"Smart Defence" is a NATO concept and policy that involves national burden-sharing on a broad range of developments, including information technology and cybersecurity. The European Union has a parallel initiative called Pooling and Sharing, and it similarly is aimed at sharing the cost of critical infrastructure. All of this, of course, is driven by the need to modernize, coupled with the global economic crisis, which has reduced defense and security budgets dramatically.
At the Defense Information Systems Agency (DISA) Mission Partner Conference in Tampa, Florida, last month, the discussion focused on the enterprise and jointness and coalition. If it did not cause attendees to have an epiphany, it certainly should have triggered a re-awareness.
The command, control, communications and computers (C4) technology community has undergone a great deal of change over the past couple of years. The U.S. Cyber Command and the military services’ cyber component commands were created, the Joint Forces Command was disbanded, the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Networks and Information Integration (ASD NII) transformed to become the Office of the Defense Chief Information Officer (CIO), the J-6 (C4) on the Joint Staff was eliminated, and the Defense Information Systems Agency (DISA) has changed significantly. All of these modifications have resulted in adjustments to priorities, shifts of mission and more focus on the enterprise.
I joined the U.S. Army in 1968. Having been trained as a Signal officer, I went to the field in the early 1970s with maps in hand, and I used acetate and grease pencils to prepare overlays for troop movements, command post and signal site locations, and the ever-important radio line-of-sight calculations. One of the greatest technology developments of the time was the marking pen—we got rid of grease pencils and we had color!
Cyber threats draw much of the focus in today’s information technology realm. The threat profile in cyberspace is growing and becoming more complex, more sophisticated and more diverse.
I don’t think anyone would argue with my notion that we live in a dangerous world and that, no matter where you live, there are significant threats to national and regional security.
For most of the economies in the world, 2012 should continue to be a recovery year. This will prolong the pressure placed on budgets in defense, intelligence and homeland security. In the command, control, communications, computers, intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance (C4ISR) and information technology business—our focus—budget cuts often are not as great as in other sectors. However, the price is that expectations are high for information-driven savings that can be applied to reductions in the out years.
The concept and practice of cyber operations are topics of considerable discussion. I thought about what I could add to this dialogue, and I came down on the side of making one more case for a comprehensive, holistic view of cyber.
Government information technology is an area rife with issues for discussion. These include enterprise initiatives, mobile computing, the cloud in all its forms, cybersecurity and many more. However, one activity is the key to making all government information technology useful and secure: the common operating environment.
In a recent Op-Ed piece in the New York Times, Vivek Kundra, former federal chief information officer, made the point that in order to maximize effectiveness and efficiency in information technology (IT), the federal government and supporting industry need to leverage cloud technology and virtualization.
The North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) is putting the finishing touches on planning and is beginning the transition to the most profound restructuring in its history. Wherever they are based, all who work with NATO will be affected by this restructuring. NATO headquarters staff is being reduced by as much as 40 percent. NATO agencies are being reduced from 13 to three. The force structure is being enhanced, but the command and control elements of the force structure are being streamlined to make NATO more responsive.
Your association continues to move forward in what is proving to be an exciting and dynamic era, and these efforts include personnel changes. In an important step, AFCEA has just added two new members to the executive team who are going to benefit all of you.
The world may be on the cusp of Web 3.0. Some of us digital immigrants still are trying to get our arms around Web 2.0. We have been told that Web 2.0 is all about information sharing. Applications, storage and data are Web-enabled. Virtualization has made information easier to use and share. Social networking has created whole new environments for information sharing.
The global security community has never had a greater need for training and education—or needed more help.
Throughout history, armed forces have faced the challenge of working together effectively. In the United States, the Defense Department has been working to make joint operations more effective since the origins of its armed forces, but the government institutionalized joint requirements in 1986 with the introduction of the Goldwater-Nichols Act. In Europe, NATO was created in the wake of World War II, built on the premise that the member nations were stronger together than individually and that an integrated joint approach was necessary.
The U.S. Coast Guard plays a vital role helping tie together pieces of the national security community. The Coast Guard is unique in that, while it is a military service, organizationally it sits within the U.S. Department of Homeland Security and clearly has homeland security/counterterrorism, public safety and law enforcement roles. This positioning within several national security communities allows the Coast Guard to provide an invaluable coordination and linking function.
As you know, AFCEA’s primary mission is to promote effective and ethical communication among government, industry and academia. We help inform government on the capabilities that exist in industry to meet its needs, and we help inform industry of government requirements so it can plan investments in research and development and product and service advancement. Recently, we have received several requests to help government obtain visibility of capabilities in industry and academia, large and small, within specific priority areas of interest.
We are seeing a global trend to provide tighter coordination of defense, intelligence, and security planning and operations. In the United States, people refer to the security function as homeland security, while in other countries around the world this function is simply called security or internal security. In many nations, the law prohibits the integration of defense and security to minimize the use of military forces within the nation’s borders except under specific circumstances. But with the growth of the global terrorism threat and asymmetric warfare, the need to achieve synergies among these assets and the need to attend carefully to the seam between defense and security has become apparent to most.
As we move into the New Year, I want to give you a sense of the AFCEA focus for 2011, and a request.
I spent some time last month in London at the AFCEA TechNet International event run by our AFCEA Europe office. This conference dealt with integrating the cyber domain into our concept of battlespace. It occurred to me during this discussion that our understanding of battlespace has changed fundamentally even before we add the cyber domain. Would we have considered the World Trade Center in New York part of the battlespace before 9/11? Would we have considered the London Underground part of the battlespace before 7/7? Probably not. In this age of asymmetric warfare, the boundaries of the physical battlespace are unclear. In this context, adding the cyber domain, which is broader than the Internet, is perhaps not as much of a stretch as it might have been prior to this redefinition of the physical battlespace.