Posted on Aug 8, 2015
Can anyone explain why 17C - Cyber Operations Specialist - is listed as 'combat arms?'
50.8K
95
75
4
4
0
17C: Cyber Operations Specialist
Cyber
Combat Arms
Posted >1 y ago
Responses: 16
17
17
0
10
10
0
What I understand is that as of right now, no one can order a cyber attack except the President. That is because we can consider it an act of war and it can have lasting effects. Imagine what happens to an ICU ward when the power is intentionally interrupted, or what happens to global markets when stock indexes go out of whack.
We have become so ingrained in technology that total disruption of the telecommunications infrastructure could cripple a nation for a long time. Just as effective as bombing the power facilities but with a lot less collateral damage.
Also, by considering it as such (maneuver, fires and effects, etc.) it gets more attention. In Signal, we tried to sell Signal as a Weapon System or Fight the Network but that never took off. We are just told to 'quit speaking geek and make it work' or 'we don't care about AR 25-1 or 2, I need my Facebook, Pandora, iPhone, etc. to kill bad guys'.
We have become so ingrained in technology that total disruption of the telecommunications infrastructure could cripple a nation for a long time. Just as effective as bombing the power facilities but with a lot less collateral damage.
Also, by considering it as such (maneuver, fires and effects, etc.) it gets more attention. In Signal, we tried to sell Signal as a Weapon System or Fight the Network but that never took off. We are just told to 'quit speaking geek and make it work' or 'we don't care about AR 25-1 or 2, I need my Facebook, Pandora, iPhone, etc. to kill bad guys'.
(10)
(0)
CW5 (Join to see)
I now have to revisit my comment since things have changed. SECDEF now can control Cyber and we do now consider the Network as a weapon system in the multi-domain battle.
We're getting better.
We're getting better.
(0)
(0)
8
8
0
It is considered combat because it is still warfare. You may not be on the front lines physically but can you imagine the consequences if our electric goes down or our water. The effects would be disastrous.
(8)
(0)
SGT William Howell
It is important and is a combat multiplier. You deploy to the combat zone and attack the enemy. If you do your job poorly people may die. I have just described about half non combat rolls in the army including my MP Corps. Still not buying how it is a combat arms.
(1)
(0)
LTC (Join to see)
Absolutely Sergeant Howell. 3-90 still defines "Combat Arms". Hasn't changed as far as I can tell during the 34+ years I've been serving. There are the big four, plus Combat Aviation, Combat Engineer, and Special Ops are in their own class.
(0)
(0)
SSG Daniel Poulin (Retired)
on the point of whether or not 17C is combat arms, I really don't think it matters, and I don't care, frankly. Cyber is in it's own league, and that I do know.
(3)
(0)
SGT (Join to see)
SSG Daniel Poulin (Retired) - in the past 2 decades, sigint/cyber are responsible for removing more bad guys from the battle field than all the others combined. That trend will only continue.
(0)
(0)
5
5
0
I think modern warfare has reshaped "combat arms" - Think of drone pilots half way around the world taking out targets or working as over watch. Its the same thing as some 17C taking down some air defense server in county x with key strokes. Not traditional combat but yet it is combat.
(5)
(0)
SFC (Join to see), MAJ Carl Ballinger is correct that "Combat Arms" doesn't exist anymore (technically). It was officially rescinded, but still exists in many documents (mainly because they haven't been updated yet). 17C is considered as "combat arms" (actually maneuver warfare) because it, like Infantry, Armor, etc., is the branch tasked with the employment of offensive capabilities within the domain. Cyberspace operations are performed through maneuver warfare in the cyberspace domain just as Infantry and Armor operations are performed through maneuver warfare in the land domain.
CW5 (Join to see), regarding POTUS being the only one that can order a cyber attack, then answer is yes/no. Previously the United States said they viewed a cyber attack on our infrastructure on par as the use of a WMD due to our heavy reliance upon that infrastructure. This led to the belief that "all use of cyber needs to be authorized by POTUS". While this may be the case for the strategic employment of cyber capabilities (just like the strategic employment of any other capabilities), this isn't necessarily the case at the lower levels (operational and tactical). For example, at the tactical level, the employment of CEMA (Cyber Electromagnetic Activities) on the battlefield doesn't require POTUS authorization. Operational use of cyber gets to a gray area, but I like the comment from a Rand study a few years ago ... "If the president has to answer for it, then the president has to authorize it".
LTC (Join to see) / CPT (Join to see), see the above comment about maneuver combat within a domain.
CW5 (Join to see), regarding POTUS being the only one that can order a cyber attack, then answer is yes/no. Previously the United States said they viewed a cyber attack on our infrastructure on par as the use of a WMD due to our heavy reliance upon that infrastructure. This led to the belief that "all use of cyber needs to be authorized by POTUS". While this may be the case for the strategic employment of cyber capabilities (just like the strategic employment of any other capabilities), this isn't necessarily the case at the lower levels (operational and tactical). For example, at the tactical level, the employment of CEMA (Cyber Electromagnetic Activities) on the battlefield doesn't require POTUS authorization. Operational use of cyber gets to a gray area, but I like the comment from a Rand study a few years ago ... "If the president has to answer for it, then the president has to authorize it".
LTC (Join to see) / CPT (Join to see), see the above comment about maneuver combat within a domain.
(4)
(0)
COL Randall C.
LTC (Join to see), I understand your emotions behind it (for the record, I'm not combat arms, but grew up serving in ADA, Artillery and Infantry for a good part of my career, so I do understand). I'm not trying to sway your opinion one way or another (they sound very close to many of the comments that were made at the DoD level prior to the establishment of cyberspace as a fifth warfighting domain), but simply point out the doctrinal 'back story' to what's going on.
(0)
(0)
COL Randall C.
CW5 (Join to see), but that's exactly what's happening. Many different initiatives are looking at 'offensive cyber capabilities' that will be under the control of the tactical commander. This doesn't necessarily mean that the 3rd Brigade's CFC would do the actual execution, but rather that the Brigade commander would make the decision about employment of that capability. The previous CSA's vision was tactical cyber employment and both TRADOC and ARCYBER & 2A have been expanding out this concept since ~early 2011.
(0)
(0)
CW5 (Join to see)
Thankfully, Sir, GEN O had the vision to have us make a new AOC because he knew it was more than just intel and signal. The problem is that the process takes so long to develop curriculum and the cyber battlefield is so dynamic that the educational requirements for an effective force will be intensive. I wonder if green suiters are the way to go or at least in the form we are used to. Perhaps a new type of Soldier is required and not the traditional E, O or WO. Maybe something title 10 that is more like a GS that does not deploy or PCS and is not hampered by APFT, 600-9, or other constraints.
Right now, there are 255S that have their slew of SANS certs that have expired (fiscal constraints) and the expiration date of an effective Cyber defender is shortly after their last class. I hope we get the 17 series right and keep them on the edge.
Right now, there are 255S that have their slew of SANS certs that have expired (fiscal constraints) and the expiration date of an effective Cyber defender is shortly after their last class. I hope we get the 17 series right and keep them on the edge.
(0)
(0)
COL Randall C.
CW5 (Join to see), agree with the comments regarding the previous CSA's vision on the AOC.
To your comments about the green suiter, on occasion I had to say to my soldiers when I was in command, "we are soldiers with cyber skills ... not geeks in uniform". What you're describing is a DoD Civilian (someone to do the job, stays in place, doesn't have to meet military requirements, etc).
DoD Civilians have been integrated into the Cyber Mission Forces (CMFs) to provide stability. Additionally, with the 17 series AOC, the management of the military personnel on the CMFs will be managed outside of the "round peg, round hole" that the rest of the force usually goes through.
To your comments about the green suiter, on occasion I had to say to my soldiers when I was in command, "we are soldiers with cyber skills ... not geeks in uniform". What you're describing is a DoD Civilian (someone to do the job, stays in place, doesn't have to meet military requirements, etc).
DoD Civilians have been integrated into the Cyber Mission Forces (CMFs) to provide stability. Additionally, with the 17 series AOC, the management of the military personnel on the CMFs will be managed outside of the "round peg, round hole" that the rest of the force usually goes through.
(2)
(0)
4
4
0
Technically there are no combat arms MOSes. They are broken down into maneuver, fires, and effects.
(4)
(0)
3
3
0
SFC (Join to see) MAJ Carl Ballinger SPC Jan Allbright, M.Sc., R.S. MAJ(P) (Join to see) CW5 (Join to see) CPT (Join to see)
Once again I will point out what the Hacktivist know as "The Jester" has been saying for years! Cyber Warfare is War! Please read the Jesters blog and follow him on twitter, you can learn a lot from one of the best hackers ever!
http://www.jesterscourt.cc/2012/09/25/digital-asymmetric-warfare-is-it-possible/
Once again I will point out what the Hacktivist know as "The Jester" has been saying for years! Cyber Warfare is War! Please read the Jesters blog and follow him on twitter, you can learn a lot from one of the best hackers ever!
http://www.jesterscourt.cc/2012/09/25/digital-asymmetric-warfare-is-it-possible/
Digital Asymmetric Warfare: Is It Possible? « JESTERS COURT – OFFICIAL BLOG
Sophisticated and complex to implement, long-term cyber attacks are often considered the work of intelligence agencies and crime syndicates. However, the oversight and bureaucracy that comes from such management often hinders the ultimate lethality of the attack.
(3)
(0)
SPC Jan Allbright, M.Sc., R.S.
SSG Daniel Poulin (Retired) I think the operative phrase is "stray round". When that happens in front of a computer, in an office then I'm all in.
(0)
(0)
SSG John Erny
SPC Jan Allbright, M.Sc., R.S. - Troops now have computers in the combat vehicles, makes calling in a strike faster and deadlier! Cyber warfare has moved to the front lines.
(1)
(0)
SSG Daniel Poulin (Retired)
SPC Jan Allbright, M.Sc., R.S. - you can duck behind some cover when the rounds come in. When a cyber attack comes in what then do you duck behind?
.. please say firewall .. ;-)
.. please say firewall .. ;-)
(0)
(0)
2
2
0
I can make something up... Combat take place in more than just the physical domain. If it was to be designated as a Combat Arms Branch (Old Term, Replace with MFE), it would be because it is designed to be used for it's offensive and defensive warfighting capabilities in the cyber domain. I mean, these aren't the guys you go to when your having issues connecting to the printer.
(2)
(0)
Where are you finding that it is combat arms. I don't think that is right? I think a cyber warrior may be just fluffing their feathers on this one.
(2)
(0)
SSG (ret) William Martin
CPT (Join to see) - Don't worry, Sir. Your precious infantry will still be the queen of battle.
(2)
(0)
CPT (Join to see)
SSG (ret) William Martin - If we call the new Rangers that just graduated Ranger School "Queens of Battle" would you think that is something that could lead to a SHARP complaint?
(1)
(0)
SSG (ret) William Martin
CPT (Join to see) If those fine ladies just got throught Ranger School I bet their skin is ten times as think as the average desk jockey.
(1)
(0)
1
1
0
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google