[Infowarrior] - Pentagon debates development of offensive cyberspace capabilities

[Richard Forno]

Pentagon debates development of offensive cyberspace capabilities

The current emphasis is on intelligence gathering and defending U.S.  
electronic security, but some officials think the military should know  
how to attack other nations' computer systems.
By Julian E. Barnes, Los Angeles Times Staff Writer
September 8, 2008

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-cyber8-2008sep08,0,1049889.story

WASHINGTON -- Igniting a provocative new debate, senior military  
officials are pushing the Pentagon to go on the offensive in  
cyberspace by developing the ability to attack other nations' computer  
systems, rather than concentrating on defending America's electronic  
security.

Under the most sweeping proposals, military experts would acquire the  
know-how to commandeer the unmanned aerial drones of adversaries,  
disable enemy warplanes in mid-flight and cut off electricity at  
precise moments to strategic locations, such as military  
installations, while sparing humanitarian facilities, such as hospitals.

An expansion of offensive capabilities in cyberspace would represent  
an important change for the military. For years, U.S. officials have  
been reluctant to militarize what is widely seen as a medium for  
commerce and communication -- much like space.

But a new National Military Strategy for Cyberspace Operations,  
declassified earlier this year, fueled the Pentagon debate and gave  
the military a green light to push for expanded capabilities.

The monthslong debate took on added urgency after the electronic  
attacks that coincided with the Russian military's early August push  
into Georgia and reflects a newfound uncertainty over the state of  
global cyber-warfare capabilities.

Military officials have not concluded whether the electronic network  
attacks in Georgia were coordinated by Moscow or were the work of  
freelance hackers or paramilitary groups. Still, the use of cyberspace  
by Russia and other countries is drawing intense scrutiny by the  
Pentagon.

"As we go forward in time, cyber is going to be a very important part  
of our war-fighting tactics, techniques and procedures," said Michael  
W. Wynne, a former Air Force secretary.

Under Wynne, the Air Force established a provisional Cyber Command in  
2007 and made operating in the cyber domain part of its mission  
statement, on par with air operations. Wynne clashed with superiors  
over the Air Force approach to cyberspace and other issues and was  
fired in June after breakdowns in U.S. nuclear weapons security  
procedures. New Air Force leaders now are reassessing plans for a  
permanent Cyber Command, which under Wynne's leadership would have  
included some offensive capabilities.

Most other U.S. efforts focus on defending military and government  
networks and mining international systems for intelligence. Both the  
Army and Navy have long-standing operations but primarily focus on  
intelligence gathering. The Army, in particular, has used a variety of  
electronic networks to gather intelligence on insurgents in Iraq and  
Afghanistan.

The most advanced expertise on operating in cyberspace is held by the  
National Security Agency, the Defense Department intelligence arm that  
monitors foreign phone calls, e-mails and other communication. A  
senior defense official said the NSA "is where the mother lode of  
expertise is. Those are the folks that have been looking at the  
capability for the longest period of time."

Overseeing all of these various military efforts in cyberspace is the  
Defense Department's Strategic Command, which is primarily responsible  
for the nation's nuclear arsenal.

Several senior Pentagon officials would discuss the Defense  
Department's cyberspace work only if their names were withheld because  
of sensitive intelligence issues. But officials involved in the  
cyberspace debate are sparring over not only what to do but who within  
the military should do it.

Because of the difficulty of training cyber-warriors and the need to  
closely monitor their work long term, many top Pentagon officials  
believe that the most advanced cyber-experts should remain at the NSA.

A senior Pentagon official said that "exploiting" computer networks to  
gather intelligence is currently the most important use of cyber- 
power. "Clearly, the exploitation activities have been preeminent,"  
the official said.

But citing Russia's use of cyberspace, some current and former  
officials believe that the U.S. military services, if allowed, could  
move beyond intelligence gathering and develop a broad array of  
offensive capabilities that would fit well with conventional combat.

"Let's not mistake intelligence collection with military operations,"  
said Lani Kass, a senior Air Force official and former director of the  
service's Cyberspace Task Force. "The mission of the NSA is to collect  
signals intelligence, and it is very good at it. But the NSA is not a  
war-fighting organization."

If the military is allowed to develop more advanced cyber-warfare  
methods, the United States would be able to routinely launch an  
airstrike at a target and simultaneously use an electronic attack to  
disable defenses or spread disinformation, said Wynne, the former Air  
Force secretary.

"It isn't just about protecting your networks," Wynne said. "It is  
about having a soldier with an invasive tool he can fire at an  
antenna, and put some information into it, and from there do some  
damage."

While declining to specify every cyberspace activity they might want  
to develop, military officials emphasized that all such efforts would  
be governed by the laws of war and international treaties.

Other senior officials are skeptical of what they see as "Buck Rogers"  
scenarios and argue that defending U.S. computer systems is more  
urgent. The Pentagon is probed every day by hackers and would-be cyber- 
intruders, making protection of military networks the top priority,  
said the senior defense official.

More importantly, potential U.S. adversaries are unlikely to depend on  
electronic networks as much as the Pentagon does, the official said.  
That means defending U.S. capabilities is more vital than disrupting  
enemy capabilities.

"The United States, more than any other military, is a Net-centric  
operation," the senior official said. "Any adversary we would tend to  
go after -- anyone we can currently foresee -- wouldn't use it to the  
same extent. Therefore, defending that capability and making sure it  
is not denied to you -- that has to be critical."

To some, the tension over cyberspace echoes military debates through  
the centuries. Maj. Gen. William T. Lord, head of the Air Force cyber- 
effort, said that such discussions were akin to an old military puzzle  
known as "intelligence gain-loss."

"Do you not destroy a target because you can exploit it? Or do you  
destroy the target -- and lose the ability to exploit -- because  
troops are in harm's way?" Lord said. "That is not a debate. It is a  
discussion that goes on in war fighting."

Wynne agrees that there will always be such arguments. But unless the  
military services are given the resources to develop strong offensive  
capabilities, top officials will not have the option of using them, he  
said.

"This is all about preparedness and making sure the U.S. military is  
awake and alert," Wynne said. "And I say: Make sure we can do it to  
them before they can do it to us."

julian.barnes at latimes.com