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