all that tough

[Dahamma]

If you have no other health issues besides being that out of shape, you'd be surprised how easily you can get in at least basic enough shape to meet those requirements. I'm surprised how low the current Army requirements are, really, I could easily do them all and I haven't gone near a gym in 15 years.

Back when I was working out, my initial pull up (MUCH harder than push ups, of course) count was a big zero. After a month I could do 5, and after 2 months 10-15. The *Army Ranger* requirement is 6 (regular PFT doesn't require any, I think).

The *best* would have no problem spending 30 minutes a day (or even every other day) for a month or so to meet those minimal requirements. Especially if you actually *wanted* the job - if not, then who cares? All it takes is a very small amount of willpower and commitment, something the Army should be looking for.

Re: Physical requirements are not all that tough

[Cederic]

I have very weak arms relative to body weight. Always have done. 13 push-ups has never been easy for me, even when I could do 100 sit ups in a minute and run 2 miles in under 12.

I can however benchpress my own weight. Different muscle groups..

Something wrong with those numbers

[Chuckstar]

There's something wrong with their numbers.

There's no way that only 30% of Americans are high school graduates who are not obese and don't have criminal records. It's just not possible.

The U.S. high school graduation rate is 80%. About 30% of the population have been arrested. Many of those will be found innocent, charges never pressed, or convicted of very minor charges, such that 8.5% of the population ends up with felony convictions. Does obesity account for all the rest?

The stats they are using are ages 17-24. Is it possible they are skewed by the fact that many 17 and 18-year-olds simply haven't finished high school yet (even if they are on track to do so)?

Re:Something wrong with those numbers

[Rich0]

The U.S. high school graduation rate is 80%. About 30% of the population have been arrested.

Well, if that alone isn't cause for concern, I don't know what is. Think about the implications of that in a society where you have a good chance of being unemployable even if you have a college degree...

That's why they have the draft

[pubwvj]

That's why they have the draft.
If you won't work for low pay, they'll force you to work for low pay. And get shot and killed. Most Fortune 500 companies don't require that last little bit...

Re:That's why they have the draft

[Hognoxious]

Shhh! Don't give them ideas.

Re:That's why they have the draft

[pubwvj]

I take it you're not aware that the draft is still in the laws, although not currently used, and only a signature away. Don't get complacent jack(ass).

Ob: Animal House

[Hognoxious]

Fat, drunk and stupid is no way to go through life, son.

Not in civvy street, anyway.

Re:Why do they need to be in the Military?

[SgtAaron]

Why can't they just be hired to do specific work like millions of other federal employees? This seems a bit stupid.

I can think of a couple of reasons, there may be more. A new army recruit is probably going to be payed less than a civilian government employee. Also, in the military, you can work 18+ hrs a day and there is no such thing as overtime. Civilians are also not subject to the uniform code of military justice, which means punishing bad guys--or, heh, good guys doing bad--is always made easier than dealing with messy civilian justice.

Re:Why not train?

[SylvesterTheCat]

As a taxpayer, is that really how you want tax dollars spent?

Do you really want them to hire someone who does not meet the physical requirements to then pay them to get into the required level of physical fitness over enlisting / contracting (an enlistment is a contract) someone who does meet all the requirements?

Re:What a great idea!

[stephanruby]

I think "criminal histories" in this case is probably just a code-phrase for "smoked weed".

Lt. Col. Sharlene Pigg makes it sound like the military is relaxing its recruiting standards over criminal records because it needs "hackers".

But the truth of the matter is, the military has already relaxed its recruiting standards over criminal records. It did it for Vietnam and Korea when nobody else wanted to go. And it did it again ever since the war in Iraq got started, even formerly convicted felons have been able to get in (not just former weed smokers).

I'd say don't believe the hype regarding their need for hackers. The military is notoriously bad at matching recruits with jobs according to their existing technical abilities. If you want to do cyber warfare, get yourself a bachelor of art in something, anything, so that you get yourself recruited as an officer at the very least, to increase your chances -- not guarantee them mind you. If you enter the military without a degree because you like programming, or worse because you like playing video games, expect to be used as IED fodder in the Middle East, for the jobs that no one else wants to do.

Re:Capable people don't want to be involved.

[ColdWetDog]

Son, we use American units here, none of this 'metric' bullshit.

Now, your question again?

Another Service?

[Jawnn]

I don't believe the mission nor the culture of a "cyber warrior" (yes, whatever the fuck that is) lends itself to the military. Sorry, no. Not even close. What makes those guys (and yes, it is mostly guys, by far) tick is utterly foreign to military culture. It's a bad fit.

Re:What a great idea!

[SylvesterTheCat]

How long ago was that?

Replying with "no" is an option.

My understanding when I enlisted (over 20 years ago) and through now has been, that an admission of usage was itself not an issue, if there was no longer any current usage and drug test results were negative. One of the primary issues (maybe the only?) of concern was the ability of someone to blackmail the service member for (classified) information by threatening to make drug usage known to the chain of command. If the service member admits to usage prior to enlistment / contracting, there is no ability to blackmail.

It is possibly that has changed over the years. I can also see that if there is no arrest record or nobody to dime you out, answering "no" is the simplest answer.

Great news for Kim DotCom

[haruchai]

he can apply for amnesty, change his name to General Lardass and asked to be put in charge of Cyber Command.

Wrong solution

[Livius]

Why not simply order then to undergo physical training until they are no longer obese? Most of them would thank you for it.

(Yes, I know obesity is not that simple, but surely it could be one part of the solution.)

Re:Plenty of recruits out there

[AHuxley]

The NSA always looked after the wider educational needs of its staff due to hidden funding. The GCHQ had finally learned the reason why staff need to be taken care of with good conditions, more educational support and wages by the 1960-80's.
It really depends on how much the US gov wants to pay, the conditions offered in hot and cold parts of the world and the quality of long term higher education support offered to each person.
If not many other nations will be ready to listen, support and offer funding to any cleared US staff member who feels unhappy and needs a new friend.
Or just get their own people digitally cleared as new US cyberwarriors. Over many years a few will make it to the top of cyberwarrior command.

Its about more recruits being available for combat

[drnb]

... "Buy it for 250% the cost of doing it in house from the contractor with the most congressmen" compromise ...

While that is a factor it is exaggerated. The bigger factor, and the military's motivation, in turning to contractors is that fewer recruits have to be used for support and logistics, so more are available for combat specialties. We are seeing the exact same thing here. Highly technical roles filled by those physically unfit for combat, freeing up those recruits who are physically fit for combat specialties. In some ways it is a little bit parallel to the various WW2 Women's Auxiliaries for the various services. The idea at that time was to free a man from a desk job so he could go to the field.

Similar to WW2 Women's Auxiliaries ...

[drnb]

In some ways it is similar to the WW2 Women's Auxiliaries that the various services had. The idea back then was to free up a man from a "desk job" so he could be sent to "the front".

That said, if we need a cyber whatever it could be an entirely different branch of service. These specialists could be placed with the military as needed.

Speaking as a Soldier...

[McCat]

I can understand the logic behind this decision, but I don't think it is the best way to achieve what they want to accomplish. Cyber warfare is the next big up-and-coming thing. It is officially considered one of the "theaters of operation" for warfare now and it seems like every week we hear about some new virus, exploit, or hackers from China breaking into US businesses' networks. Because of this, it makes strategic sense to recruit "cyber warriors" if you will. What doesn't make sense is how it is necessary to loosen the already lax (IMHO) physical standards. I don't consider myself to be a paragon of physical athleticism, but I got a 295/300 on my last PT test. My MOS also requires that I spend almost all of my time sitting at a desk. Despite that, I still keep myself in good shape. Why? Because it's healthy. Because it's good for my body and for my brain. Because there is a certain pride associated with knowing that even though I am a "desk jockey" I can still run, ruck and keep up with the rest of the operational Army. And because if all I did was meet the minimum standard for height/weight and PT, I would quite honestly just be outright fat. Instead of lowering barriers to entry and decreasing the quality of our armed forces, incentivise people. Offer them enlistment bonuses or give them monthly MOS-specific pay for special skills. It will cost more, maybe. But what really has the higher cost: lazy soldiers or better-paid soldiers?

Re:Most countries invaded and/or bombed...

[Anonymous Coward]

Regarding the 11,000,000, I've seen numbers like that as well.
It's mostly nonsense. Things is how their logic goes:
The USA is responsible for all the dead in the Korean war because that was the USA's fault by being there was taunting the communists and caused them to invade the south.

The USA is responsible for all the people killed by the Khmer Rouge because by Cambodia being next door to Vietnam it was destabilized.

The USA is blamed for the India-Pakistan war and the separation of Bangladesh because guns were used or something like that. I honestly don't understand why USA gets blamed for a Hindu-Muslim war that had been going on since the 1200's in a British colony.

The USA is responsible for the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan because Jimmy Carter willed it by tricking those ever-gullible Soviets. So, all the people killed by the Soviets are really the USA's fault. and the war-monger Jimmy Carter

The USA is responsible for everyone killed by South American governments because they're neighbors and wanted them to kill their own people in case they might be communists.

The USA is responsible for all the wars in Africa in the post WWII European de-colonialization era because. Well, once again I don't see why USA is blamed for Europeans actions in Africa.

However, there's still some big numbers accrued to the USA.
The Vietnam War numbers I can accept, because, well, if theyhad walked away it would have been over much sooner.
The first Desert Storm Iraq war? NO, Saddam gets those numbers, not the USA.
The second US Iraq invasion?- those numbers are indeed all on the USA's account.
Afghanistan? The Taliban and al Qaeda were poking a hornet's nest and got what they deserved. Still, goes to the USA's account

Re:Lowering the Bar

[Dahamma]

It's definitely true and public knowledge...

But you make a key point as far as salaries - I have never been in the military but I have been in the tech industry for 20 years and techies generally don't care about "rank" and hate hierarchy and bureaucracy, two particular specialties of the military. It's amazing how the US government is fine with paying $300 million for a fighter jet or $1.5M for a single cruise missile but they think paying $60k a year to a Captain with 5 years of experience is adequate to recruit smart engineers out of college...

How could this go wrong?

[CFBMoo1]

Dork 1: LOL, I just invaded the Afghanistan instance! Look at em run! LOL!!111
Dork 2: OMG, I zoned in to the Russian instance! I'm so d3ad!!!1

Dork2 has died!
Russian dorks are invading Alaska!

Dork3: Guyz! WTH u m3ss w/teh Russians?!!1 OMG mah base!111LOL
Dork1: U got pwnd! LOL!!11

*Some generals face palm somewhere before the fan gets really dirty*