Based on the article, what are the most compelling reasons to you why Cyber Command should split from the NSA? Remember to keep your comments UNCLASSIFIED!
I definitely agree with the viewpoint expressed in the article that the 2 organizations will need to eventually be split in order to ultimately realize their full potential. I support the idea of splitting the organizations if for no other reason than to ensure that the 2 different authorities that are being leveraged to achieve each organizations mission aren’t used interchangeably based on convenience to achieve short-term objectives. When there is a clear delineation of authorities that are being used, the objective and options for achieving that objective are going to be easier to see and achieve. I think that the primary hurdle at this point is going to be convincing the oversight committee that they are fully prepared to achieve their objectives without the direct pairing that they currently enjoy. However, I don't think that will be particularly difficult. I feel that it will probably be more an issue of satisfying administrative requirements as opposed to any genuine shortcoming in operational capability that will need to be satisfied.
The article does a good job of outlining the legal reasons that the two organizations need to be separate. The ties between the two organizations were logical and clear for a while, but this seems to be the right time to separate the organizations and clearly define the authorities for each. Too often, it appears the lines get blurred and we enter "undefined" territory. The lines between the two organizations need to be clearly defined both legally and operationally, especially given where the world is going in the future with regards to technology and cyber.
I'm pretty much going to echo what 1SG Carlson said in that it is a good idea to split up the organizations. Divide and conquer. Hayden said it best when he stated, "if you separate [the two organizations], NSA can go all out with espionage and Cyber Command can go all out with its functions." This way the dual hatted role doesn't have to juggle the legality issues, the time, and man power.
As a side note, I love how direct Hayden is in what he says. He doesn't add political fluff to appease everybody.
It seems that the most compelling reasons to split the two organizations is on account of authorizations. Since the NSA is not authorized, as per the article, to perform the functions of cyber-command, it makes sense to separate them and make their lanes more distinguishable and making it less likely for violations for any law.
The authority to conduct cyber attack is the most compelling reason to split Cyber Command from NSA. The Title 50 and 10 authorities are very clear even though the expertise and capability to do so is finally reaching a point where it makes sense to make the split. The article does a great job of not only explaining the distinction between the authorities and the expertise needed to use them, but provides the context as to why we haven't arrived at the actual point of being able to make the split yet.
Given the authorities fall under separate congressional oversight committees, the split becomes more complicated. To me this is also a compelling reason to make the split.
The separation would be costly, but well worth the price tag. In an ever changing would and the fight to keep pace with the competition/enemy, both the NSA and Cyber Command need to be laser focused on conducting and completing their own missions, within their own authorities. With the two agencies operating under the same roof, but under two different authorities “title 50 vs. title 10”. It appears that the mission and the authorities could blur in the eyes of the soldiers/civilians on the front lines. I find that cutting the cyber cord would be the best thing for both agencies. This would provide role clarity and allow the cyber teams to focus on mission success at both the NSA and Cyber Command.
I definitely agree with the viewpoint expressed in the article that the 2 organizations will need to eventually be split in order to ultimately realize their full potential. I support the idea of splitting the organizations if for no other reason than to ensure that the 2 different authorities that are being leveraged to achieve each organizations mission aren’t used interchangeably based on convenience to achieve short-term objectives. When there is a clear delineation of authorities that are being used, the objective and options for achieving that objective are going to be easier to see and achieve.
ReplyDeleteI think that the primary hurdle at this point is going to be convincing the oversight committee that they are fully prepared to achieve their objectives without the direct pairing that they currently enjoy. However, I don't think that will be particularly difficult. I feel that it will probably be more an issue of satisfying administrative requirements as opposed to any genuine shortcoming in operational capability that will need to be satisfied.
The article does a good job of outlining the legal reasons that the two organizations need to be separate. The ties between the two organizations were logical and clear for a while, but this seems to be the right time to separate the organizations and clearly define the authorities for each. Too often, it appears the lines get blurred and we enter "undefined" territory. The lines between the two organizations need to be clearly defined both legally and operationally, especially given where the world is going in the future with regards to technology and cyber.
ReplyDeleteI'm pretty much going to echo what 1SG Carlson said in that it is a good idea to split up the organizations. Divide and conquer. Hayden said it best when he stated, "if you separate [the two organizations], NSA can go all out with espionage and Cyber Command can go all out with its functions." This way the dual hatted role doesn't have to juggle the legality issues, the time, and man power.
ReplyDeleteAs a side note, I love how direct Hayden is in what he says. He doesn't add political fluff to appease everybody.
It seems that the most compelling reasons to split the two organizations is on account of authorizations. Since the NSA is not authorized, as per the article, to perform the functions of cyber-command, it makes sense to separate them and make their lanes more distinguishable and making it less likely for violations for any law.
ReplyDeleteGreat feedback everyone!
ReplyDeleteThe authority to conduct cyber attack is the most compelling reason to split Cyber Command from NSA. The Title 50 and 10 authorities are very clear even though the expertise and capability to do so is finally reaching a point where it makes sense to make the split. The article does a great job of not only explaining the distinction between the authorities and the expertise needed to use them, but provides the context as to why we haven't arrived at the actual point of being able to make the split yet.
Given the authorities fall under separate congressional oversight committees, the split becomes more complicated. To me this is also a compelling reason to make the split.
The separation would be costly, but well worth the price tag. In an ever changing would and the fight to keep pace with the competition/enemy, both the NSA and Cyber Command need to be laser focused on conducting and completing their own missions, within their own authorities. With the two agencies operating under the same roof, but under two different authorities “title 50 vs. title 10”. It appears that the mission and the authorities could blur in the eyes of the soldiers/civilians on the front lines. I find that cutting the cyber cord would be the best thing for both agencies. This would provide role clarity and allow the cyber teams to focus on mission success at both the NSA and Cyber Command.
ReplyDelete