DHS Losing Lead Cyber Role

DHS Losing Lead Cyber Role

For those who wonder why the cyber policy battles within the Beltway are so vociferous, consider this: the pool of  money for military cyber is likely to be at least $50 billion in 2010.

Most of that money will be in the Military Intelligence Program, the money for intelligence controlled by the Pentagon. One source told me last week that the MIP money was likely to grow by magnitudes of order. Kevin Coleman, consultant to Strategic Command and contributor to Defense Tech, said he estimates the money for cyber will range between $50 billion and $70 billion.

The months-long policy fight between the National Security Agency, Department of Homeland Security, DISA, Air Force and OSD looks as if it lead to DHS  losing its role as the US government’s lead agency on cyber security. The current head of the National Security Agency is almost certain to win a fourth star and become the combatant commander responsible for cyber warfare. Instead of DHS leading the cyber way, a White House cyber czar will lead the nation’s efforts on this front, leaving the job in the hands of a policy person instead of in the hands of an operator.

Those are among the preliminary results of the so-called 60-day study led by Melissa Hathaway, acting senior director for cyberspace for the National Security and Homeland Security councils. This is all part of a final effort to resolve a major stumbling block to effective cooperation and policymaking — stubborn battles between the NSA, Strategic Command, services and the Defense Information Systems Agency over just who has the biggest cyber muscles on the block.

But Hathaway, who had been considered the shoo-in for new cyber czar at the White House appears to have lost her shot at the job. Her study was submitted and is being reworked because it was not strong enough, we hear from an intelligence community source.

Meanwhile, the moves at the Pentagon to boost cyber continue apace. Defense Secretary Robert Gates is likely to create the new four-star combatant commander in about 10 days. That will move Army Lt. Gen. Keith Alexander from NSA to Strategic Command and give him a fourth star. It will also mean that the majority of the cyber mission will be carried out by uniformed personnel at the NSA, which has some observers concerned, given the lack of transparency for which NSA is famous. However, a very experienced intelligence official told me he does not share these concerns because respect for law, regulations and policy is deeply embedded in NSA training and is absorbed by its personnel.

Then there is the question of effectiveness. As Coleman put it: “Just put yourselves in the commander’s place… Do you care about where that order is executed from or do you just care about the end result? I think this is the best possible solution.”

Join the Conversation

“However, a very experienced intelligence official told me he does not share these concerns because respect for law, regulations and policy is deeply embedded in NSA training and is absorbed by its personnel.”

Okay, really, is that a serious comment? NSA is wiretapping American citizens without subpoenas, but hey, it has a healthy respect for law. I guess when you get a piece of paper from the White House saying “do it”, you have your backside covered.

jason: You have no idea what goes on. Trust me: What you say is heard. However, it is also recognized as being meaningless to the strategic security of the United States, and it is ignored.

Read “Lacey And His Friends” to get an idea of how these people think.


As for the article: Part of the issue is that if you make cyber ops a combat command, then it sharply constrains how much the military can be involved. Posse comitatus restricts what the military can do on domestic lands; although, of course, the definition of “domestic lands” is somewhat nebulous when you’re talking about computer networks.

IMHO, the leadership of DHS is easily minor league when compared with the other agencies. I have very little confidence in Napalitano’s senior staff appointments.…they’re “doing a heckuva job,” etc…

The argument has always been, that, only the NSA has the experts needed to do National Security work in Cyperspace. This is absolutly true! But their work is Intelligence! And, security of DoD networks is not the job of a National Foreign Intelligence Agency aid by the intelligence budget! It would, in fact, no longer be a “National” Agency, serving the all of the US Government in it’s exploitation of Foreign Signals/Cyber networks. ( I am fully aware of their DoD paid for, comunications/cyber information security role for advise and equipment) It would become just another “Command” in the DoD working totally for the Sec of Def and the JCS. The issue can not be, does DHS have the experts to do the Cyber Security job for the Nation. The answer is that they do not, but more importantly it is not the job of the DoD or the NSA. We, in DoD, have long needed an Information Systems Command. We need a Joint US Command responsibile for the Communications of the DoD and the Security of those communications. We must also remember; Cyber is the modern word for comunications “run” by computers; not something “new”. But such a Command might tred on the Services “owned” Communications, just as all Joint Commands do. It is time we start the development of, and the consolidation of, the experts we have/need for “Cyber Security” of the DoD; without destroyong a National Asset! just to advoid hard decisions. P.S. CIA would become even a bigger Central Agency as they would take over the intelligence mission of the NSA.

The answer to this is simple, just put qualified people in charge instead of party favorites.

Kato, that would be the logical thing to do. Since that is the case, we can’t do it ;)


NOTE: Comments are limited to 2500 characters and spaces.

By commenting on this topic you agree to the terms and conditions of our User Agreement

AdChoices | Like us on , follow us on and join us on Google+
© 2015 Military Advantage
A Monster Company.