I recently put up
a post about the cyber "domain," arguing that it's a domain just as much as land, sea and air. But someone disagrees with me heartily (in my first post I called him someone who "pooh-poohed" the idea).
I thought I would invite further comments based on his email to me. He's an unidentified source who's contacted me through a friend, so I don't know his information except that he's an Air Force officer at the Pentagon.
Here are some excerpts from his commentary:
I think the number one question to ask is not is cyberspace a domain, [but] why must it be called a domain? It seems some people believe that by calling cyberspace a domain it will solve all kinds of problems and lead to all kinds of operational miracles...
Cyberspace is not territory. It is most appropriately a virtual space or virtual territory. Unlike real (physical) domains, cyberspace is non-contiguous (and people will argue about even that).
There exists the real possibility that you can't get there from here. I can create a wired network that satisfies the definition of cyberspace and it can be totally disconnected from any other portion of cyberspace. Further, the nation has no sovereignty over that cyberspace I created. Even though I own the land my house sits on, it's still sovereign U.S. soil. The idea that one may rule or control cyberspace is also not accurate. You may be able to rule your own cyberspace, but not cyberspace.
Next, the domain of the electromagnetic spectrum (EMS)... When Marconi invented the radio we didn't call it a new domain. It's electronics that created cyberspace. It is a fact that electronics uses the EMS. But nowhere outside of the Air Force are people calling for all of the EMS to be included in cyberspace.
There are a number of real issues that need to be addressed. Should you use the armed forces to respond to one computer hacker in Canada or China? What is the threshold for national interest? Are coordinated attacks on networks worthy of armed forces retaliation?
I think cyberspace is so unique that you need to define specific terms for it. Treating cyberspace as a warfighting domain may in the end be partially correct. We may engage another nations cyber-armed forces to contest ... server space ... Or more likely to deny each other access to information that may help in the physical world, or to destroy information or processes that have physical-world ramifications (e.g. Wall Street).
Frankly, I think he makes some excellent points, and I imagine the Checkmate office within the Air Force (the guys from whom I first heard about cyberspace as a domain) has considered a number of these points. I haven't changed my thinking, but I wanted him to have a forum for his opinion.
What do you think?
The mathematical sense may be closer. At some level cyberspace is about the free flow of 0s and 1s, and the functionality of that flow. In that sense, the domain of cyberspace could be that set of cybernetic routines and machines that do not interfere with, interdict, or compromise each other.
It may also behoove us to avoid Aristotelianism -- or, as it is sometimes put, "a hardening of the categories". National security isn't served by reifying abstractions beyond utility. Do that, and you get a conceptual Maginot Line.
Wittgenstein posited a few concepts that may be apropos. He wrote that the meaning of a word is its use in the language -- and you can take that to mean its actual utility. For example, in the phrase "Shut the @#$% up!" the most important word is essentially devoid of semantic content; it retains its meaning and utility nonetheless.
Wittgenstein also wrote that a word's meaning can be a variety of related concepts like the facial features in a family: e.g., Junior's got Mom's eyes, Dad's nose, and Grandma's freckles. He looks like all of them, yet none of them.
Taking the latter concept first, the cyber "domain" could be part mathematical, part legal, part territory: partly all of them, and yet none. As to meaning of "domain" as utility, well, if the boot fits, wear it, especially if it helps you slog. If calling cyberspace a domain helps you fight there better, then that's what it is, Aristotle be damned.
Apart from that, consider that prior divisions of labor and responsibility over national security -- USAF, USN, CIA, etc. -- consist partly of bureacratic domains. Maybe lessons learned there should guide division of responsibility for cyberspace.
Earth, air, and water are domains, and back in analog days they gave us Army, Air Force and Navy. But the Navy needed the Marines, then the SEAL teams. USAF started as the Army Air Corps, then got spun off, then needed to spin out the Air Police and CCTs. The pre-WW II intelligence community got integrated as CIA, but NSA, DIA, FBI, etc. continue to exist. USAF spun out NRO, which is partly the intelligence community, and part something else entirely.
Point is, you don't see a hardening of the categories anywhere else in the constellation of acronyms; you see redundant backup systems which theoretically prevent a single point failure -- although networking breakdowns like 9/11 persist.
Don't know that I'd let the idea of cyberspace as a domain allow putting all the eggs in one basket. If "domain" helps you organize and fund it better, so be it. If not, well...let's not forget that some of the best (or, worst) work in cyberspace is done by asymmetric, non-state actors.
That's my $0.02, but YMMV. Keep the change, OK?