Comments on: The British Military’s Brave New World?

By: Cincinattus Jr.

Cincinattus Jr. — Fri, 22 Jan 2010 18:09:55 +0000

“plus an army of hackers. And hackers may not require much kit, but if they’re any good they will expect to be paid an awful lot.”

I am not so sure this is so–can’t we just farm this out to India or some other country with a technologically advanced but cut-rate labor force as we in the US have done on many fronts already? ;-)

By: Tim Stevens

Tim Stevens — Fri, 22 Jan 2010 10:06:45 +0000

Private-public partnerships (PPP, or P3) are at the heart of both the US and UK’s national cybersecurity strategies. Where the balance lies between responsibility, oversight, delivery, etc, is open to debate…

By: Inside Edge

Inside Edge — Thu, 21 Jan 2010 14:20:12 +0000

I think the closer parallel is the “merchant navy”. The point about the blurring of civil/military and “no boundary” warfare is that the skills and technologies are best developed in the civil world. The question is how best you can “reliably” harness your nation’s civil power. . Surely US has some advantanges as the home of Google and major IT security companies. This could all be done through commercial arrangements are different relationships needed?

By: Tim Stevens

Tim Stevens — Wed, 20 Jan 2010 21:30:15 +0000

Funnily enough, the TA model is exactly what the Chinese allegedly have, with their ‘net militia’ units. Individuals are drawn from all relevant fields, particularly ICT, obviously, but also those with language skills. They are flexible, adpatable, knowledgeable, and can be deployed quickly and effectively. They are also – if reports are true – not technically on the PLA’s payroll, which grants China plausible deniability in the event these groups get up to anything untoward.

By: Tom Wein

Tom Wein — Wed, 20 Jan 2010 08:52:37 +0000

I like Jack’s idea of a TA of cyber-soldiers. I think it’s rather like Army doctors – they have to be practicing all the time.

They shouldnt be civilians though. It creates quite a lot of mistrust among the forces for an organization which would find it hard enough already to establish itself. So I would suggest that we make them RAF. It’s the most electronically-minded service, which already has a philosophy of recruiting a few exceptionally high quality applicants and looking after them well. Plus it’ll be a sop to them when every program they want gets cancelled – I note they got no mentions at all in Richards’ shopping list – just “air mobility platforms”, which sounds suspiciously like Chinooks, Apaches and not fighter jets.

By: Paul

Paul — Wed, 20 Jan 2010 04:38:21 +0000

Jack,
Cyber security along with the toys needed for future warfare are realities that those with the budget knifes must face.
Another reality that must be faced is what type of force structure do we need.
Do we need to project power on to the continent? Africa? Where do our interest truly fall?
Do we need the ability to project afar or near afar If afar, then we are foing to need the ability to put boots on the ground. And if are going to put them “out there” then we need to send our children to war with the best kit we can reasonable put together.
Otherwise what is the use of protecting the homefront if there is no one to come home to it?

By: Jack

Jack — Tue, 19 Jan 2010 23:48:33 +0000

I’m wary about the concept of mass being applied to cyber warfare and “soldier/diplomats”. Particularly since coming from a general, this implies that such additions will be integrated into the military command structures that exist at present. Surely the concept of mass was used to describe the ability to concentrate a large number of people, equating to destructive power (and later, technology reducing the “mass” required to achieve the same destructive effect). To do this efficiently required the hierarchical military structures that stick around to this day. But are those command structures, training and organisational values appropriate or necessary to the tasks being talked about here? Does an IT security expert have to go through basic training or sandhurst in order to prove that they can defend the country against cyber attacks? Do the various specialists required in a COIN operation (such as anthropologists or linguists) really need to join the armed forces in order to do what people want them to do?

It strikes me that rather than meddling with the army command structure and purpose, it might be better to employ such people as civil servants at the MoD, and integrate their work into the armed forces. For instance, if anthropologists and linguists are needed, have them assigned to military units in the field, rather like embedded journalists. I imagine that it would be easier to find specialists who were willing to “do their bit” in the field but unwilling to pick up a gun whilst doing so. In the same manner, why bother teaching fieldcraft or company command skills to a bunch of IT guys who are going to sit in a windowless room somewhere fending off state-sponsored hackers?

I think his point about personnel costing less equipment is slightly dubious for the above reason. Sure, squaddies don’t get paid much, and officers’ starting salaries are in line with graduate schemes. But anyone fit and able can become an enlisted man, and there is no specialist degree required to become an officer. But the skills that he’s talking about aren’t common. And if you’re relying on such people to defend the country against a crippling cyber attack or inform military planners of the particular inter-tribal rivalries that exist in a given hitherto forgotten corner of the world, then you’re going to want the best. And those people will cost more than what soldiers currently get paid, much much more. Prior to the US govt slashing their pay, people working for the human terrain teams could make $270,000 per annum, which got cut to a “paltry” $91,000. Do you think they’d take a further pay cut to fit in line with US army salaries? Or would they just find a less dangerous job that pays better? So one faces two options, either try and recruit these all-singing and dancing soldier/scholar/cultural experts who can speak pashto, command troops and understand the intricacies of tribal networks, or keep officers as they are and attach civilian experts to their companies who are willing to put up with being hunkered down in a firebase for six months at a time.

My two pence is that the government would be better off identifying, wooing and employing a cadre of highly qualified IT security veterans for the job of securing the country from cyber attacks. With proper security vetting, you could have large numbers of them on part time consultant contracts in case of emergencies, a sort of territorial army of security consultants. Given that cyber attacks against countries utilise the same techniques that are used against companies, it makes sense to employ people who shuttle in and out of the commercial sector, since those working for top end companies like google and amazon will be at the top of their profession. However I am sure that the military would prefer such people to be wearing uniforms, not suits.

By: Grant

Grant — Tue, 19 Jan 2010 19:50:04 +0000

It isn’t especially surprising that an army general would want to push for more soldiers and a focus for the ground, though his combined mention of asymmetric warfare and cyber-warfare is interesting. Also as could be expected the navy wants ships and so criticizes Richards, arguing that conflicts like Falklands are more likely. Who’s correct? Probably neither, I imagine that we’ll see a mix of both conventional and unconventional.
It’s almost a pity we can’t say “United States: you’ve got asymmetric wars in Central Asia and conventional in the Pacific, Germany: you’ve got conventional wars in Eastern Europe, Britain: you’ve got every war in the Middle East”.

By: Mark @ Israel

Mark @ Israel — Tue, 19 Jan 2010 18:47:10 +0000

What Richards is suggesting could be very expensive for the military. Yet, I agree in what he said that wars in the future (and even at present) may no longer just be in the actual battle field but they happen in the minds of people and in cyberspace. This is now manifesting in our world today and what Richards said will likely happen. But, the question is, will the military alone take the role in fighting these wars in the future?

By: Jason

Jason — Tue, 19 Jan 2010 18:01:32 +0000

“Indeed, some might argue the screen is our generation’s North German Plain, the place where future war will be won or lost.”

Really? How’s that playing in Afghanistan?