Form Approved OMB No 0704 0188 REPORT DOCUMENTATION PAGE Public reporting burden fer this collection of Information Is esumated to average 1 hour per response induding he time for reviewing lnstruc tions searching eldsting data sources ga henng and maintaining he data needed and completing and reviewing his tclledion or Information Send comments regarding this burden estimate or any o her aspect of this tclledion of lnformation lnc luding suggMtions for reducing this burden to Department of Defense Washington Headquarters Servic es Oirec torata for Information Operations and Reports 07114-01881 1215 Jeflerson Davis Highway Suite 1204 Attington VA 222024302 Respondents should be aware that notwilhstanding any olher prevision of law no person shall be subled to any penalty for failing to comply with a ootlec tion of Information If It does not display a c urrendy valid OMB control number PLEASE DO NOT RETURN YOUR FORM TO THE ABOVE ADDRESS 1 REPORT DATE DD·MM·YYYY 2 REPORT TYPE 3 DATES COVERED From To 13-0 4-2015 Mas ter's Thesis 21-07-2014 to 12-06-2015 4 TITLE AND SUBTITLE Sa CONTRACT NUMBER Cyber and the Amer ican Wa y o f Wa r Sb GRANT NUMBER Sc PROGRAM ELEMENT NUMBER 6 AUTHOR Sd PROJECT NUMBER Lieutenant Col one l Lisa Nemeth USAF Se TASK NUMBER Sf WORK UNIT NUMBER 7 PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME S AND ADDRESS ES B PERFORMING ORGANIZATION REPORT Joint Forces Staf f College Joint Advanced War figh t i ng School 7800 Hampt on Blvd Norfolk VA 23511-1702 9 SPONSORING I MONITORING AGENCY NAME S AND ADDRESS ES 10 SPONSOR MONITOR'S ACRONYM S 11 SPONSOR MONITOR'S REPORT NUMBER S 12 DISTRIBUTION I AVAILABILITY STATEMENT Approved for public release distribution is unlimited 13 SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES 14 ABSTRACT The American way of war has been discussed in literature since the concept emerged in 1973 Since that time effects of integrating cyber activities into the concept of warfare have not been addressed surrounding the conceptualizations of the American way of war This paper examines the current literature to create a characterization of the American way or war and then proposes how cyber will change the American way of war 15 SUBJECT TERMS 16 SECURITY CLASSIFICATION OF 17 UMITATION OF ABSTRACT Unclassified Unclassified Unclassified Unclassified Unlimited a REPORT b ABSTRACT c THIS PAGE 18 19a NAME OF RESPONSIBLE PERSON NUMBER OF PAGES 19b TELEPHONE NUMBER 40 include area code 757-443-6301 Standard Form 298 Rev 98 Pruc rllled by ANSI Std Z39 18 Imien oxm ti fe Hank NATIONAL DEFENSE UNIVERSITY JOINT FORCES STAFF COLLEGE JOINT ADVANCED W ARFIGHTING SCHOOL CYBER AND THE AMERICAN WAY OF WAR by Lisa Nemeth Lt Col U S AF 11mm inremfa afbr In Mani CYBER AND THE AMERICAN WAY OF WAR by Lisa Nemeth Lt Col U S A F A paper submitted to the Faculty of the Joint Advanced Warfighting School in partial satisfaction of the requirements of a Master of Science Degree In Joint Campaign Planning and Strategy The contents of this paper renect my own personal views and are not necessarily endorsed by the Joint Forces Staff College or the Department of Defense This paper is entirely my own work except as documented in footnotes or appropriate statement per the Academic Integrity Policy Thesis Advisor Approved by Acting Directo Joint Advanced Warfighting School This page immrionafbr lg ABSTRACT The American way of war has been discussed in literature since the concept emerged in 1973 Since that time effects of integrating cyber activities into the concept of warfare have not been addressed in discussions surrounding the conceptualizations of the American way of war This paper examines the current literature to create a characterization of the American way of war and then proposes how cyber will change the American way of war i ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Thank-you to COL ret Jerome Hawkins for his review of my paper and identification of areas that needed clarification ii Table of Contents Introduction 1 The American Way of War 3 The American Milita ry Way of War 3 Overwhelming Force Decisive Victory 4 Advanced Technology 6 Independent Action 7 War is Against Military Forces 8 Summary 9 The American Political Way of War 9 The Use of Force 10 Risk and A version to Casualties and Collateral Damage 13 Whole of Government Approach to War 15 Summary 17 Cyber and the American Way of War 17 What Will Not Change I How Cyber Fits into the American Way of War • 19 How Cyber Warfare Should Alter the American Way of War • • 19 Whole-of-government Approach to War 20 A New Civil-Military Relationship 24 Use of Force Concepts 26 Military Forces Civilians and Collateral Damage 28 Conclusion 34 Bibliography 36 Vita 40 Ill Introduction The idea of an American way of war came into existence in 1973 with the publication of Russell Weigley's The American Way of War According to Weigley the American way of war was more a way of battle and followed a strategy of annihilation ' Weigley's work and conclusions were initially accepted as definitive but after the First Gulf War historians began debating Weigley's conclusions In a recent work Reconsidering the American Way of War Tony Echevarria breaks the literature ofthe topic into three phases 2 The first phase is Weigley's study and surrounding discussion Phase two began in the mid-1990s and lasted until after the invasion of Iraq in 2003 In this phase historians worked to integrate new technologies and resultant changes in the methods of war Finally Echevarria's third phase begins with the pre-surge difficulties the United States experienced in Iraq in 2003 to 2005 and examined the American way of war for a cause What has not yet appeared is a phase four-an attempt to describe the American way of war that includes cyber actions in warfare Today there are different schools of thought as to what impact cyber will have on war and warfare Some theorists do not think that cyber warfare will cause substantive changes to the American way of war as it is only another technology Others believe it is part of the ongoing information revolution already captured in the way of war debate Still others do not address cyber at all Recent international headlines on cyber activities and its potential as a medium for 1 Russell F Weigley The American Way of War A History of United States Military Strategy and Policy 1973 repr Bloomington Indiana University 1977 2 Subsequent phases outlined by Antulio J Echevarria II Reconsidering the American Way of War U S Military Practice from the Revolution to Afghanistan Washington D C Georgetown University Press 2014 10-11 1 coercion demonstrate how integral cyber is to society today Cyber actions can no longer be ignored- no matter how uncertain its future-when examining the conduct of national security and warfare This paper will begin that discourse It will demonstrate that the addition of actions in cyberspace to warfare will alter the American way of war This paper consists of two major sections The first will review existing literature and trends to detennine characteristics that define the American way of war Part two will take this characterization of the American way of war and outline the affect cyber activities in warfare will have on the characteristics and thereby on the American way of war 2 The American Way of War There are many definitions of the American way of war It is difficult to make direct comparisons among them as the definitions focus on different conceptual levels of war The definitions range from pure military characterizations of the American way of war to global-strategic definitions that attempt to explain how the American government views and uses war What is clear from all of these efforts is as Benjamin Buley writes There is no single American way of war or consensus over the proper relationship between war and national policy 3 To further compound the comparative difficulties some definitions were written not to simply describe the American way of war but for the purpose of explaining a specific war's outcome Others as Brian Linn points out were written only considering war years ignoring peacetime activities and therefore do not provide a comprehensive definition 4 In order to create a useful understanding out of this abundance of ways of war this paper will take a new approach The American way of war will be examined first from a military perspective and then from a nationalstrategic or government-level perspective In each category commonly agreed-upon characteristics of the way of war will be outlined to weave a new characterization of the American Way of War The American Military Way of War Historian Dr Lawrence Sondhaus noted that the American tendency to focus on the practice of war rather than the broader conceptualization of it thus colors the literature 3 Benjamin Buley The New American Way of War Military Culture and the Political Utility ofForce New York Routledge 2008 6 4 Brian McAllister Linn The Echo ofBattle The Army's Way of War Cambridge Massachusetts Harvard University Press 2007 233-4 3 on the American way ofwar 5 Dr Sondhaus' description is apt for many characterizations of the American way of war are centered on the military aspects of war or rather on how war is fought Therefore this paper will explore the military facet of the American way of war first The reader must be cautioned not to interpret what follows in this section as the American way of war for this section will address a way of war as defined by the American military without inputs from other American entities This fragmentation of the American way of war may be more of an ideal desire of the military as it tends toward how the military desires to fight its wars in absence of governmental control over strategies acquisitions or actions Nonetheless the elements presented create a characterization of the way the American military fights wars and will form a foundation to later explore the integration of cyber warfare Within this military-focused exploration of the American way of war there are four dominant characterizations that emerge the desire to use overwhelming force to achieve a ecisive victory the use of advanced technology the desire for independence from politics and a focus on opposing military forces Ovenvhelmi11g Force Decisive Victory In his study of Ethics Technology and the American Way of War Ruben Brigety describes two dominant themes of American practice the first of which is a tendency to seek decisive victory through the overwhelming use offorce 6 As he notes this concept reaches back to Weigley and his original characterization of the American way of war as s Lawrence Sondhaus Strategic Culture and Ways of War New York Routledge 2006 62 6 Reuben E Brigety Ethics Technology and the American Way of War Cruise Missiles and US Security Policy New York Routledge 2007 37 4 annihilation 7 These concepts fonn a common theme among historians describing the American dislike for long-drawn out wars of attrition while preferring large-scale aggressive offensive actions in war These ideas are consistent throughout many definitions of the American way of war Recently however theorists have started to shift away from this conclusion Eliot Cohen for example puts the desire for a decisive battle as the old way of war with a shift occurring around the Kosovo War 8 Likewise Benjamin Buley also categorizes these characteristics as the old way of war for America 9 If this is the old way as many theorists are starting to assert then what is the current American way of war In 2004 Echevarria wrote that the American way of war still retained the concept of rapid decisive operations 10 However in 2014 he revisited the topic and modified his view His new concept is that while the American way of war still places decisive operations at the core of its conception of war Echevarria concludes that the United States rarely employed overwhelming or decisive military force throughout its history applying instead only sufficient means or credible force 11 In this conclusion Echevarria touches on a dichotomy also noted by Cohen This desire for overwhelming force and a decisive battle is a statement of ideal conditions what war ought to be more than what it has actually been 12 While America prefers to overwhelm their opponents and defeat them in a decisive battle that is not how America actually fights the majority of the time 7 Ibid 37 Eliot Cohen Kosovo and the New American Way of War in War over Kosovo Politics Strategy in a Global Age ed Andrew J Bacevich and Eliot Cohen New York Columbia University Press 2001 42 45 9 Buley 1 10 Antulio J Echevarria II Toward an American Way of War Carlisle Strategic Studies Institute 2004 11 Echevarria Reconsidering the American Way of War 4 167-169 12 Cohen 45 8 5 If overwhelming force and decisive battle is the ideal Americans still strive to achieve or as some advocate the previous way of war what is the reality Buley summarizes it best achieving 'systemic paralysis' of the enemy's armed forces and infrastructure rather than their annihilation 13 To most of the American public this is also known by another phrase shock and awe The desire to quickly overwhelm the enemy still exists- without necessarily using overwhelming force in a decisive battle Adva11ced Tec mology The ability of the American way of war to 'shock and awe' its opponents is enabled by what Max Boot believes characterizes the American way of war speed maneuver flexibility and the use of surprise to achieve quick victory all of which are created by a reliance on technological advances 14 This is the second characteristic of the American way of war- reliance on technology Oft cited examples of America's dependence on technology include the use of smart munitions networks and information systems at the center of operations Colin Gray creates a broader description of the use of technology in his characteristics of the American way of war He states that the U S military is culturally attuned to favoring technological solutions over other approaches 15 The importance of technology to the American way of war leads Brigety to list it as his second dominant theme after the use of overwhelming force in a decisive battle when he describes the American desire for the quest for technological superiority vis-a-vis an enemy and the propensity to apply technological solutions to strategic 13 Buley 2 Max Boot The New American Way of War Foreign Affairs 82 no 4 July- August 2003 42 15 Colin S Gray Irregular Enemies and the Essence of Strategy Can the American Way of War Adapt In Irregular Waifare Strategy and Considerations ed Arnold Milton and Walt Berkovski New York Nova Science Publishers 20 12 112 14 6 problems 16 The American way of war places technology at its center using it to solve battlefield and strategic problems Independent Action Another common description of the American military's way of war is their preference and belief that they should be told what to achieve by the politicians and then left on their own to accomplish the tasks As Buley states commanders have accepted the sovereignty of political objectives in principle yet have still sought to preserve a realm of purely military decision-making free from the intrusion of political considerations 17 This conflict arises because in practice the military views strategy as a doctrinal process while policy which informs strategy is often the product of negotiation and compromise - a non-linear and somewhat irrational process directly in conflict with military process and thought 18 This drives a separation in processes where as Cohen states the politicians set objectives that victory in battle would secure and once those objectives were defined Americans preferred to keep politics as far apart from war as possible 19 Again as with the other characterizations this is more a desire rather than reality as civilian politicians commonly exert control over target lists troop numbers and make significant input into military strategy and operations Additionally as America demonstrated in recent wars and Cohen argued in 2004 objectives must be 16 Brigety 38 Buley 11 18 Frank Hoffman Politics and the American Way of War and Strategy War on the Rocks Entry posted November 20 13 http warontherocks com 20 13 10 politics·and-the-american-way-of-war-and-strategy accessed September 3 2014 19 Cohen 49 17 7 adjusted in accordance with political exigency changing moods and preoccupations and consequences of success and failure on the battlefield 20 Aside from separation from the politicians in wartime the military desires its independence between wars as it shapes itself for future wars As Linn elaborates there is a deeply cherished belief among America's military personnel that if left alone the armed services would reform themselves 21 Although Linn was referring to the postCivil War period scholars echo the same sentiment for every major conflict or military drawdown It is even prevalent today as the armed forces prepare for their vision of future conflicts and incorporate lessons learned from Iraq and Afghanistan while working within imposed budget restraints 22 The military once given its task expects to determine its own actions free from political interference whether structural or in a conflict War is Agailrst Military Forces The final characteristic common to the various definitions of the American military way of war is the military's focus on the opposing military forces This is a traditional western view of war now formally upheld by the Geneva Conventions Even without the legalities in its way of war the United States prefers to limit violence to the opposing military As industrialization expanded and civilians became essential to the war effort and the army's ability to function and fight America's preference to only target military forces remained Intentions aside as Wayne Lee demonstrates as a war progressed and 20 2l 22 Ibid 49 Linn The Echo ofBattle 41 E g the current battle between the U S Air Force and Congress over retiring the A-10 8 the desire for unconditional surrender grew historically America would increase violence often targeting the enemy's infrastructure 23 Collateral damage was not desired but was accepted However since WWII and the creation of the current Geneva Conventions and Protocols citizens are increasingly described as fundamentally innocent 24 This created a strategic dilemma between military necessity and protection of civilians for which the American military turned to technology and precision to solve as the military strives to only attack military targets 25 Today the U S military continues to go to extraordinary lengths to avoid targeting civilians while maintaining its actions in war only against opposing military forces and military infrastructure This is not just a military attribute of the way of war as this characterization will be further expanded in the next section Summary Using commonly agreed upon characteristics in the way historians define the American way of war a way of war emerges as one that overwhelms its opponents in hopes of creating a quick and decisive defeat through the use of advanced technology The military prefers that the political decision makers define objectives but then ultimately allow the military to operate on its own to achieve the specified objectives which it prefers to accomplish by focusing on the enemy's military forces The American Political Way of War The other approach to the American way of war considers it at the national governmental level Here the focus is on how war is used and the political l3 Wayne E Lee Barbarians Brothers Anglo-American Warfare 1500-1865 New York Oxford University Press 2011 243-244 24 Ibid 245 25 Ibid 9 considerations involved in the use of force Compared with the military characterizations the political governmental characterizations do not have as clear of a consensus on the traits of the American way of war Nonetheless it is possible to identify commonalities from the literature These are how America uses force the nation's thoughts on risk casualties and collateral damage and how the military use of power is integrated into America's overall policy The Use of Force At its core the idea of a national way of war is how force is used in relation to diplomacy and politics Much has been written on this aspect ofthe American way of war often with reference to American strategic culture Despite the amount ofliterature there is not a single agreed-upon description of how America views the use of force Authors instead present many discordant ideas However within the distinctions common themes emerge A common descriptor of America's way of war is that America does not have an understanding of the relationship between war and peace This relates to the military side of the way of war as Buley describes America prefers to distinguish sharply between the states of peace and war and once committed to the latter to mobilize the republic's abundant resources behind an offensive of the highest possible intensity 26 Echevarria notes the same concept when he states that Americans consider war an alternative to bargaining rather than part of an ongoing bargaining process 'm In other words politics 26 Buley 2 Echevarria Toward an American Way of War 1 Echevarria continues In other words the American concept of war rarely extended beyond the winning of battles and campaigns to the gritty work of turning military victory into strategic success 27 10 and diplomacy end or fail and war begins Peace and war are viewed as binary alternatives and do not exist together Unfortunately when war ends and peace begins is also not cogent for America for the American way of war is also described as forgetting that an important part of war and the use of force is determining the peace that follows The common theme in the literature is that for America war is conducted with the aim of achieving military victory America gives scant thought to the fact that how war is fought and what happens in war will affect the strategic landscape post-conflict specifically the achievement of political victory America believes that victory in war will itself bring the desired peace But the reality is more complex what happens during war determines the course and context of the peace that follows While this theme is prevalent throughout the literature on the American way of war Colin Gray is one of the more vocal authors on this issue Gray puts part of the cause for America's failure in the nation's traditional theory of civilmilitary relations which discourages probing dialogue between policymaker and soldier 28 Echevarria concurs with Gray's assessment and describes the American system as encouraging power and diplomacy to occupy separate spheres 29 This division is strong in American tradition The military desires to conduct war free from political interference Nonetheless the military is not the sole source of this civilianmilitary divide as many historians are quick to show that the civilians are equally culpable While the military wants to operate independently and as it deems best to achieve the nation's objectives in war civilians at times tend to distance themselves from the realities and limitations of force or avoid asking hard questions about how l R Gray Irregular Enemies and the 19 Echevarria Toward an American Essence of Strategy 108 Way of War 13 11 proposed ways relate to the desired ends 30 This split creates a situation where the conduct of the war is placed predominately in the domain ofthe military with civilians relying on the military to achieve the political goals The focus becomes winning the military conflict and not necessarily setting conditions for the peace that follows and thus characterizes the American way of war Many scholars note that the military-political divide and thereby the American dichotomy between the states of war and peace has been diminishing since the end of the Cold War An especially popular topic post Iraq this change served as the focus of many of the more recent studies of the American way ofwar 31 Even with an overall consensus of progress Echevarria opines that despite the lessons of Iraq and Afghanistan the American way of war has not shifted from a focus of defeating the enemy in battle 32 Buley also states that the U S has recently acknowledge d that the conduct of strategy should be governed by the political objective but they policymakers in America still sought both to restrict that objective to one that could be neatly achieved through the massive application of military power and to maintain a realm of purely military decision-making that could remain unsullied by political considerations 33 Despite these condemnations of any changes there is some progress in recent thought on how war affects the peace While primarily designed to defeat the enemy the surge and how it was conducted in Iraq also focused on strategic level outcomes The concept was created together by the military and politicians Military professional Hoffman This is an outcome of Echevarria's third phase of the study of the way of war See Buley Echevarria has also revisited his previous view on the topic by stating in his most recent book that the American uses of force have always been driven by political considerations yet notes that the way of war still retains its battlefield victory focus 12 Echevarria Toward an American Way of War 16 Also Echevarria Reconsidering tlte American Way of War 174 JJ Buley 14 Jl 31 12 education ·spends many hours of instruction over the linkage between strategy politics and military operations Yet despite these changes no author states that the overall American way of war has changed Buley describes the ongoing debate in America as contextual to a type of war rather than to all wars in general He questions whether the form of warfare in which military and political considerations are inextricably intertwined will increasingly be the exception or the norm 34 However Gray and others would advocate that this pervasiveness of politics in war and its effect on the following peace is not limited to a type of war but is present in all war Irrespective of this debate what is unquestionable is that there is a realization within America that the previous divide between the states of war and peace is not appropriate 35 However there still remains uncertainty and friction in how America defines the relationship or how it creates a bridge between war and politics as it attempts to reconcile its way of war with its tradition of a military-civilian divide Today the American way of war may view war as a political instrument but America's conduct of war does not yet carry this view through to its actions Therefore the American way of war still wage s war as a largely autonomous activity leaving worry about peace and its politics to some later day 36 Risk and Aversion to Cas11alties a11d Collateral Damage America has not only experienced changes in the political context of the use of force but also in the application of force Regardless of America's experience and history in the types of wars it has fought America has displayed a strong and long-standing 34 Ibid 139 Ibid 140-146 Also Hoffman 36 Gray 108 35 13 predilection for waging war for unlimited political objectives 'm However the advent of the nuclear age and the subsequent Cold War forced America to focus more on limited wars Limited wars provided concrete well defined objectives that do not demand the utmost military effort and also had the added benefit of permitting economic social and political patterns of existence to continue without serious disruption 38 Limited wars were desirable for the United States as it advanced its national interests while maintaining political support at home Therefore policymakers opted for a strategy of limited war in which the use of force was measured in scope and intensity in order to achieve a very specific objective at an acceptable cost ''39 What America found as it fought limited wars was that to maintain the necessary national and international support military actions were constrained to limit American military casualties and collateral damage 40 While Colin Gray questions whether this is really a requirement he does concur that the United States has inculcated this aversion as part of its way ofwar 41 As a consequence America has sought to exert control over war itself to try to make it predictable in order to reduce risk while preventing casualties and collateral damage A concept noted by many authors Linn sums it up best in that America shows the propensity to view war as an engineering project in which the skilled application of the correct principles could achieve a predictable outcome ''42 Again as mentioned earlier America embraced technology to solve this dilemma 43 37 Thomas G Mahnken Technology and the American Way of War New York Columbia University Press 2008 4 38 Robert Osgood as quoted in Brigety 48 39 Brigety 132 40 Ibid 129 however this is common in much literature on the American way of war 41 Gray Irregular Enemies and the Essence of Strategy 122 4 2 Linn The Echo ofBattle 199 43 Buley 14 Linn The Echo of Battle 199 Gray Irregular Enemies and the Essence of Strategy 112113 121-122 14 Precision guided munitions small diameter bombs Tomahawk missiles and drones all seek to limit casualties and collateral damage and have become characteristic of the American way of war This optimistic view about the management of war is the subject of many critiques of the American way of war primarily focused on the flaw in the American belief of the ability to keep war in a strict military realm while ignoring the political aspects 44 Others such as Michael lgnatoff do not address the military-political divide instead arguing that this avoidance of risk and casualties allows the U S President easier use of military force thereby bypassing other aspects of national power 45 Still others advocate that technology allows the military to solve the casualty and collateral damage problems taking a humanitarian approach to war which it can then use as a weapon against its enemies as well as a way to gamer international support The political context of limited wars as well as increasing international and national sensitivity to collateral damage in wars has given rise to an American desire to control the effects of war Technology is viewed as the means to limit collateral damage As demonstrations of precision increasingly became the norm the consequence has been an increased sensitivity to military casualties and collateral damage Over time this sensitivity has been inculcated into the American way of war which is now characterized as unaccepting of casualties and adverse to collateral damage Whole of Govemme11t Approach to War The civilian-military separation within the American system does not only apply to the divide between the military and American political leaders Historically the 44 For example see Buley 14 Michaellgnatieff The New American Way ofWar The New York Review ofBooks July 20 2000 http www nybooks com articles archives 2000 j ul 20 the-new-american-way-of-war insrco toc accessed October 23 2014 2 45 15 military is also routinely separate from other elements of national power government agencies and their execution organizations This was an oft-cited reason for the failure of the United States in Iraq and Afghanistan- the United States failed to take a whole-ofgovernment approach and coordinate the actions of each governmental arm The military has relationships with the various intelligence agencies relationships that have increasingly improved since 9-11 Likewise the military also has ties with some agencies of the Department of Homeland Security However interaction with the diplomatic and economic arms of the U S government has traditionally been deficient This has significant effect on the American way of war To reiterate the American way of war is to use the military to achieve the government's objectives All governmental agencies support that effort but they are not responsible for the execution of the conflict itself 46 As the American conceptualization of war has evolved from being seen as primarily a force-on-force endeavor the categorization of war strictly as a military issue is increasingly out of context This became apparent to the U S Government in recent U S actions and has generated much debate Recent recognition ofthe necessity of a whole-of-government approach does not yet rewrite the characterization of the American way of war however this aspect appears to have the finnest realization that it needs to change It is yet to be seen if the American system can make the adjustments to change its way of war 4 Specifically referring to limited wars There may be fall-out or ancillary duties that affect the agencies such as intelligence or increased homeland security but the agencies are not responsible for success or failure in the war Granted the State Department does play a significant role in building and maintaining international coalitions and global diplomacy 16 Summary The American governmental way of war complements the military view As a whole America prefers to keep separation between the political direction of war and the military's execution of it This contributes to the American view of peace and war being binary in which both are separate conditions Finally America is casualty adverse both with its military and civilians as well as shy of collateral damage This has led the nation to use technology to attempt to manage war and thereby limit the damage of war It has also created world expectations of the America's ability to do so at all times Finally historically America limits war to the realm of the military rather than taking a whole-ofgovernment approach to war's conduct Each of these characteristics of the American way of war has been challenged by recent American wars The shortcomings were apparent during recent conflicts and individuals within the American military and government realize that these characterizations of the American way of war must change in order to achieve lasting victories Nonetheless the realization that changes are needed is not enough to actually force changes Now that the crisis of the most recent wars seems passed America has demonstrated tendencies to revert to its traditional characteristics of the American way of war Cyber and the American Way of War No longer a nascent technology recent cyber events have demonstrated the ability to halt daily functions in a society execute a very precise attack with a specific effect 17 and cause hundreds of millions of dollars in damages to corporations and nations 47 Each of these events has exhibited different attributes associated with cyber attacks preemptive surgical aesthetic deterrent escalatory unacknowledged non-attributed coercive and or pervasive Each attack was also against non-military systems and in some cases privately owned infrastructure systems or entities This wide range of characteristics for cyber actions does not create a clear future for the integration of cyber into warfare In total war where unconditional surrender is the goal the use of cyber could be rampant with its effects pervasive throughout the societies in conflict However in limited war or peacetime conflict cyber's role and expected level of use remains the subject of much debate For America the future path of cyber in warfare and the American way of war are intertwined The American way of war will shape cyber's role in warfare and in tum cyber actions will affect the American way of war This is because the current American way of war controls how America views the possibilities of cyber in warfare and detennines what tools techniques procedures and technologies are developed to support its use The lessons learned as that process unfolds will in tum alter the American way of war Cyber's omnipresent nature in society distinguishes it from other domains in warfare and creates far-reaching implications from the addition of cyber actions into warfare Despite the uncertainty surrounding its ultimate role the integration of cyber into warfare will place pressure on the American way of war to change This section discusses some of the future implications of cyber in warfare to the American way of war 47 In order Estonia and Georgia Stuxnet and Sony Pictures Some estimates quote loss and recovery costs for Sony as over half a billion dollars 18 What Will Not Change I How Cyber Fits into the American Way of War Two aspects of the American way of war are congruent with cyber warfare First the American military's reliance on technology to fight wars and solve its strategic problems aligns perfectly with cyber as cyber is technology and presents new methods to solve both old and new problems in war Likewise cyber is perceived as a fit with the American desire for overwhelming force decisive victory and the newer perspective of achieving system paralysis Here cyber is viewed as enabling or directly contributing to the creation ofthese attributes of the American way of war One could even argue that attaining systems paralysis will not be possible without cyber in warfare as information technology has become integral to warfare in almost every form 48 Because cyber presents a new technology that has potential to solve problems in war and also has potential as a method to create strategic paralysis and thereby decisive victory against an opponent the addition of cyber will not likely affect these characteristics of the American way of war The American way of war will still continue look to technology to solve its dilemmas and to achieve decisive victory and will use cyber actions to do so How Cyber Warfare Should Alter the American Way of War While cyber actions in warfare may be congruent with some aspects of the American way of war it has the potential to create profound changes in other characteristics Specifically the addition of cyber in warfare will place pressure on the ability of the military to be given objectives and act independently to achieve them This will further shift the American way of war into an integrated whole-of-government approach to war The addition of cyber actions in warfare will also increase civilian 48 Even most non-technical adversaries rely on cyber and information technology for financing recruitment communication and influencing public opinion 19 involvement in military operations Furthermore it will eliminate the binary distinction between the states of war and peace existing in the American way of war and thereby end the apolitical tendency of the American way of war Finally the inclusion of cyber actions will require the American way of war to adjust to an increased uncertainty regarding collateral damage and the civilian casualties associated with warfare This section will illustrate the effect on each of these characteristics of the American way of war Whole-of-govemmellt Approach to War Just as Iraq and Afghanistan brought other U S Government agencies into the American conduct of war the addition of cyber into warfare will take the relationship further Today multiple governmental agencies are necessary to achieve objectives in the quest for victory This whole-of-government approach is common policy in most contemporary military actions and has been codified through various Presidential directives in recent years The current Department of Defense Cyber Strategy for Operating in Cyberspace is in line with this concept ' In order to enable a whole-ofgovernment approach DoD will continue to work closely with its interagency partners on new and innovative ways to increase national cyber security 49 While acknowledging the necessity of a whole-of-government approach current DoD strategy only refers to interagency cooperation in terms of sharing ideas sharing of capabilities and supporting collective efforts for cybersecurity 50 The inclusion of cyber actions in warfare into operational concepts will require a change in these relationships The addition of cyber into warfare will create the need for a multi-agency approach to 49 U S Department of Defense Department of Defense Strategy for Operating in Cyberspace 2011 8 so Ibid 8 20 war planning and execution going beyond aligned objectives and coordinated agency roles Instead cyber will require that agencies are party to decisions in both planning and execution In short whole-of-government becomes more than just coordination of efforts idea sharing and acknowledgement that each agency's effort is required Wholeof-government becomes an integrated team For the American way of war this means that not only are policy-makers involved with the establishment and execution of military objectives but that many other government agencies are involved as well The cause for this shift in response to cyber is two-fold First cyber is not solely the domain of the military It is pervasive across modem society The internet networks and thereby cyber relies on non-military components Robert Latham uses the tenn dual-coded to refer to infonnation technology infrastructures which have become a core infrastructure for all of society not just for the government and military 51 It is not possible for the military to use only military infrastructure It may not even be possible to use only American infrastructure as the internet is decentralized with components across the globe Any attempts to affect the network or its components can therefore have direct or indirect effects on other agencies private organizations or individuals Second with cyber there are only fleeting concepts of national borders or territory As many have noted the use of cyber has the effect of ending the distinction between internal and external security for a state Chris Demchak provides a good discussion on this topic in her essay Cybered Conflict Cyber Power and Security • Robert Latham Introduction In Bombs and Bandwidth The Emerging Relationship Between lnfomwtion Technology and Security ed Robert Latham New York The New Press 2003 13-16 21 Resilience as Strategy 52 Historically in the west she argues that the military was responsible for external security-keeping dangers out of the nation- while police and other agencies were responsible for security within the borders In response to this internal external division nations developed concepts strategies and institutions to create internal and external security 53 Cyber with its lack of geography and ubiquitous nature allows threats to reach directly into societies bypassing military forces thereby challenging this internal external division 54 America is no different The integration of cyber challenges the existing division of security responsibilities and roles as well as how the nation thinks about security 55 Consequently America's recent whole-of-government efforts may not go far enough to allow its military and agencies to provide security in a world where internal and external security are blurred The change to an integrated governmental approach to cyber is not only for conceptual reasons As a result of cyber warfare adversaries can with low barriers to entry gain necessary tools to conduct offensive operations anywhere inside American borders Practically speaking actions taken by America's military in a conflict-cyber or physical- may now lead to direct and immediate effects on the American homeland or to other agencies' operations through cyber-based counter-attacks Retribution could drive focused cyber attacks on agencies or private entities that have no warning due to the nature of current division of operations within the government With cyber as a form of warfare American military actions are no longer isolated to the region where there is 52 Chris Demchak Cybered Conflict Cyber Power and Security Resilience as Strategy In Cyberspace and National Security Threats Opportunities and Power in a Virtual World ed Derek S Reveron Washington D C Georgetown University Press 2012 3 ' Ibid 131 4 ' Ibid 129 131 $ Demchak 127· 131 See also Latham Introduction II 22 physical fighting but can have reciprocal effects anywhere in the homeland or around the world Homeland defense and the consequences of a counter-attack are not the only reason cyber will drive a greater whole-of-government approach Cyber operations conducted by the military can have a direct effect on other governmental agencies' activities Various agencies may have conflicting ideas how best to exploit vulnerabilities in adversary systems For example if multiple government agencies were planning on using a known deficiency in an enemy network to gain access to systems the use of that entry point by one agency can permanently close it to others It could even affect access to other systems in that nation as security levels and awareness change in response Cyber is unique in that once an access point is used and the enemy traces how their systems were affected they can patch that weakness thereby preventing other attacks or entries at that point Essentially if an avenue is used and the enemy becomes aware the future landscape for cyber operations is altered Furthermore agencies without cyber capabilities might have conflicting ideas about what could be gained through exploitation 56 A whole-of-government approach is needed to centrally identify cyber weaknesses overlapping interests and coordinate their use There are further implications for homeland defense in cyberspace Once a weakness is identified via exploitation that vulnerability becomes available to the black hat community for alteration and exploitation If the code were to spread beyond the targeted systems there could be unintended spillover or blowback into American systems both government and private Such spillover or blowback can cause direct 6 Herbert Lin Operational Considerations in Cyber Attack and Cyber Exploration In Cyberspace and National Security Threats Opporlllnities and Power in a Virtual World ed Derek S Reveron Washington D C Georgetown University Press 2012 50 ' 23 effects if the code affects American systems or indirect effects if for example the malicious code had resultant effects on the economy or infrastructure 57 Therefore knowledge of vulnerabilities needs to be shared to defend against or to rapidly respond to attacks 58 The combined effects of integrating cyber into warfare create a situation where the military can no longer independently plan and execute war As internal and external security merge into one so must the actions of the agencies previously responsible for each component of security To create the best homeland defense and to take advantage of cyber opportunities for offensive action the military must not only coordinate but must integrate its actions with other government agencies With cyber warfare the American way of war can no longer be to assign objectives to the military and have the military achieve them with only basic coordination among other agencies Instead military action must be integrated step-by-step throughout the government Cyber warfare forces the American way of war to involve the entire government and no longer permits independent action of the military A New Civil-Military Relations lip The integration of cyber warfare will also affect the civilian-military relationship in America The military will have to accept further civilian involvement in operations Civilians will also need to engage more with military operations This change will create friction The military already feels they have less independence to conduct war than they should Cyber warfare will further restrict their independent operating space as political decision makers find that military operations 51 58 Ibid 4 7 An alternative could be a centrally controlled cyber defense capability for all systems in the U S 24 and non-military events are linked more closely than before Civilians will find they need greater understanding and detail of how the military plans to achieve its assigned objectives and what tools are to be used This greater understanding will form the basis for a new whole-of-government approach Cyber will also alter the timing of the civilian-military integration as this relationship shift is not just applicable in wartime The civilian-military interaction must be present in peacetime as well cyber operations require preparation Unlike what is often seen in the media new cyber operations are generally time intensive It can take a considerable amount of time to determine what the system architecture of the adversary is and how to gain entry A human element might be required to gain access to a system Once entry is gained an attacker must often study the system to determine how to achieve the desired effect Finally the attacker must build the offensive element or code and insert it While at times this can be done quickly- generally on unsophisticated systems- this process will not normally be rapid It is quite the opposite Experts indicate that planning for a cyber-attack may require longer and have more intelligence requirements than a kinetic attack s9 Consequently operations must be planned surveyed and initiated in advance This may require planning before hostilities are apparent often in peacetime or while political decision-makers have not decided to commence hostilities or are not yet willing to admit to a possible future conflict The types of activities required if discovered can have political consequences and will drive greater civilian involvement in military affairs during peacetime as policy-makers strive to control American policy This will shift the American way of war to one in which civilians have greater control over the military- much to the angst of military desires 59 Lin 44 25 Use of Force Concepts Cyber warfare will also continue to move the American way of war away from a distinct separation between the states of war and peace Peacetime and wartime will no longer be exclusive states of existence in the American way of war Activities normally associated with war will exist in peacetime All of this is brought about by the addition of cyber and cyber warfare State-sponsored cyber activities are already emerging today during a state of peace Stuxnet Estonia and Sony Pictures are just a few examples The unresolved question is whether these actions are war or peacetime operations A common answer is that maybe they are somewhere in the middle A 2010 Chatham House report succinctly states the issue Cyber warfare can enable actors to achieve their political and strategic goals without the need for armed conflict 60 In the American way of war the state of war is characterized by armed conflict But if cyber actions are a means to achieve goal without the use of force then there may be a need to redefine war and peace that includes a shared space Cyber blurs the border between the conditions of war and peace by creating some of the same effects seen in wartime without the use of force The anonymity potential covertness remoteness and the aesthetic nature of operations are characteristics of cyber Furthermore proxies such as cyber militias that may or may not be under government control can take actions that could be considered acts of war David Fidler refers to this blurry area where much of cyber warfare currently appears to reside as the 'zone of ambiguity' This zone provides states and non-state actors with incentives to engage in 00 Paul Cornish David Livingston Dave Clemente and Claire York On Cyber Waifare London Chatham House 201 0 vii 26 or tolerate a range of activities in cyberspace these activities face a lack of rules controversies about what rules apply or difficulties in making harmonized rules function 61 Together these characteristics and ambiguous existence combine to make cyber operations easier for political decision-makers to undertake in peacetime America already embraces pre-emptive military actions The characteristics of cyber warfare will continue to favor pre-emptive actions without the use of force similar to the unattributed employment ofStuxnet Combine America's pre-emptive tendency with the relative ease of use and cyber warfare activities are more likely in the future This places America squarely in the zone of ambiguity and further pressures the American way of war to eliminate its black-and-white differentiation between peace and war This debate over cyber actions and their relationship to war will continue for the immediate future as individual nations develop their responses based on the context of each cyber action Regardless of perspective on where cyber actions fall in the spectrum of war and peace this blending of the two has implications for the evolution of American way of war The ambiguity will end the apolitization of war common in the American way of war lfthere is no distinction between war and peace then activities in war i e ofthe military can no longer be shielded from politics Instead each action and its context will have political consequences Therefore civilian decision-makers cannot cede freedom of action to the military and must be more involved with military activities to establish and maintain the desired state of affairs Actions especially those taken in the zone of ambiguity clearly affect the nature of the peace Consequently there is very 61 David P Fidler Inter amw silent leges Redux The Law of Armed Conflict and Cyber Conflict In Cyberspace and National Security Threats Opportunities and Power in a Virtual World ed Derek S Reveron Washington D C Georgetown University Press 2012 75 27 little space in which the military can be ceded freedom of action when cyber warfare is involved 62 Cyber will alter the American way of war to not just view its actions as a political instrument but to conduct them as such- with increased civilian involvement in military affairs to control the political linkage Military Forces Civilia11s and Collateral Damage The American way of war includes going to extreme lengths to ensure that the effects of war are limited to the opposing military forces and government Not only is this a desire of America but the idea is also codified into international law Activities in cyber however challenge America's ability to exclude civilians or civilian infrastructures from any effects of conflict because again there is no clear distinction between military and civilian in cyber 63 Matt Crosston elaborates International laws on conventional warfare are effective because of the ability to differentiate between civilian and military sectors There is a civilian military ambiguity in the cyber domain that makes such differentiation unlikely if not impossible well into the future 64 For example if an adversary desired to disrupt America's military communications it would find that much of the military's communications relies on commercial infrastructuretherefore eliminating America's ability to communicate via cyber warfare would involve targeting civilian systems 65 This is the dilemma with cyber previous assumptions about the nature of the international system- among them rationality proportionality 61 Point worthy of mention in total war it is possible that this space exists Or possibly in a clear state of war at the tactical level there are areas in which freedom of action in cyber would be available to the military to affect military systems 63 Cornish et all vii 64 Matthew Crosston Duqu's Dilemma The Ambiguity Assertion and the Futility of Sanitized Cyber War Proceedings ofthe International Conference ofInformation Wmfare Security International Security Counter Terrorism Reference Center 43 65 John Arguilla Twenty Years ofCyberwar Journal ofMilitary Ethics 12 no I 2013 84 28 predictability and knowability- may no longer be operative 66 The trend in America's way of war where collateral damage is continually minimized and civilians are insulated from the effects of war may be reversed with the addition of cyber In cyber warfare when a state or military plans an attack some form of the attack's execution will travel through and involve commercial assets and networks 67 Again Crosston takes this one step further in stating that to go after the 'military' targets and you will also de facto be going after 'civilian' targets 68 This concept of interconnectedness and the indistinguishable nature of military and civilian systems are common throughout the cyber debate Regardless the dual-use of these systems as David Fidler illustrates in his essay Inter arma silent leges Redux allows that attacking them might be permissible if enemy forces utilize those systems for military purposes 69 This is similar to the current concepts of proportionality and necessity embedded in existing international law-even if the authors of the law did not envision such a lack of distinction between military and civilian This lack of distinction has the effect of making the attack's design and the decision to execute more complicated Nonetheless the American way of war will still endeavor to limit collateral damage Cyber actions will complicate this ability by introducing multiple forms of uncertainty As mentioned earlier significant intelligence on the targeted system will be required Any errors or unknowns in that knowledge create large uncertainties about direct and indirect effects of a cyber attack and will 416 Jeffery R Cooper A New Framework for Cyber Deterrence In Cyberspace and National Security Threats Opportunities and Power in a Virtual World ed Derek S Reveron Washington D C Georgetown University Press 2012 108 f 7 Crosston 45 68 Ibid 69 Fidler 80 29 make it difficult for commanders to make good estimates oflikely collateral damage 70 As Lin states the smallest change in configuration or interconnection of a computer system or network can result in a completely different system behavior '171 In other words what is not known about the system architecture or errors in understanding can create unanticipated collateral damage limiting any ability to control such damage Additionally human reactions to an attack can alter the way a cyber attack unfolds 72 The system operators may or may not notice an attack Different protocols executed by the targeted systems operators could have the effect of compounding halting or spreading the attack Even if the response protocol is known as part ofthe gathered intelligence there is no way for the attack to be certain that the system operator will follow it Furthermore despite precautions collateral damage can come in the effects of blowback or spillover into American systems both military and civilian or neutral parties These effects are not limited to the original attack vector either For example Stuxnet managed to infect systems around the globe despite the exceptionally narrow parameters built into the original code and once identified the Stuxnet code was open to study and modification by third parties Therefore when considering the use of cyber force policy-makers should emphasize the possibility of collateral damage from unforeseen spillover due to network connectivity 73 The internet is ubiquitous and ever changing Unforeseen collateral damage can appear from unanticipated connections 70 Lin 44 Ibid 46 72 Ibid 73 Robert Belk Matthew Noyes On the Use of Offensive Cyber Capabilities A Policy Analysis on Offensive US Cyber Policy Masters Thesis 20 12 114 71 30 This can also impose uncertainty onto other agencies markets and the public 74 Risk of unforeseen consequences also factors into the argument for an increased whole-ofgovernment approach The uncertainty creates a need to ensure other agencies are prepared for any possible disruptions- and their ability to deal with any spillover may affect policy-makers decisions to use cyber attacks Finally this spread of collateral damage is not just limited to inside America and neutral parties Within the enemy state knowledge of the interconnectedness of systems may be even lower creating greater potential for spillover While America will still attempt to limit collateral damage with cyber America will lose some of its ability to completely control the effects of a cyber attack There is another side to the collateral damage argument Some experts view cyber as presenting opportunities for greater precision and less collateral damage than seen with kinetic weapons Stuxnet for example was a very precise weapon that had very little if any indirect collateral damage 75 Ryan Jenkins argues that Stuxnet shows that the most optimistic appraisal of cyber warfare is that it promises a way to vastly improve our abilities to satisfy the requirements of proportionality and discrimination 76 This potential future if correct would mesh perfectly with the American way of war and its increasing precision and continual reduction in collateral damage 14 Ibid 121 The reader may note a contradiction with an earlier statement regarding Stmcnet Stuxnet in its original form was very limited in when it would become active Even if Stuxnet spread from the original target it would be dormant on non-targeted systems Therefore Stuxnet itself is often considered a very precise weapon However as noted earlier once Stuxnet was identified in the wild it was eligible for modification Stuxnet could then form the basis of new variants capable of infecting different types of systems and causing direct and indirect effects This complexity in the context of cyber actions between precision and lack of control is a key factor in the uncertainty in the future environment 76 Ryan Jenkins Is Stuxnet Physical Does it Matter Journal ofMilitary Ethics 12 no I 2013 75 l$ 31 However that path of extreme precision is only part of the future of cyber warfare For as Herbert Lin demonstrated the more precise the cyber weapon the greater the intelligence requirements needed to create it Furthermore the amount of time needed to gain intelligence and develop precise code is great These types of situations are not easily created during war- they are more akin to peacetime preemptive attacks or attacks early in a conflict that were prepared prior to hostilities During war users will likely increase protection on their systems they may also make changes to architecture isolating portions or imposing strict controls in response to a perceived threat Attacks requiring lengthy preparation are not likely to be common but rather to be rare as time may not be available to the attacker This increases the uncertainty in the effects of an attack The same theme of a lack of a demarcation between military and civilian cyber infrastructure also extends to civilian personnel Crosston illustrates this point many of the actors that are part of planning initiation and deployment of cyber attacks are not necessarily formal military but civilian employees of government agencies 78 This is not just in America but common in many nations While this poses a dilemma within international law these civilians can be legitimate targets if indeed they are filling a military combat function 79 Maj Gen Charles Dunlap Ret former Deputy Judge Advocate General ofthe U S Air Force argued that if a civilian was sufficiently critical to military cyber operations they could be attacked wherever they could be found and collateral deaths in doing so would be allowed as long as they were not excessive in 77 Lin 47 Crosston 44 79 Charles J Dunlap Jr Some Reflections on the Intersection of Law and Ethics in Cyber War Air Space Power Journal January-February 20 13 29 78 32 relation to the concrete and direct military advantage anticipated 80 In other words the integration of cyber into warfare increases the involvement of civilians in warfare and also makes them legal targets Traditionally targeted civilians were primarily the adversary's leaders or were filling roles supporting the war effort and considered collateral damage during infrastructure attacks With cyber civilians fill the ranks of the 'warfighters' and can be legal targets This may be especially true as states migrate to the use of cyber militias to undertake cyber attacks rather than place that capability into their respective militaries 81 This alters the perspective of the American way of war by broadening the concept of what opposing military forces are The American way of war will need to evolve to a broader definition The American way of war will still attempt to insulate civilians from the effects of war and minimize collateral damage While cyber may allow further gains in precision to do just that the uncertainty of effects along with cyber's blending of military and civilian infrastructure makes isolating effects to military targets a questionable assumption For peacetime operations sophisticated attacks such as Stuxnet have potentially demonstrated increased precision in operations However Stuxnet was an attack that evolved in stages over years 82 During war the luxury of time is doubtful except for at the onset Combatants will alter their systems attacks will be constantly created and the uncertainties of the effects will grow For the American way of war this means accepting this greater uncertainty to be inherent within cyber warfare The American 80 Ibid Richard B Andres The Emerging Structure of Strategic Cyber Offense Cyber Defense and Cyber Deterrence In Cyberspace and National Security Threats Opportunities and Power in a Virtual World ed Derek S Reveron Washington D C Georgetown University Press 2012 101 82 Kimberly Zetter Stuxnet Missing Link Found Resolves some Mysteries around the Cybenveapon February 26 2013 http www wired com 20 13102 new-stuxnet-variant-found all accessed January 3 2014 81 33 way of war will also need to rectify its image of avoiding civilian casualties with one where civilians are increasingly legitimate targets While this is not necessarily against the American way of war it is contrary to the image America presents to the world and will need to be carefully managed Conclusion There is no question that the use of cyber in warfare will become an integral part of the American way of war The American way of war has a history of adopting new technology to solve its dilemmas at all levels of war Cyber will provide another technological means for America to do just that Cyber actions in warfare will also yield another path for America to achieve its goal of overwhelming the enemy enroute to a decisive victory Cyber actions will further enable the American way of war's desire to achieve capitulation via systemic paralysis Appearances can be deceiving however While the addition cyber actions to warfare may appear to be a perfect fit in the American way of war cyber's uniqueness will challenge the current American way of war To operate effectively in war that includes cyber actions the American way of war must move toward an integrated government approach to war- beyond the level of coordination seen in the whole-ofgovernment approach today Cyber's level of integration into society will further eliminate the distinction between the military and civilian spheres This will drive continued or even further civilian control over military actions in both peacetime and war The American-perceived binary distinction between the states of war and peace will also be altered by cyber actions in warfare As cyber actions become a replacement for 34 the use of force or used in lieu of resorting to force the line between war and peace is blurred Not only will this change how the American way of war looks at conflict but will also reinforce the requirement for an integrated governmental approach as well as increased civilian control over military actions Finally cyber actions in warfare will affect the American way of war's perceived control over casualties and collateral damage as uncertainty is increased with the addition of cyber actions Over time the integration of cyber and the combination of these effects will change the American way of war Despite these effects the American way of war follows its own path and will integrate cyber activities as it prefers likely in the same manner as it integrated previous technologies Thomas Mahnken's conclusion on how the military integrates technology may tum out to be insightful although the culture ofthe U S armed services both shaped and was shaped by technology the services molded technology to suit their purposes more often than technology shaped them 83 This leads this author to believe that any changes to the American way of war caused by cyber will be gradual Some may already be underway Regardless historically a significant event or outside forcing function is required for radical changes to the American way of war to permanently take hold if it changes at all 84 The integration of cyber warfare alone will not likely be enough of a forcing function to create the outlined changes and make a shift in the near future Therefore these ideas are presented as a starting point for discussion Only time will tell what changes occur to the American way of war as a result of cyber warfare-this is just one envisioned future 83 Mahnken 219 Examples are losing a war Vietnam Iraq- although one could argue the changes did not last much past the end of each war Congressional action e g Goldwater Nichols etc 84 35 Bibliography Andres Richard B The Emerging Structure of Strategic Cyber Offense Cyber Defense and Cyber Deterrence In Cyberspace and National Security Threats Opportunities and Power in a Virtual World by Derek S Reveron Washington D C Georgetown University Press 2012 Arquilla John Twenty Years ofCyberwar Journal ofMi itmy Ethics 12 no 1 2013 80-87 Belk Robert and Matthew Noyes On the Use of Offensive Cyber Capabilities A Policy Analysis on Offensive US Cyber Policy Masters Thesis 2012 151 Bendrath Ralf The American Cyber-Angst and the Real World--Any Link In Bombs and Bandwidth The Emerging Relationship Between Information Technology and Security edited by Robert Latham 49-73 New York New York The New Press 2003 Boot Max The New American Way ofWar Foreign Affairs 82 no 4 July- August 2003 41-58 Brigety Reuben E Ethics Technology and the American Way of War Cruise Missiles and US Security Policy New York New York Routledge 2007 Buley Benjamin The New American Way of War Militmy Culture and the Political Utility ofForce New York New York Routledge 2008 Canjar R E 11The Modem Way of War Society and Peace American Quarterly The Johns Hopkins Press 36 no 3 1984 433-439 Caplan Nathalie Cyber War the Challenge to National Security Global Security Studies 4 no 1 Winter 2013 93-115 Clarke Richard A and Robert K Knake Cyber War New York HarperCollins 2010 Cohen Eliot 11 Kosovo and the New American Way of War In War over Kosovo Politics Strategy in a Global Age edited by Andrew J Bacevich and Eliot Cohen 38-62 New York Columbia University Press 2001 Cornish Paul David Livingston Dave Clemente and Claire Yorke On Cyber Warfare Chatham House London Chatham House 2010 38 Crosston Matthew Duqu's Dilemma The Ambiquity Assertion and the Futility of Santized Cyber War Proceedings ofthe International Conference on Information Warfare Security International Security Counter Terrorism Reference Center 36 Danzig Richard J Surviving on a Diet ofPoisoned Fruit Reducing the National Security Risks ofAmerica's Cyber Dependencies Washington D C Center for a New American Security 2014 57 Davis PaulK Deterrence Influence Cyber Attack and Cyberwar Working Paper National Security Research Division RAND 2014 Demchak Chris Cybered Conflict Cyber Power and Security Resilience as Strategy In Cyberspeace and National Security Threats Opportunities and Power in a Virtual World by Derek S Reveron 121-137 Washington D C Georgetown University Press 2012 Denning Dorothy E Cyber-security as an Emerging Infrastructure In Bombs and Bandwidth The Emerging Relationship Between Information Technology and Security edited by Latham Robert 25-48 New York New York The New Press 2003 Department of Defense Department ofDefense Strategy for Operating in Cyberspace 2011 Dipert Randall R Other-than-Internet OTI Cyberwarfare Challenges for Ethics Law and Policy Journal ofMilitary Ethics 12 no 1 2013 34-53 Downes Alexander B Desperate Times Desperate Measures The Causes of Civilian Victimization in War International Security 30 no 4 Spring 2006 152-195 Dunlap Charles J Jr Some Reflections on the Intersection of Law and Ethics in Cyber War Air Space Power Journal January-Feburary 2013 22-43 Echevarria Antulio J II Reconsidering the American Way of War U S Military Practice from the Revolution to Afghanistan Washington D C Georgetown University Press 2014 ------ Toward an American Way of War Carlisle Strategic Studies Institute 2004 Entous Adam Jullian E Barnes and Carol E Lee Resignation Capped Tense Year for Hagel Wall Street Journal November 26 2014 AI Fidler David P Inter arma silent leges Redux The Law of Armed Conflict and Cyber Conflict In Cyberspeace and National Security Threats Opportunities and Power in a Virtual World by Derek S Reveron 71-88 Washington D C Georgetown University Press 2012 Gray Chris Hables Perpetual Revolution in Military Affairs International Security and Information In Bombs and Bandwidth The Emerging Relations zip Between Information Technology and Security edited by Robert Latham 199-214 New York New York The New Press 2003 37 Gray Colin S Another Bloody Century Phoenix Paperback Edition 2006 London Orion Publishing Group 2004 ------ Irregular Enemies and the Essence of Strategy Can the American Way of War Adapt In Irregular Warfare Strategy and Considerations edited by Arnold Milton and Walt Berkovski 79-135 New York New York Nova Science Publishers 2012 ------Making Strategic Sense ofCyber Power Why the Sky is not Falling Strategic Study Carlisle Strategic Studies Institute 2013 Hoffinan Frank Politics and the American Way of War and Strategy War on the Rocks November 2013 http warontherocks com 20 13 10 politics-and-theamerican-way-of-war-and-strategy accessed September 3 2014 Ignatieff Michael The New American Way of War The New York Review ofBooks July 20 2000 http www nybooks com articles archives 2000 jul 20 the-newamerican-way-of-war insrc toc accessed October 23 2014 Jenkins Ryan Is Stuxnet Physical Does it Matter Joumal ofMilita y Ethics 12 no 1 2013 68-79 Latham Robert ed Bombs and Bandwidth The Emerging Relationship Between Information Technology and Security New York New York The New Press 2003 ------ Introduction In Bombs and Bandwidth The Emerging Relationship Between Information Technology and Security edited by Robert Latham 1-21 New York New York The New Press 2003 Lee Wayne E Barbarians Brothers Anglo-American Warfare 1500-1865 New York New York Oxford University Press 2011 Libicki Martin C Cyberspace is not a Warfighting Domain IS U S Journal ofLaw and Policy for the Information Society 8 no 2 20 12 321-336 Lin Herbert Operational Considerations in Cyber Attack and Cyber Exploration In Cyberspeace and National Security Threats Opportunities and Power in a Virtual World by Derek S Reveron 37-56 Washington D C Georgetown University Press 2012 Linn Brian McAllister The Echo ofBattle The Army's Way of War Cambridge Massachusetts Harvard University Press 2007 ------ ''The American Way of War Revisited 11 The Journal ofMilitary History 66 no 2 April2002 501-530 38 Mahnken Thomas G Technology and the American Way of War New York New York Columbia University Press 2008 Milton Arnold and Walt Berkovski Irregular Watfare Strategy and Considerations Edited by Arnold Milton and Walt Berkovski New York New York Nova Science Publishers 2012 Reveron Derek S ed Cyberspace and National Security Threats Opportunites and Power in a Virtual World Washington D C Georgetown University Press 2012 Sondhaus Lawrence Strategic Culture and Ways of War New York New York Routledge 2006 Weigley Russell F The American Way of War A History of United States Military Strategy and Policy Indiana University Paperback Edition 1977 New York Macmillan Publishing 1973 Yould Rachel E D Beyond the American Fortress Understanding Homeland Security in the Information Age In Bombs and Bandwidth The Emerging Relationship Between Information Technology and Security edited by Robert Latham 74-100 New York New York The New Press 2003 Zetter Kimberly Stuxnet Missing Link Found Resolves some Mysteries around the Cyberweapon February 26 2013 http www wired com 2013 02 new-stuxnetvariant-foundlall accessed January 3 2014 39 Vita Lt Col Lisa Nemeth is an officer in the United States Air Force Lt Col Nemeth is a graduate of Army Command and General Staff College and the Army School of Advanced Military Studies where she was awarded a Master's Degree in Military Arts and Science She also holds a Masters in Business Administration from Colorado State University Lt Col Nemeth currently is a student at the Joint Advanced Warfighting School 40