Military Review English Edition July-August 2016 | Seite 26

Notes
1. Yogi Berra, The Yogi Book: I Really Didn’t Say Everything I
Said! (New York: Workman Publishing Company, 1998).
2. Army Doctrine Publication 5-0, The Operations Process
(Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office [GPO], May
2012). Situational understanding is the product of applying analysis
and judgment to relevant information to determine the relationship
among the operational and mission variables to facilitate decision
making. For the purposes of this paper, it equates with situational
awareness, which is not defined in joint or Army doctrine.
3. The term cyberspace situational understanding (cyber SU)
refers to a notional capability that provides relevant data and information about cyberspace for display on a common operational
picture or commander’s dashboard. Cyber SU (the capability) is
distinguished from the phrase cyberspace situational awareness
(cyber SA), which per Joint Publication ( JP) 3-12(R), Cyberspace
Operations (Washington, DC: U.S. GPO, February 2013), refers to
the requisite current and predictive knowledge of cyberspace and
the operational environment upon which cyberspace operations
depend, including all factors affecting friendly and adversary
cyberspace forces.
4. Yogi Berra, The Yogi Book. Said on Yogi Berra Appreciation
Day, Saint Louis, Missouri, in 1947.
5. Department of Defense, The Joint Concept for Cyberspace
( JCC) (August 2012), 9 (FOUO).
6. Joint Cyber Situational Awareness (Cyber SA) Initial Capabilities Document (ICD), 23 April 2012, approved by the Joint
Chiefs of Staff Requirements Oversight Council ( JROC). Available
on the JROC Knowledge Management and Decision Support (KM/
DS) System.
7. This statement is the authors’ assessment after comparing
the Joint Cyber SA ICD with the Army Cyber Command (ARCYBER)/2nd Army Support Element, Army Cyberspace Operations
Capabilities Based Assessment (CBA) Final Report (U.S. Army Training and Doctrine Command [TRADOC], 15 December 2013), 34.
See fig. 9, “Functional Needs Analysis Gap Prioritization,” and send
document requests to ARCYBER.
8. TRADOC Pamphlet (TP) 525-3-0, The U.S. Army Capstone
Concept (Fort Eustis, VA: TRADOC, 2012), 28.
9. Ibid., 33.
10. TP 525-3-1, The U.S. Army Operating Concept: Win in a
Complex World 2020-2040 (Fort Eustis, VA: TRADOC, 2014).
11. JP 3-12(R), Cyberspace Operations (Washington, DC: U.S.
GPO, February 2013).
12. Army Doctrine Reference Publication 6-0, Mission Command (Washington, DC: U.S. GPO, May 2012).
13. Field Manual (FM) 6-02, Signal Support to Operations
(Washington, DC: U.S. GPO, January 2014).
14. Brett T. Williams, “Ten Propositions Regarding Cyberspace
Operations,” Joint Force Quarterly 61 (2nd Quarter, 2011): 15. Retired
Maj. Gen. Williams is the former J3 of U.S. Cyber Command.
15. Ibid.
16. Yogi Berra and Dave Kaplan, When You Come to a Fork in
the Road, Take It!: Inspiration and Wisdom From One of Baseball’s
Greatest Heroes (New York: Hyperion Books, 2001).

24

17. Joint Requirements Oversight Council, Manual for the
Operation of the Joint Capabilities Integration and Development
System ( JCIDS Manual) (12 February 2015).
18. A search of the Capabilities and Army Requirement
Oversight Council Management System revealed that, to date,
no cyberspace-related documents have been approved by the
Army; meanwhile the Air Force and Navy have several approved
documents.
19. David G. Perkins, “‘Win in a Complex World’-But How?”
Army AL&T Magazine ( January–March 2015).
20. Ibid.
21. Ibid.
22. JCIDS Manual. Information System Capability Development Documents (CDDs) allow sponsors to describe initial
minimum values for key performance parameters, key system
attributes, and additional performance attributes. Sponsors of
software systems, which benefit from continuous technology insertions, may approve follow on documents internally vice through
the Joint Requirements Oversight Council.
23. Matthew Maier and Jerry Cook, “Hacking Cyber Stovepipes,” Army AL&T Magazine ( January–March 2015).
24. The three program executive offices (PEO) that have key
roles in supporting future cyber technologies are (1) Command,
Control, and Communications–Tactical (PEO C3T); (2) Enterprise
Information Systems (PEO EIS); and (3) Intel, Electronic Warfare
and Sensors (PEO IEW&S). PEO C3T is the lead for defense of the
tactical network, PEO EIS is the lead for defense of the enterprise
network, and PEO IEW&S is the lead for offensive cyberspace
efforts.
25. Maier and Cook, “Hacking Cyber Stovepipes.”
26. Ibid.
27. Yogi Berra and Dave H. Kaplan, You Can Observe a Lot by
Watching: What I’ve Learned About Teamwork From the Yankees
and Life (Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons, 2008).
28. FM 6-0, Command and Staff Organization and Operations
(Washington, DC: U.S. GPO, May 2014).
29. Department of Defense, Instruction 5000.02, Operation of
the Defense Acquisition System, 7 January 2 015, accessed 26 April
2016, http://www.dtic.mil/whs/directives/corres/pdf/500002p.
pdf. Several builds and deployments of software will typically be
necessary to satisfy approved requirements for an increment of
capability.
30. ARCYBER/2nd Army Support Element, Army Cyberspace
Operations.
31. Michael J. Pellowski, The Little Giant Book of Baseball Facts
(New York: Sterling Publishing Company, 2007).
32. A search of the Capabilities and Army Requirement
Oversight Council Management System revealed that, to date,
no cyberspace related documents have been approved by the
Army; meanwhile the Air Force and Navy have several approved
documents.
33. This is a misattributed quote, which Yogi Berra claims he
never said. But there are conflicting sources. See Berra and Kaplan,
When You Come to a Fork in the Road, Take It.

July-August 2016  MILITARY REVIEW