Congress just recently received a new congressional research service (CRS) report on the possibility of creating a new U.S. military cyber service. I am both in favor of this change, and opposed to it, if we do not broaden what this military service would do.
For those who are newer to this debate, let’s rewind. Pre the establishment of US Cyber Command, dual-hatted with NSA, all “cyber” was viewed within the holistic strategic concept of “information operations,” (see Joint Pub 3-13, available here: https://nsarchive.gwu.edu/themes/custom/nsarchive/templates/pdfjs/web/viewer.html?file=https%3A%2F%2Fnsarchive.gwu.edu%2Fsites%2Fdefault%2Ffiles%2Fdocuments%2F5626284%2FJoint-Chiefs-of-Staff-Joint-Publication-3-13.pdf) which included electronic warfare, cyberspace operations, military information support operations (MISO), military deception and operations security.
Joint Doctrine is the right place to begin any discussion about a potential new military service. Why? Good question: If we man, train, equip, and structure our military services and forces around one siloed function of IO (e.g. cyberspace), and forget that it is one of only 5 or potentially 10 other non-kinetic functions, that all must be harmonized, synchronized and and harnessed to be effective: we will not only be creating artificial silos of capabilities - we will also eventually delude ourselves into thinking that “cyber/space/EW” troops are a means unto themselves, which they are not.
Absent the IO doctrine and strategy laid out in the joint pub, it does no good to have millions of uniformed cyber warfighters.
So, let’s look at this through a more helpful lens.
It is time for the Pentagon to assess and measure its non-kinetic readiness across the joint force. This would be quite affordable and would identify key gaps that need filled by training, civilians, contractors or other capabilities. Each CCMD and sub-commands/formations would be required to demonstrate they can fight through enemy non-kinetic actions, to include cyberattack, spectrum denial, degraded or nonexistent communications, and a unified enemy information operation against the unit - during both peacetime and wartime. (See GAO Report: https://www.gao.gov/products/gao-19-362, and more crucially: https://www.gao.gov/products/gao-21-525t).
Integrate non-kinetic information operations capabilities into all kinetic military training. Begin teaching our troops to operate, and fight with zero comms, and little to low spectrum availability - and still dominate the battlespace. The Pentagon can use multiple GAO reports as a map to build out a new military command that integrates Cyber, EW, IO, intelligence, space, and cognitive warfare, into one organization. Currently there are hundreds of commands and over 50k troops assigned to some of these missions, some of the time. That is not sufficient. If you can’t measure it, you can’t influence it. GAO has found the Pentagon needs enhanced leadership and integration in the information environment, in order to deconflict and prevent information fratricide among friendly forces/agencies: https://www.gao.gov/products/gao-21-525t. In addition, over 500 Pentagon organizations/agencies have some cyber role - this is not how you run a military: https://www.gao.gov/products/gao-25-107121.
Task each of the Military Services to man, train and equip for information age warfare, to the degree they train for kinetic warfare. This will require updating DoD/DoW enlistment standards - our nation simply cannot afford to keep precluding the most intelligent people in the nation from military service: preventing citizens who are neurodiverse, yet exceptionally talented, from joining the military is not only short-sighted - it is proactively destructive. Brains, not brawn win our nations wars, and while we need both, we should not limit who military recruiters can recruit. (See: https://www.rand.org/pubs/research_reports/RRA1875-1.html).
The three modest proposals listed above do not require a new military service in the Pentagon. Instead, they are practical, feasible and policy/structural steps that can ensure we have the correct “tooth to tail” ration in the Armed Forces.
Wishing each of you a great week ahead,
Carson