Friday, October 1, 2010

Geeks in uniform???


I'm chuckling (both sympathetically, as a former computer systems engineer, and cynically, as a veteran) at the dilemma facing the US military in trying to recruit and retain the services of computer and network whiz-kids for the new Cyber Command. In an article published in Small Wars Journal, Lt-Cols. Gregory Conti and Jen Easterly outline the problems. (The article link is to an Adobe Acrobat file in .PDF format.) Here are a few extracts.

Key to creating a formidable force in cyberspace is the recruitment, development, and retention of highly skilled individuals. The dynamics in play are significantly different from traditional military recruiting. The nation faces a severe shortage of information security savvy talent. The pool of candidates dwindles even more when considering such constraints as the ability to receive a Top Secret clearance, possession of U.S. citizenship, desire to undergo repeated drug tests, and, in some circumstances, ability to pass a polygraph exam. The combination of a highly competitive job market and a relatively small pool of candidates require the military to actively create a culture that attracts, not repels, talent. So how do potential cyber warriors perceive the military? It isn’t a pretty picture.

Perceptions of the Military by Potential Cyber Warriors

In order to gauge the perception of the military by the technical community we posed the question “How has the military treated you and your technical friends?” on Slashdot.org. Slashdot is arguably the most popular technical news website and is an ideal location to gain a sense of the technical community’s perception of the military. The posting drew 415 responses, some quite detailed. The online discussion focused on a variety of themes:

  • Limited creativity – “The very things that make us valuable -- the ability to think critically, take the initiative, and not be weighed down by conventional thinking is exactly the thing the military seems to weed out.”
  • Inflexibility – “The military is not setup to advance and reward those with technical ability. It is setup to have standard sized cogs.”
  • Recognition – “The military doesn't recognize the existence (or need for) a different type of person to fight their new battles.”
  • Unfair pay – “I looked at the 3 stripes on the arm of the guy flipping my burger. I then looked at the 3 stripes on my own arm, realizing we both get paid the same. At that moment my mind was made up and I chose not to reenlist.”
  • Limited meritocracy – “There is no mechanism for payment or reward based on technical skill level.”
  • Lack of a technical career path – “I think one of the things that the Army did wrong was to completely eliminate that secondary path to advancement. If we're talking about highly technical specialties with little to no relationship to direct combat, then the idea to make everyone a capable sergeant doesn't fit so well.”
  • Bias against non-combat personnel - “In USAF's officer corps, if you don't turn and burn for a living, you're somewhat less than a man.”
  • Technically ignorant leadership – “[The Colonel’s] eyes glazed over after 3 or so minutes as he could not follow what I had done at all”
  • Low pay – “I can walk into any DoD security contractor out there with my DD214 and make 10 times what I did when I was discharged”
  • Danger – “I hope those guys tell their wives that they are lawful military targets”
  • Distrust – “We are talking about handing the keys to America's entire computer security infrastructure over to military intelligence agencies like the NSA”
  • Anti-intellectual bias – “I attended West Point and was in the top 10% of my class. One of my tactical officers once told me that I needed to get my priorities straight. No one wanted someone who was too smart, he said. He'd rather have someone in his unit who could ace the physical fitness test than someone who studied.”
  • Lack of career advancement – “Its great if you're just in for the college money, sucks later on if you decide to make a career out of it.”
  • Lack of tolerance of alternative lifestyles – “Many of us live alternative lifestyles and conventional military thinking is that we're a security risk.”
  • Compulsory management responsibilities – “The system itself isn't designed to handle individuals that have technical ability, but who aren't ready/don't want to command lower level troops.”
  • Misutilization – “The government sent me to six months training in 29 palms. Yet, when I finally got the chance to deploy, I was a glorified MP.”
  • Hazing (or worse) – “Nerds were treated with a bar of soap wrapped in a towel, routinely beat on, robbed from, cast out, and had their opinions dismissed.”

. . .

If you walk around companies like Google, you don’t see beige walls, battleship gray desks, and workers, like lemmings, heading off to irrelevant and redundant meetings. You see white boards, food that doesn’t taste like paste, yoga classes, comfortable small group areas, and bright, creative, and motivated people excitedly collaborating. You see people working long hours, because they believe in what they do and work to accomplish results, a place where talent matters.

. . .

We aren’t saying that Cyber Command should be staffed with soldiers with pink Mohawks, but we argue that the current military culture as echoed by the Slashdot audience cannot attract and retain the bright and creative minds required to fight and win in the dynamic and constantly evolving cyber domain.


The authors go on to outline possible approaches to attract, recruit and retain the skilled personnel the US armed forces will need in an era of cyber-warfare. I'd recommend that those with a stake, or even a passing interest, in the problem read the whole article. The issue is further discussed in an article at Aviation Week's military blog, Ares.

There's a very real problem here, as all veterans of military service will instantly recognize. Your average computer geek is anything but typical of your average serviceman (particularly in a combat zone); but the changing face of modern warfare and security requirements is going to need geeks far more than previously. How to attract and retain them, without expecting or forcing them to be grunts, will be quite a challenge.

I'd say the authors of this study made a very good start by going to Slashdot with questions, and listening to the answers (something for which senior military officers are not renowned). Let's hope their openness and willingness to listen will be the start of something good.

Peter

4 comments:

  1. It seems to me that what they really need to do is contract to somebody like Google or Symantec, but impose security clearances on any employee that works on their projects.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Another problem that the military has is that its computer infrastructure is completely inflexible, built by the lowest bidder, and apparently partly owned by Microsoft. Typically, this means that all of our desktops are either HP or Dell pieces of junk. Then they take years to "certify" each new version of Windows, or whatever other software you may need to use. (Heaven forbid that we be allowed to try using Apple products!) By the time you can use a new operating system or application, it's no longer the best/most useful. For example, several of our office computers still run XP, because the other applications on those computers can't be "certified" to be run "securely" on Vista.

    We can't even use removable storage devices, because they couldn't figure out how to keep them from introducing viruses or malware into their systems. This ties our hands and makes us less adaptable.

    I can't imagine that modern computer experts would find anything interesting about working in that kind of environment.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Excellent post, dead on the money... Also DW has it right, lowest bidder network/infrastructure and LOUSY tech support handicaps us from the get go, along with firewalls that prevent you from going to Beretta, FN, and other suppliers, but will let you go to the Brady bunch, VPC and multiple anti- sites...

    ReplyDelete
  4. I have to say I was laughing when I read this. You’ll find parallel threads like, we need soldier scientist for future warfighter or we need warrior PhD’s for program managers.

    In my little world it would seem we have all sorts of technocrats, managers and bureaucrats but very few warriors. I have had to instruct 300 pound USAF majors and 350 pound National Guard troopers who could never have passed much less aced a PT test. They could not walk two miles in heat with a helmet and vest much less with a weapon.

    I work with two USNR officers (O-4, O-6) who before deployment had never fired any weapon in their careers. Both failed to qualify and received some kind of waiver so they could give PowerPoint’s in theater.

    I flew back with a female Army O-6 who was in charge of the fire extinguisher in her HUMVEE because she was not current on her weapons training. She was there to monitor "soldier morale" in CENTCOM. That did not help her when her convoy was attacked in Iraq.

    I have had 50 year old reservist get called up because half the regulars in the unit were undeployable for one reason or another.

    To get a basic security clearance you need to pass a drug test, not have a criminal record and not be married to some foreign nationals. What is so hard about that?

    Alternate life style? Please there is only one allowed, the military life style.

    I not a Marine but I have to say I think the USMC have the right idea. You’re here to fight. Every other MOS is secondary.

    Don’t get me started about leadership.

    Rant off

    ReplyDelete

ALL COMMENTS ARE MODERATED. THEY WILL APPEAR AFTER OWNER APPROVAL, WHICH MAY BE DELAYED.