Defense Department Cyber Efforts: More Detailed Guidance Needed to Ensure Military Services Develop Appropriate Cyberspace Capabilities
Released: 2011-06-20T00:00:00

Letter

Background

As with other joint commands, U.S. Cyber Command operates and is structured according to joint DOD doctrine and guidance. DOD’s Joint Publication 1 states that a subunified command, such as U.S. Cyber Command, has functions and responsibilities similar to those of the commanders of unified commands, and exercises operational control of assigned commands and forces and, normally, over attached forces within the assigned joint operations area or functional area. Within this command structure, subunified commands are responsible for operational planning for their missions. Guidance for developing such plans is provided by DOD’s joint operation planning process. This process establishes objectives, assesses threats, identifies capabilities needed to achieve the objectives in a given environment, and ensures that capabilities (and the military forces needed to deliver those capabilities) are allocated to achieve mission success. Joint operation planning and execution procedures also include assessing and monitoring the readiness of those units providing the capabilities for the missions they are assigned. Overall, the purpose of joint operation planning is to reduce the risks inherent in military operations. The commanders of military service components of subunified commands also have responsibilities that derive from their roles in fulfilling the services’ support function, such as the development of program and budget requests, and the provision of supporting plans and data on service forces to the subunified command. Additionally, they are responsible for maintaining internal administration and discipline and communications with both their subunified commander and their service chief.

In June 2009, the Secretary of Defense issued a memorandum directing the creation of U.S. Cyber Command as a subunified command to U.S. Strategic Command, and requiring the military departments to identify and provide appropriate component support to U.S. Cyber Command, and to have this support in place and functioning prior to the new subunified command’s reaching full operating capability. The memo required U.S. Cyber Command to focus on integration of cyberspace operations and possess the technical capability to address the risk of cyber threats and vulnerabilities and secure freedom of action in cyberspace. The memo further called for U.S. Cyber Command to “synchroniz warfighting effects across the global security environment,” as well as support civil authorities and international partners. The Director of the National Security Agency was also subsequently designated to hold the position of Commander of U.S. Cyber Command.

Following its authorization in June 2009, U.S. Cyber Command reached its initial operating capability on May 21, 2010, and was declared to be at full operating capability on October 31, 2010. U.S. Cyber Command is organized with various joint staff directorates corresponding to the major functions of command, such as personnel, intelligence, operations, logistics, plans, and communications systems. It is supported by the Defense Information Systems Agency which, among other things, is responsible for designing, provisioning, operating, and maintaining certain DOD classified and unclassified networks. Additionally, U.S. Cyber Command receives infrastructure, security, information assurance, and various other forms of support from the National Security Agency. See figure 1 for a diagram of U.S. Cyber Command’s organizational structure. This new command has identified three lines of operation: DOD Global Information Grid operations, defensive cyberspace operations, and offensive cyberspace operations. DOD Global Information Grid operations consists of network operations to preserve availability, integrity, authentication, confidentiality, and non-repudiation of information on DOD networks, a mission that the services have been conducting since the 1990s. Defensive cyberspace operations builds upon the concept of computer network defense, while adding an operational aspect for U.S. Cyber Command, referred to as Dynamic Network Defense Operations. Offensive cyberspace operations is a newly defined line of operation for U.S. Cyber Command which is focused on taking actions and achieving outcomes in cyberspace to meet national or DOD objectives.

As directed by the Secretary of Defense in June 2009, each of the military departments provides service components for cyberspace operations to U.S. Cyber Command: Army Cyber Command; Fleet Cyber Command; Marine Forces Cyber Command; and Air Force Cyber Command. Three of the four service components—Army, Navy, and Air Force—all declared full operational capability in October 2010. However, officials with Marine Forces Cyber Command have stated that while they are currently capable of conducting missions, they are still in the process of establishing the command and will not reach full operational capability until the latter half of 2013. Officials and documentation from the Army, Navy, Marine Corps, and Air Force showed us that they have all retained administrative control over their cyber service components. The Secretary of Defense assigned combatant command authority over the cyber service components to U.S. Strategic Command, which then delegated operational control over the cyber service component commands to U.S. Cyber Command.

The military services developed their service component commands in response to direction from the Secretary of Defense’s June 2009 memo, but DOD had already recognized the importance of the cyberspace domain. For example, beginning in late 2007, the Air Force attempted to develop its own service-specific cyber command, though the Air Force later gave the cyberspace operations mission to Air Force Space Command and Air Force Cyber Command. Also, in November 2008, the Secretary of Defense directed the military services to leverage the Navy’s existing computer network operations training facilities in order to fulfill the anticipated need for more cyberspace operators. Figure 2 presents a timeline of milestones related to the establishment of U.S. Cyber Command and other cyberspace operations–related events.

As DOD’s role in the emerging domain of cyberspace has evolved, so have the various key terms and definitions related to cyberspace operations. As we previously reported, DOD needs more comprehensive doctrine and common definitions for cyberspace operations, and we recommended that DOD revise its existing body of joint doctrine to include complete and up- to-date cyberspace-related definitions while it is deciding whether to add a dedicated joint doctrine for cyberspace operations. As of February 2011, DOD has defined numerous key cyber-related terms (see table 1 for a list of some of those definitions), however, other and newer terms—such as DOD Global Information Grid operations, defensive cyberspace operations, and offensive cyberspace operations discussed above—have not yet been added to DOD’s joint dictionary.

DOD and U.S. Cyber Command Have Broadly Identified Roles and Responsibilities for Cyberspace Operations, but Additional Clarity Is Needed

DOD and U.S. Cyber Command have made progress in identifying the roles and responsibilities of the various organizations that support DOD cyberspace operations. Our analysis showed that U.S. Cyber Command’s Concept of Operations generally meets joint guidance, but a greater level of detail is needed with regard to the categories of personnel—military, government civilian, or civilian contractor—that may conduct cyberspace operations in order for the military services to organize, train, and equip operations forces. Title 10 of the U.S. Code and DOD directives and guidance implementing this authority identify overall roles and responsibilities for the military services and combatant commands. These documents delineate the functions of the military services, including organizing, training, equipping, and providing cyberspace forces, as well as meeting the operational requirements of the combatant commands. They also delineate the functions of a combatant command, including giving authoritative direction to subordinate commands and forces necessary to carry out missions assigned to the command, organizing and employing forces to carry out missions assigned to the command, and assigning command functions to subordinate commanders. These documents also define the relationships between combatant commanders, including “supporting” and “supported” relationships, and the authority for a combatant commander to establish and delegate certain responsibilities to a subunified commander. Additionally, the 2008 Unified Command Plan assigns to U.S. Strategic Command the responsibility for synchronizing the planning of cyberspace operations. This responsibility was delegated to U.S. Cyber Command upon its establishment by the Secretary of Defense in June 2009.

U.S. Cyber Command has developed a Concept of Operations. The document, signed by the Commander of U.S. Cyber Command in September 2010 and released in November 2010, lays out broad roles and responsibilities for cyberspace operations and our evaluation showed that it generally meets joint guidance. Joint guidance calls for a concept of operations to include, among other things, the following actions: state the commander’s intent; describe the central approach the joint force commander intends to take to accomplish the mission; provide for the application, synchronization, and integration of forces and capabilities in time, space, and purpose; focus on friendly and adversary Centers of Gravity, and their associated critical vulnerabilities; and relate the joint force’s objectives and desired effects to those of the next higher command and other organizations as necessary. The Concept of Operations states in its commander’s intent section that the Commander of U.S. Cyber Command’s top priorities include the following: improving the security and defense of U.S. military networks, maturing U.S. Cyber Command, working with the services to build the cyber force, and collaborating with partners. Additionally, the Concept of Operations states that U.S. Cyber Command will exercise control of assigned and attached forces to operate and defend DOD networks as well as conduct offensive cyberspace operations, as directed. It further states that the services retain primary responsibility to man, train, and equip for mission readiness, administration, and management of those forces under the command and control of U.S. Cyber Command. The Concept of Operations directs the service components assigned to U.S. Cyber Command to develop capabilities in support of operational requirements from U.S. Cyber Command, and also to provide shared situational awareness of their portions of DOD networks. Further, the Concept of Operations identifies and delegates areas of authority and responsibility throughout the U.S. Cyber Command organizational structure. Accompanying annexes are expected to provide greater detail about the command’s plans to conduct cyberspace operations. Service component officials said their components have seen drafts of the annexes and are providing U.S. Cyber Command with input for their development, but the annexes had not been issued as of March 2011.

The Concept of Operations is a U.S. Cyber Command document, but DOD guidance is needed as well, since the Joint Staff is responsible for promulgating Joint Chiefs of Staff publications to provide military guidance for the joint activities of the armed forces. Accordingly, the Joint Staff has released Joint Test Publication 3-12, its guidance for cyberspace operations that, if finalized, could provide additional guidelines for the military services and joint force commanders and supporting and supported commanders. This document has been under development since September 2009, but is still in draft. According to officials with the Joint Staff and the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense (Policy), this publication will be revised again in the spring of 2011 and may not be finalized and approved for some time after that. We previously reported on the need for DOD to update its joint doctrine that discussed cyber-related issues and definitions, in part because of the challenges that the absence of such doctrine created for the military services and the combatant commands. We recommended that DOD establish a time frame for (1) deciding whether or not to proceed with a dedicated joint doctrine publication on cyberspace operations, and (2) updating the existing body of joint doctrine to include complete cyberspace-related definitions. DOD concurred with our recommendations, and the development of Joint Test Publication 3-12 represents another positive step toward providing direction to the military services, but as it is still in draft form and it could be further revised, we could not determine whether it will provide comprehensive guidance to the service component commands.

As part of their responsibility for organizing, training, and equipping cyber forces to support U.S. Cyber Command’s missions, the military services are taking a total force approach—including active duty and reserve military personnel, government civilians, and civilian contractors—to staffing cyberspace operations. According to service officials, in traditional support areas such as information assurance and information technology, the services have been using civilians, as well as military personnel, because these activities take place within DOD’s own networks. At the time of our review, three of the services said they may only use active duty and reserve military personnel to conduct offensive cyberspace operations, which constitutes a small percentage of cyberspace operations. However, service officials expressed concern that if offensive cyberspace operations require greater personnel resources, competing demands from other mission areas may make it difficult for the services to provide additional military personnel in support of U.S. Cyber Command’s activities. These concerns may be founded particularly in light of the Secretary of Defense’s plan to reduce the military end strength of the Army and Marine Corps by 2015 and to reduce Navy personnel on shore. Additionally, officials at Air Force headquarters noted that there are some reductions in military force under way in the Air Force, including in the communications field, and that there may be some civilian reductions in the future as well. Officials with the Navy’s cyber component command noted that they are expected to increase the number of cyber personnel without increasing Navy end strength, as the Navy will take personnel from other areas and move them to cyber specialties.

DOD Instruction 1100.22, Policy and Procedures for Determining Workforce Mix (April 12, 2010), provides guidance to the military services regarding the appropriate mix of personnel (military and DOD civilian) and private sector support for DOD activities. Specifically, it provides personnel mix criteria and guidance for risk assessments to be used to identify and justify activities that are inherently governmental or commercial. However, DOD and service officials told us that DOD is still reviewing the appropriate roles for government civilians in the cyberspace domain and service officials indicated that DOD policy guidance was insufficient to determine precisely what civilian activities or duties are permissible or prohibited in the cyberspace domain as direct participation in hostilities. The need for clarity regarding the roles government civilians may fill within the services’ new cyber components creates additional challenges for the services as they develop their cyber components in support of U.S. Cyber Command.

For example, a July 2010 memorandum from the Air Force’s Judge Advocate General to DOD’s General Counsel raised concerns about the insufficiency of DOD’s policies to determine precisely what DOD civilian activities or duties were permissible in relation to computer network attack operations and, in the absence of clarification on these matters, recommended that Air Force leadership limit DOD civilian roles in such cyberspace operations. Air Force cyber officials told us that there is uncertainty about whether they can use government civilians for DOD cyberspace missions or if only uniformed military personnel may conduct such operations. Navy officials noted that, to date, their civilian employees have focused on cyber support issues, though this may change in the future as they work to grow their civilian cyber force into other areas of cyberspace operations. Currently, some of the services are leveraging reserve component resources and are using personnel from existing career fields, such as communications and intelligence, because of limits on the total number of military personnel in each service. As a result, without greater clarity regarding the personnel options at their disposal, the military services may have difficulty in meeting their personnel requirements in organizing, training, equipping, and providing cyber forces if the requirements for offensive cyberspace missions and personnel increase.

Certain Specific Command and Control Relationships for Cyberspace Operations Remain Unresolved

U.S. Cyber Command’s Concept of Operations generally describes the command and control relationships between U.S. Cyber Command and the other combatant commands; however, more detailed guidance is needed to clarify these relationships between U.S. Cyber Command and the geographic combatant commands. According to DOD guidance, command and control is the exercise of authority and direction by a properly designated commander over assigned and attached forces in the accomplishment of the mission. Further, command and control functions are performed through an arrangement of personnel, equipment, communications, facilities, and procedures employed by a commander in planning, directing, coordinating, and controlling forces and operations in the accomplishment of the mission. The Joint Chiefs of Staff joint operational planning guidance indicates that command and control relationships are to be identified in the plan. U.S. Cyber Command’s Concept of Operations recognizes that a majority of cyber operations will originate at the theater and local levels, thereby placing them under the immediate control of the geographic combatant commanders and their components, and recognizes that nearly all cyberspace operations can simultaneously affect the global, theater, and local levels because cyberspace operations can be virtually unconstrained by geography. According to its Concept of Operations, when a cyberspace operation is confined to the area of responsibility of one geographic combatant command, U.S. Cyber Command will act as a supporting commander to the geographic combatant commander. When the cyberspace operations impact global functions or create effects across the borders of more than one geographic combatant command’s area of responsibility, the geographic combatant commanders may support U.S. Cyber Command, as directed.

However, officials from all four of the military services told us they require further specificity regarding command and control relationships for cyberspace operations, and officials from U.S. Cyber Command agreed. Of particular concern to the services is how the support relationships between U.S. Cyber Command and the geographic combatant commands discussed above will be implemented. There are several different command and control models for establishing such support relationships, but U.S. Cyber Command’s Concept of Operations does not identify a specific model for U.S. Cyber Command and the geographic combatant commands to follow. For example, the Joint Task Force model may be established on a geographical area or functional basis when the mission has a specific limited objective and does not require overall centralized control of logistics. The commander of a joint task force exercises operational control over assigned (and normally over attached) forces and also may exercise tactical control over forces or be a supported or supporting commander. Another option, which is based on the U.S. Special Operations Command model, would have U.S. Cyber Command conduct its own operations, but also give it functions similar to the military services to organize, train, equip, and provide forces to the other combatant commands. Another command and control model, based on U.S. Transportation Command, would have cyber forces deployed in a geographic combatant command’s area of responsibility remain assigned to and under the control of U.S. Cyber Command, unless otherwise directed.

DOD is aware of this particular challenge, and is working toward resolving it. Officials from three of the four services told us DOD and U.S. Cyber Command are beginning to address the issue, for example, by conducting a series of cyberspace command and control exercises. According to military service officials, in January 2011, DOD conducted a tabletop exercise as part of U.S. Pacific Command’s larger Terminal Fury exercise to test some cyber-related command and control models. Additionally, a U.S. Cyber Command official told us that U.S. European Command will test an alternative cyberspace operations command and control model in a tabletop exercise at the end of March 2011 and during its Austere Challenge exercise in spring 2011. Further, in September 2010, the Joint Chiefs of Staff requested that U.S. Pacific Command, in coordination with U.S. Strategic Command, develop a concept of operations and initiate an Initial Capabilities Document supporting combatant commander requirements for cyberspace operations. Without a clear and specific command and control relationship model, however, the services are unclear as to how, to whom, and in what form they will be required to present forces for cyberspace operations. The military services do not know whether they will be required to present trained individuals or complete mission-capable units, and they do not know if those individuals or units will be presented to U.S. Cyber Command or to regional organizations under the control of the geographic combatant commands. Until they are provided with clearer and more specific command and control relationships, it will be difficult for the services to plan the personnel, training, and budgets needed to support emerging and future cyberspace operational needs.

In our prior work, we highlighted the command and control challenges for cyberspace operations caused by conflicting guidance and unclear responsibilities. This situation continues and until DOD updates its policies and guidance to clarify command and control relationships for cyberspace operations and clearly communicates those to all DOD entities, its efforts to conduct coordinated and timely cyberspace operations could be degraded.

Military Services Are Pursuing Diverse Service-Specific Approaches in the Absence of Information on Long- Term Mission Requirements and Capabilities Needs

The military services are pursuing diverse service-specific approaches to establishing cyberspace capabilities because, although U.S. Cyber Command has made progress in operational planning for its missions, it has not fully defined long-term mission requirements and capabilities for the military services to fulfill. The U.S. Cyber Command Concept of Operations provides an overall picture of U.S. Cyber Command’s organization and operational relationships. However, other levels and types of guidance will be needed to provide a greater level of detail for the services and other DOD entities regarding specific issues such as, but not limited to operations, force planning, capability needs, and mission requirements. Officials from three of the four service components told us that U.S. Cyber Command has been providing them with operational guidance on an almost daily basis that is sufficient for them to conduct their current operations, but officials from the fourth service said that the guidance received to date is not enough to enable them to formalize their long-term personnel and training requirements.

To guide the services’ efforts to organize, train, and equip forces for assignment to combatant commands, DOD’s guidance requires that combatant commanders provide mission requirements that the services should meet. Further, combatant commanders are to provide mission requirements and desired capabilities and identify their highest-priority needs for the services to plan toward. U.S. Cyber Command’s Concept of Operations defines its mission to include defending DOD information networks and conducting full-spectrum military cyberspace operations when directed. It also defines three specific mission areas within this broader mission: DOD Global Information Grid operations, defensive cyberspace operations (including Dynamic Network Defense Operations), and offensive cyberspace operations. Our analysis showed that the U.S. Cyber Command Concept of Operations generally meets the joint guidance for such documents. However, U.S. Cyber Command has not yet developed the next level of planning guidance, which would identify mission requirements and desired capabilities to guide the services’ efforts to recruit, train, and provide forces with appropriate skill sets. For example, planning guidance could be provided in the form of products of the joint operational planning processes that address specific threats or contingencies, such as operational plans or concept plans.

According to officials from the four military services, the services have not yet received formalized U.S. Cyber Command guidance regarding long- term personnel requirements and capabilities, and therefore have respectively worked to develop internal guidance based on service- specific needs and missions as well as, in some cases, anticipated U.S.

Cyber Command requirements. Consequently, the services are moving forward using disparate, service-specific approaches to operationalizing cyberspace without knowing exactly what mission requirements they will be required to meet for U.S. Cyber Command. For example, Navy and Air Force officials told us that they are leveraging reserve component resources and taking personnel from existing career fields to avoid having to increase service end strength. Further, the two services are taking very different approaches to rearranging their career fields to varying degrees in order to further improve their efforts to recruit and retain cyber personnel, and they are doing this in different ways as they define new service-level personnel needs, maintain old ones, anticipate future U.S. Cyber Command personnel needs, and attempt to recruit, retain, and train for all three needs. Army, Navy, and Marine Corps officials told us that they are largely rearranging existing specialty codes in communications and cryptologic fields and giving their personnel new tasks and some new training, while the Air Force has created entirely new career specialties for cyberspace operations.

Cyber personnel training is another area in which the services are challenged by their need for mission requirements and capabilities from U.S. Cyber Command. In the absence of requirements from U.S. Cyber Command, the services have started to develop their own cyber training programs geared toward service-specific cyberspace requirements and attempts to anticipate the future needs of U.S. Cyber Command. For example, officials from all four of the services told us that they have preexisting training programs to address well-established information assurance and computer network defense training needs. For the emerging area of offensive cyberspace operations, the Navy and Marine Corps rely heavily on the Joint Cyber Analysis Course, run by the Navy as the executive agent under the National Security Agency’s Cryptologic Training System. Army officials told us that the service makes some use of this National Security Agency–sponsored course, but also has service- specific training of its own. Both the Army and the Navy see their separate training courses as candidates for future joint cyber training, though no decision has been made yet in this regard. Air Force cyber officials told us that the service utilizes the Joint Cyber Analysis Course to provide personnel to fill National Security Agency positions, but also established two training courses in 2010—one for officers and one for enlisted—to meet its own cyberspace operations needs. Requirements for both courses are set by the Air Force’s Air Education and Training Command and Air Force Space Command, though the Air Force has received some informal input from U.S. Cyber Command. However, U.S. Cyber Command has not specified whether it will be requesting personnel from the services according to (1) the knowledge, skills, and abilities required; (2) occupational specialties; (3) grade structures; or (4) another category. Without specific mission and capabilities requirements, the military services cannot determine the requirements based on which they are to provide and train personnel for the long term, or the capabilities they will be expected to provide to U.S. Cyber Command. Therefore, the cyber personnel and capabilities may vary from service to service. Differences between the services can be good and may be expected, but whether these differences are beneficial in the case of cyberspace operations, and whether the services will be able to meet U.S. Cyber Command’s long-term mission requirements once they are established, remain unknown.

Conclusions

Establishing a new command and the service components needed to support it constitutes a large undertaking within DOD, requiring much planning and coordination. DOD and the military services have already laid the foundation and built a framework for the new U.S. Cyber Command and its service components in little more than a year, a significant achievement in an emerging domain. However, much work still needs to be done in a timely manner to mature the operational capabilities of U.S. Cyber Command and the service cyber components to a level comparable to those of their peers in the air, land, sea, and space domains. Joint test documents, broad definitions, and general outlines of roles, responsibilities, and organizational structures are an important starting point in building an effective organization, but detailed and formalized guidance is needed to clarify roles, responsibilities, command structures, and mission requirements. Until such detailed guidance is articulated, the military services will continue to move forward in planning, budgeting, recruiting, and training personnel to conduct cyberspace operations without knowing whether their efforts will meet U.S. Cyber Command’s mission needs.

Recommendations for Executive Action

We recommend that the Secretary of Defense take the following three actions regarding U.S. Cyber Command and its service components’ cyberspace operations.

To assist the military services in fulfilling their responsibilities to organize, train, and equip cyber forces, we recommend that the Secretary of Defense set a timeline and direct the: Under Secretary of Defense for Policy and the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness, in consultation with the DOD Office of General Counsel, to develop and publish detailed policies and guidance pertaining to categories of personnel that can conduct the various forms of cyberspace operations; Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff to develop and publish authoritative and specific guidance regarding the supporting and supported command and control relationships between U.S. Cyber Command and the geographic combatant commands for cyberspace operations; and Commander, U.S. Strategic Command, in conjunction with U.S. Cyber Command, to develop and publish authoritative and specific guidance regarding the mission requirements and capabilities, including skill sets, that the services should meet to provide long-term operational support to U.S. Cyber Command.

Agency Comments and Our Evaluation

In written comments on a draft of this report, DOD agreed with all of our recommendations and stated that they are taking actions to address these issues internally. DOD also stated that each of the actions we recommended is important or highly desirable to accomplish. However, DOD did not provide the timelines expected for completing these actions. Such timelines would assist the military services in their planning processes by letting them know when they can expect much-needed guidance pertaining to the categories of personnel that can conduct cyberspace operations; clarified roles and responsibilities for command and control relationships between U.S. Cyber Command and the geographic combatant commands; and mission requirements from DOD. DOD’s comments appear in their entirety in appendix II. DOD also provided technical comments, which we have incorporated as appropriate.

As agreed with your offices, unless you publicly announce the contents of this report earlier, we plan no further distribution until 30 days from the report date. At that time, we will send copies of this report to the appropriate congressional committees; the Secretary of Defense; the Secretary of the Army; the Secretary of the Navy; the Secretary of the Air Force; the Commandant of the Marine Corps; the Commander of U.S. Strategic Command; and the Commander of U.S. Cyber Command. In addition, the report will be available at no charge on the GAO Web site at http://www.gao.gov.

If you or your staff have any questions about this report, please contact me at (202) 512-5431 or at dagostinod@gao.gov. Contact points for our Offices of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found on the last page of this report. Key contributors to this report are listed in appendix III.

Appendix I: Scope and Methodology

Objectives

This report addresses the extent to which the Department of Defense (DOD) and U.S. Cyber Command have identified for the military services (1) roles and responsibilities including categories of personnel that can conduct various cyberspace operations; (2) command and control relationships, to include the geographic combatant commands; and (3) mission requirements and capabilities in support of U.S. Cyber Command to enable them to organize, train, and equip for cyberspace operations.

Scope and Methodology

To address our objectives, we focused our work on the four active duty DOD military services—Army, Navy, Marine Corps, and Air Force. We focused our review on the efforts of the four military services to organize cyber service component commands and provide appropriately trained and equipped personnel in support of both their own and U.S. Cyber Command’s mission needs. This includes activities in the areas of computer network defense, exploitation, and computer network attack. We reviewed a variety of unclassified and classified documents related to the organization and challenges the department faces in addressing cyberspace operations.

To evaluate the military services’ cyberspace efforts, we reviewed classified and unclassified documents and interviewed officials from a range of DOD and military service organizations involved either directly in cyberspace operations or in the services’ role of organizing, training, and equipping forces for cyberspace operations. Table 2 lists the DOD offices we contacted.

To assess the extent to which roles and responsibilities for the military services had been identified for cyberspace operations, we reviewed DOD doctrine and policy and interviewed relevant officials from DOD, U.S. Cyber Command, and the four military services. Specifically, we reviewed Joint Publication 1, Doctrine for the Armed Forces of the United States (May 2, 2007, incorporating Change 1, March 20, 2009); DOD Directive 5100.01, Functions of the Department of Defense and Its Major Components (December 21, 2010); and joint guidance related to the Joint Operation Planning and Execution System to identify the criteria, definitions, and other guidance that DOD and U.S. Cyber Command should be following as they identify the appropriate roles and responsibilities for the military services and other organizations that support DOD cyberspace operations. We then compared these joint documents to the guidance and information provided to us by officials at the DOD General Counsel’s Office, U.S. Cyber Command, and its supporting service commands to assess whether any gaps existed. Specifically, we reviewed U.S. Cyber Command’s Concept of Operations (September 21, 2010) and DOD Instruction 1100.22, Policy and Procedures for Determining Workforce Mix (April 12, 2010).

To assess the extent to which DOD had addressed command and control issues for cyberspace operations, we reviewed DOD directives, doctrine, and policy and interviewed relevant officials from DOD, U.S. Cyber Command, and the four military services. Specifically, we reviewed DOD Directive 5100.01; Joint Publication 1; Joint Publication 1-02, Department of Defense Dictionary of Military and Associated Terms (November 8, 2010, as amended through December 31, 2010); Joint Publication 5-0; and the 2008 Unified Command Plan to identify criteria for delineating “supported” and “supporting” command and control relationships between combatant commands and the military services. We compared these documents to guidance and information provided to us by officials at U.S. Cyber Command—specifically the Concept of Operations (September 21, 2010)—to determine to what extent U.S. Cyber Command has defined these relationships. We also reviewed Joint Publication 1, Joint Publication 1-02, and the 2008 Unified Command Plan and interviewed officials from the military services to identify possible command and control models that U.S. Cyber Command could use in developing its relationships with the geographic combatant commands and the military services.

To assess mission requirements and capabilities issues, we reviewed DOD doctrine and interviewed relevant officials from DOD, U.S. Cyber Command, and the four military services. Specifically, we reviewed joint guidance related to the Joint Operation Planning and Execution System to determine the criteria that joint commands are to follow when developing doctrine and guidance, specifically in regard to mission requirements and capability needs at various stages of operational capability. We compared the Joint Operation Planning and Execution System criteria to the guidance and information provided to us by officials at U.S. Cyber Command—specifically the Concept of Operations (September 21, 2010)—and its supporting service commands to assess whether any gaps existed.

We conducted this performance audit from May 2010 to May 2011 in accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards. Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe that the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives.

Appendix II: Comments from the Department of Defense

Appendix III: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments

GAO Contact

Staff Acknowledgments

In addition to the contact named above, Penney Harwell Caramia, Assistant Director; Neil Feldman; Katherine Forsyth; Bridget Grimes; Joseph Kirschbaum; Katherine Lenane; Gregory Marchand; Bethann Ritter; Michael Silver; Amie Steele; and Cheryl Weissman made key contributions to this report.