The fighting between Georgia and Russia was (apparently) preceded by a period of cyber operations.  According to this article in the WAPO, “advanced force operations” on the internet had taken place for months.  It was even observed by internet companies.  This is all to be expected and nearly all warfare in the future will have a component operating on the internet.  Between the reliance on the satellite based global positioning system and our use of Google as our online search engine for information, we now have people transferring their phone services to Voice over internet protocol (VOIP) with things like Skype, a free phone system enabling international calls over the internet.

Just a couple of days ago, the US Air Force announced the suspension of plans to establish a Cyber Command within the service.  This was one of the first decisions by new Chief of Staff General Schwartz and it absolutely was the right move.  This is not to say that there should not be any component of cyber operations in the service or in any of the services but frankly, the DOD has got to get of it’s butt and soon, and establish a DOD agency that will be the lead for all cyber operations.

I don’t know if it should be part of the DIA, NGA, or more likely, its own separate defense agency or even a separate federal agency under the control of the Director for National Intelligence, but we need a single coordinating entity serving as the offensive and intelligence component of cyberspace.  As I wrote in previous posts here, it’s critical for there to be a traffic cop or single coordinating agency for offensive cyber operations just as there is during a military operations for targeting. 

During the planning for military operations, the various components will get together to plan the takedown of certain elements of the enemy’s forces.  But as much as an air planner may want to take down certain aspects of an enemy’s defense which might involve destruction of antennas, towers, or electrical grids, other elements, especially intelligence forces, might be using them to obtain information from them.  There lies the quandary is it more critical to leave the bad guys talking so you can understand what they are saying or shut down the communications?

In this day of cyber warfare, you may have an intelligence entity using a website to obtain information and along comes an enterprising proposal to shut down the exact same site.  Who decides?  Who even knows that one group in the government will shut down the very place where we are obtaining information.  During this latest combat between Russia and Georgia, it’s been reported that Georgia transferred their internet hosting to US sites hoping that with their location here that the Russians wouldn’t dare attack. This will definitely become a feature of future warfare, transference of hosting to try and dissuade attacks.  I predict you will also see terrorists and others placing their sites inside or alongside humanitarian web sites daring governments from taking them down, thus scaring us from attacking sites for fear of causing damage to humanitarian organizations. 

All of this begs for new international protocols with regard to warfare and international agreements.  Just as our own government struggles to balance privacy concerns with valid needs by law enforcement and intelligence agencies to mine data on the web, so must the international community create new agreements for conduct of warfare on the internet. In the next few days, I will unveil a concept I had for Congress to create a new entity to conduct cyberspace operations using a century old international protocol as the basis for the operations.

Coming soon: The United States Cyber Ship Resolute