John Reed with some good stuff for Foreign Policy, per usual. Reed wrote on advance testimony from the SecDef-to-be Chuck Hagel pertaining to cyber-deterrence. You can find that testimony (on a lot more than just cyber-deterrence) here. Notably, Mr. Hagel had/will have this to say tomorrow (answers in bold):
Do you believe we are deterring and dissuading our adversaries in cyberspace?
At this time, it appears that the United States has successfully deterred major cyber attacks. I expect that deterring and, if necessary, defeating such attacks will be a continued key challenge. If confirmed I intend to ensure that the Department provides strong support to our national efforts in this area.
The Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff has recommended that United States Cyber Command (CYBERCOM) be elevated from a sub-unified to a full unified command. The National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013 includes a Sense of the Congress resolution calling for consultation with Congress before a Presidential decision is made to make CYBERCOM a unified command, and asking for consideration of a number of issues associated with such a decision. Do you believe it would be advisable to consult with Congress prior to making a decision to elevate CYBERCOM to a unified command?
Yes. If confirmed, I will ensure consultation with Congress.
As the current Commander of the sub-unified CYBERCOM is dual-hatted as the Director of the National Security Agency (NSA), what are your views on the wisdom of having an intelligence officer serve as a unified combatant commander, rather than a line officer with broad training and command experience?
My sense is that dual-hatting the commander of CYBERCOM and the Director of NSA has worked well to date. However, if confirmed, I will review specifics of the dual-hatted relationship and assess whether it should continue in the future. I recognize that NSA support is critical to CYBERCOM’s mission given the technical capabilities required to operate in cyberspace. In addition, I recognize that the CYBERCOM commander requires significant understanding of the intelligence community’s capabilities and processes to execute his or her missions effectively. However, I am also aware of concerns about the dual-hatted relationship and, if confirmed, will carefully consider these concerns.
Do you believe that CYBERCOM is mature enough to become a unified command, and that policy, strategy, operational planning, and rules of engagement to govern operations in cyberspace are sufficiently developed to justify this step?
My understanding is that the Department has made significant progress since CYBERCOM’s creation in 2009. This includes issuance of a comprehensive strategy for military operations in cyberspace. In addition, I am told that CYBERCOM is expanding its integration into the Department’s deliberate planning, and that the Chairman, with the approval of the Secretary of Defense, will issue a new set of rules of engagement governing all military operations, including cyber operations, in the near future. If confirmed, I will evaluate the maturity of the command and will consult closely with the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, Combatant Commanders and Congress prior to any decisions with respect to CYBERCOM.
John Reed previously wrote on what we could expect from SecDef Hagel in another Foreign Policy article.
Leave a Reply