Military Review English Edition May-June 2016 | Page 115

CYBER FORCE

experience in cyberspace operations. Currently, senior
officers within each of the armed services are promoted for performance in their service’s domain (e.g., the
Air Force’s chief is a fighter pilot, and the chief of naval
operations is a submarine officer). It is appropriate that
these officers are experienced in their domain’s warfare. They must communicate the challenges associated

(Photo courtesy of U.S. Army)

Soldiers with the 780th Military Intelligence Brigade conduct cyberspace operations 24 January 2016 during a training rotation for the
2nd Stryker Brigade Combat Team, 2nd Infantry Division, at the National Training Center, Fort Irwin, California. The unit, based in Fort
Meade, Maryland, was one of several cyber organizations that took
part in the rotation as part of a pilot program designed to help the
Army build and employ cyber capabilities in its tactical formations.

with their domains to political decision makers. These
leaders then interpret political guidance and disseminate funding for their services. Who accomplishes
MILITARY REVIEW  May-June 2016

this function for the cyberspace domain? The commander of USCYBERCOM currently advocates for
cyberspace. However, USCYBERCOM is under U.S.
Strategic Command (USSTRATCOM), several levels
removed from political decision makers. Furthermore,
the USCYBERCOM commander ascends to command
from within one of the armed services, largely governed
by officers who are focused on their specific physical
domains. Since the services determine which officers
are to be promoted, even the USCYBERCOM commander must split attention between cyberspace and the
domain of his or her service or risk failure to advance.
Establishing the Cyber Force, complete with its own
member of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, would allow military
leaders with experiential depth in cyberspace to effectively communicate the challenges of cyberwarfare to
political decision makers. In turn, the Cyber Force leaders could efficiently employ the guidance and resources
ascribed to military operations in cyberspace.
Cyberwarriors. Beyond developing experienced
leaders for cyberwarfare, the Cyber Force would attract
and develop better qualified cyberwarriors. Currently,
civilians who want to defend the nation in cyberspace
must choose one of the existing armed services and
undergo its basic training curriculum. While those
programs are exquisitely tailored toward producing
soldiers, sailors, airmen, and marines, they may be
unnecessary and daunting to civilians who merely want
to engage in the predominantly mental competition of
cyberwarfare. Certainly, DOD employs many civilians
who are involved in cyberspace activities; however, this
is a suboptimal solution. There are legal complications
to civilians conducting warfare, and recruiting cyberwarriors as service members more accurately recognizes their contribution and allows for greater upward
mobility and command. By establishing the Cyber Force,
the military would appropriately recruit and categorize
its cyberwarriors without dissuading interested civilians
and influencing them to enter the lucrative computer or
communications industries instead.
Training cyberwarriors would also become more
efficient in the Cyber Force. Currently, each armed
service is forming a training program for its respective
cyberwarriors. For example, the Army established the
Cyber Center of Excellence at Fort Gordon, Georgia.
This distributed method for developing cyberwarriors
nearly guarantees inefficiency for the larger DOD
113