4 ways Chuck Hagel can improve cyber security

Newly sworn-in Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel survived a bitter confirmation process. For weeks, those opposed to his nomination fixated on comments he made more than a decade ago. Although Mr. Hagel’s road to the Obama cabinet was focused on the past, his tenure in office will focus on preparing the military for the threats of the future. Cybersecurity is one area that will demand his attention.

A recent National Intelligence Estimate concluded that the United States is the target of a massive cyber-espionage campaign that experts estimate costs US businesses tens of billions of dollars per year. Secretary Hagel must guide the Department of Defense through a few key challenges to better secure the nation’s cyber networks.

His focus at the Pentagon should be on these four key areas.

1. The status of US Cyber Command

Cliff Owen/AP
New Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel speaks to service members and civilian employees at the Pentagon Feb. 27 after being sworn-in. Op-ed contributor Matthew Rhoades offers 4 ways Mr. Hagel can improve US cyber security.

Cyber Command – which organizes the military’s cyber resources and synchronizes cyber operations – was established in 2009. It exists as a sub-unified command under US Strategic Command, one of the Department of Defense’s nine Unified Combatant Commands. Hagel will have to evaluate Cyber Command’s maturation to date and determine if it warrants a status elevation to a Unified Combatant Command.

Hagel will also need to decide on Cyber Command’s leadership structure. Currently, General Keith Alexander, command of US Cyber Command, is also serving as the director of the National Security Agency. Hagel must ask if it continues to be necessary and appropriate to have a military command and an intelligence unit under a single line of control.

1 of 4

Dear Reader,

About a year ago, I happened upon this statement about the Monitor in the Harvard Business Review – under the charming heading of “do things that don’t interest you”:

“Many things that end up” being meaningful, writes social scientist Joseph Grenny, “have come from conference workshops, articles, or online videos that began as a chore and ended with an insight. My work in Kenya, for example, was heavily influenced by a Christian Science Monitor article I had forced myself to read 10 years earlier. Sometimes, we call things ‘boring’ simply because they lie outside the box we are currently in.”

If you were to come up with a punchline to a joke about the Monitor, that would probably be it. We’re seen as being global, fair, insightful, and perhaps a bit too earnest. We’re the bran muffin of journalism.

But you know what? We change lives. And I’m going to argue that we change lives precisely because we force open that too-small box that most human beings think they live in.

The Monitor is a peculiar little publication that’s hard for the world to figure out. We’re run by a church, but we’re not only for church members and we’re not about converting people. We’re known as being fair even as the world becomes as polarized as at any time since the newspaper’s founding in 1908.

We have a mission beyond circulation, we want to bridge divides. We’re about kicking down the door of thought everywhere and saying, “You are bigger and more capable than you realize. And we can prove it.”

If you’re looking for bran muffin journalism, you can subscribe to the Monitor for $15. You’ll get the Monitor Weekly magazine, the Monitor Daily email, and unlimited access to CSMonitor.com.

You've read  of  free articles. Subscribe to continue.