Interesting concept, although I’m not sure how practical it is.
Towards a Cyber Leader Course Modeled on Army Ranger School
By Gregory Conti, Michael Weigand, Ed Skoudis, David Raymond, Thomas Cook and Todd Arnold
Small Wars Journal | Apr 18 2014 – 11:31am
Since 1950, the U.S. Army Ranger School has garnered a well-earned reputation as one of the most demanding military schools in the world. Graduates have served with distinction in special operations units including the Ranger Regiment and Special Operations Command as well as line units throughout the Army. With the emergence of cyberspace as an operational domain and the critical shortage of technically and operationally competent cyber[i] leaders, the time has come to create a U.S. Army Cyber Leader Course of equal intensity, reputation, and similar duration,[ii] but focused on cyber operations (see Figure 1). This article presents a model for the creation of such a school, one that goes far beyond just a tough classroom experience by using tactical close-access missions as a core component. What we propose is unique, demanding, immersive, and fills a necessary gap in Army cyber leader development. This article is a condensed form of a more detailed analysis and description of the proposed Army Cyber Leader Course.
PDF (14 Pages): Army Cyber Leader Course Concept SWJ
Phi Beta Iota: Army commanders are on record as saying that Information Operations (IO), which is not to be confused with Cyber or Intelligence, it encompasses both, take up to 80% of their time but only receive 1% of the budget. This is analogous to the infantry, which is 4% of the force, takes 80% of the casualties, and receives 1% of the budget. The paper is an excellent foundation for going much further. Education and training must distinguish among end-user mission area leaders and specialist cyber leaders; white cyber versus black cyber, cyber core versus cyber tools, and cyber counterintelligence versus cyber intelligence. Cyber must embrace the four C’s: Connectivity, Content, Coordination of R&D and Investment; and C4 Security. This graphic illustrates our perspective on this vital topic. As now defined, the concept applies to specialists in cyber as traditionally managed by the G-6 and the SIGINT element only of the G-2. If extended, it should apply to cyber as conceptualized, developed, and fielded across every mission area in the attack and in the defense. It would also be helpful to offer cyber leadership craftred for each of the four levels — strategic, operational, tactical, and technical. Big Army has destroyed cyber and logistics with contractors — we are long overdue for reversing the insanity of not being able to go to war without one contractor per laptop. Hence, the most important cyber decision of all may be the decision about who will “do” cyber in every clime and place.
Selected Comment from Small Wars Journal: