I honestly never thought I’d use the phrase “continuing series” about a military CIO’s totally stagnant website. You jab ‘em in a column, they get off their duffs, then you move on … yet here I sit, writing once more about visible stagnation in the office of the Air Force Chief Information Officer.

Lt Gen William Shelton, the outgoing CIO, has nailed a promotion if you can believe it — in part for failing to get anyone in his office to do anything with his official “bully pulpit 2.0″ website. Is this guy ROAD or what?

If, as a child, you ever found a mosquito nursery in an old tire, then you know how I feel right now. “Grandma, where do you keep the chlorine bottle? I found some stagnant waterweb pages…”

Seriously, folks: how can one top cyber-warrior after another ignore such a vital marketing tool? I quote myself from my previous column in this continuing series:

“This CIO, more than anyone else, should have used his website to hawk his agency’s cyberspace prowess. And yet the other military CIOs put him to shame with their updated content…”

“C’mon, Rob, it’s just a website. Is it really such a big deal?” Yes. It goes all the way up to the office of the Secretary of the Air Force, who warned that “just as Billy Mitchell endeavored to prove the potential of air power to a skeptical nation, we must now prove the critical importance of cyberspace as a war fighting domain.” He clearly wants a CIO with enough drive to to use the bully pulpit for its intended purpose— oops! The cited URL used Billy Mitchell’s name in vain re: a new email policy. Hmph. It pains me when USAF insinuates Mitchell spoke legalese with a bureaucratic accent. If you’ll let me start over, I promise to cite a much better URL…

Is this guy ROAD or what?

“C’mon, Rob, it’s just a website. Is it really such a big deal?” Yes. It goes all the way up to the office of the director of the National Security Agency, who lamented that “there is no modern Billy Mitchell.” The last two generals to hold the title of “Air Force CIO” certainly embody this lament — ironically at a time when USAF needed them to pound their fists on the digital lectern.

Memo to the Secretary of the Air Force: you really need to pick a CIO with at least enough drive & vision to use a “bully pulpit 2.0″ for its intended purpose. Capisce?

Okay. So. Michael Peterson never did anything as CIO if we’re to believe the official website. Nor did William Shelton. Up next for the job: William T. Lord, who will pin on a third star after his own aborted effort to launch “AFCYBER.”

“Rob, do you think Lord will leave the CIO website in stagnation like his predecessors did?” No. If my sourcehunch proves right, Lord will finally turn the CIO website into a bully pulpit. He seems to enjoy the limelight, you know. (I’ll bet he got seriously miffed when General Kevin Chilton discussed cyberspace on the Charlie Rose show.)

Memo to General Lord: Let’s make this the last column in my “continuing series” about a stagnant USAF CIO website. Deal?

Readers will recall I critiqued USAF CIO Lt. General Michael Peterson in August for letting his website grow stagnant at a time when USAF desperately wanted to codify a DoD-centric cyberspace mission. This CIO, more than anyone else, should have used his website to hawk his agency’s cyberspace prowess. And yet the other military CIOs put him to shame with their updated content.

Why did USAF’s CIO finally update his stag­nant web­site with five civilian news­paper stories?

Peterson let his official website rot on the vine for a half-year. Go figure.

Well! His subordinates finally got around to updating the website in early October. What, pray tell, did the USAF CIO choose to highlight? Answer: five civilian newspaper articles. They were:

• “Future security: keeping TSAT on track is essential” (archived here), written by Loren B. Thompson of the Lexington Institute and originally published here.
• “Air Force pursues Cyber Command again” (archived here), written by Bob Brewin of NextGov and originally published here.
• “Cyber, nuclear missions shift in Air Force” (archived here), written by John Andrew Prime of the Shreveport Times (with Michael Hoffman of Air Force Times) and originally published here.
• “Air Force scraps plans for Cyber Command in favor of new nuclear organization” (archived here), written by Marina Malenic of Defense Daily and originally published here.
• “Officials want to add 13,000 airmen by 2010” (archived here), written by Erik Holmes of Air Force Times and originally published here.

Did USAF’s CIO obtain the reprint rights? Or is this a blatant copy­right violation?

Peterson’s update left me scratching my head. “Why,” I wondered, “did USAF’s CIO choose to reprint five civilian news items?” You’ll find “public affairs officers” assigned at every air base around the globe who routinely issue press releases on Air Force information technology. Peterson could have chosen to highlight any or all of these recent organic stories:

• Gen. Carlson stresses importance of information technology
• Air Force leaders work to develop cyberspace roadmap
• Secretary Donley visits the CAOC
• Upgrade makes electronic forms more user friendly
• Air Force senior leaders take up key decisions
• Deployed Airman witnesses daughter’s birth via Internet
• Cyber Airman credited with rescuing survivors of a downed Army helicopter from the comfort of her cubicle
• Airmen share information via new blog
• Air Force IT Conference highlights education

The long stagnation of Peterson’s website leads me to wonder if he actually bothered to obtain the rights to reprint all those stories. I guess I’ll have to write a letter asking him to confirm or deny my suspicions. Stay tuned for an update to this column…

---

Update 8 Dec 08: Peterson spoke at an AFCEA conference last week where he announced his intention to retire. “That may have something to do with his focus, or lack of, on the web site,” a SecurityCritics.org reader noted…

Each U.S. military service offers its CIO a website. Navy CIO Mr. Robert Carey does the best job with his website, even offering a personal blog so you can better understand what makes him tick.

And then you’ve got the U.S. Air Force CIO, Lt. General Michael Peterson. He last updated the “news and events” portion of his website in early April.

“You don’t always update your own website in a timely fashion, Rob.” True enough — but the Navy CIO does, and I don’t wear three stars on my shoulderboards, and my deputy doesn’t hold a position in the Senior Executive Service, and I don’t have an office in the Pentagon with a dedicated support staff…

Dear Mike (may I call you Mike?),

Let’s talk about the race between the military services to codify a DoD-centric cyberspace mission. As you know, USAF insists they hold the lead in cyberspace. But as I explained in a previous column, they have “no focused single vision for cyberspace.” Worse: USAF’s muddled groupthink creates a situation where the cyberspace mission serves the bureaucrats, not the other way around.

An open letter to USAF CIO Lt. Gen. Michael Peterson

Mike, I hateneed to say this… I know you can’t articulate a focused single vision for a DoD-centric cyberspace mission. (I can’t either, so don’t feel bad. Neither of us qualifies as the next Billy Mitchell.) But if you’ve got real guts, Mike, then you can do a lot for the Air Force — by demanding an aggressive single voice in cyberspace doctrines & policies.

Let’s begin with a very simple example, Mike. Something like, oh, that logon banner every Chinese military hacker sees when he breaks into your networks. This rambling EULA has undergone too much bureaucratic pencilwhipping over the years. I’ll quote the mandatory banner in AFI 33-219 para A3.3.6:

This is a Department of Defense computer system. This computer system, including all related equipment, networks and network devices (specifically including Internet access), are provided only for authorized U.S. Government use. DOD computer systems may be monitored for all lawful purposes, including to ensure that their use is authorized, for management of the system, to facilitate protection against unauthorized access, and to verify security procedures, survivability, and operational security. Monitoring includes active attacks by authorized DOD entities to test or verify the security of this system. During monitoring, information may be examined, recorded, copied, and used for authorized purposes. All information, including personal information, placed on or sent over this system may be monitored. Use of this DOD computer system, authorized or unauthorized, constitutes consent to monitoring of this system. Unauthorized use may subject you to criminal prosecution. Evidence of unauthorized use collected during monitoring may be used for administrative, criminal, or other adverse action. Use of this system constitutes consent to monitoring for these purposes.

Okay, Mike. Let’s rewrite it with an aggressive single voice, shall we?

Use this computer system only for authorized U.S. Government (USG) purposes. Any use of this system constitutes consent to monitoring. USG monitors its computers & related equipment, networks, and Internet access for all lawful purposes such as to detect unauthorized use. Authorized USG personnel may actively attack this computer to verify its security. USG may examine, record, and use for any authorized purpose any information including personal data if placed on or sent over this system. USG may use any evidence of unauthorized use for adverse administrative or criminal action.

You see, Mike? An aggressive single voice can say the same thing in half the words and can phrase it for the entire federal government, not just the Pentagon. I can show you how to rewrite USAF’s Cyberspace Policy Directive 13-3 if you need another example.

(Yes, Mike, I suppose you could apply an aggressive single voice to those mind-numbing daily SPINs. But please, let’s not get sidetracked by present-day aerial contributions to ONE/OEF/OIF. Follow the lead of your recently ousted Chief of Staff — stay focused on the pivotal role cyberspace will play in future wars.)

---

I know what you’re thinking, Mike. “HAF/JA won’t like your rewrite of the logon banner, Rob.”

C’mon, Mike: we both know lawyers don’t like anyone’s original words. They’ll change every draft document that touches their ornate mahogany desks. Those shysters would revamp the Bible, the Koran, and the Torah if they ever got the chance. “This Gospel of John is all well and good, Mike, but we need to change 3:16 from ‘gave’ to ‘sent’ before I’ll let it go up the approval chain for the LORD’s signature…”

Bureaucrats and lawyers alike hate an aggressive single voice. The mediocrity of their positions compels them to make even the most trivial changes to a draft document just so they can feel like they earned their sage wages. “This Happy and Safe Fourth of July email is all well and good, Mike, but we need to change ‘happy’ to ‘glad’ before I’ll let it go up the approval chain for the Chief of Staff’s digital signature…”

Mike, you probably think I blame bureaucrats and lawyers for screwing up USAF’s quest for a cyberspace mission. “You must believe they’ve got a Medusa-like writing style that turns to stone any document they look at.” As a matter of fact I do believe it — and you can do a lot for USAF by removing their dialects from cyberspace doctrines & policies.

Listen to me, Mike. Bureaucrats and lawyers speak & write in their own synthetic dialects, similar in many ways to a regional patois like the Cajun and Quebec dialects. Lawyers favor the Legalese English synthetic dialect, doctors favor the Medicinal English synthetic dialect, and bureaucrats favor the Bureau-American synthetic dialect. An aggressive single voice favors the E-Prime synthetic dialect. (Read Tongue & Quill pp.73-75 for starters.)

If we can say “a synthetic jet fuel is still genuinely a jet fuel,” then we can say “a synthetic dialect is still genuinely a dialect.” Synthetic or not, you must use the right fuel for a particular engine and you likewise must use the right dialect to express a particular concept. USAF has chosen the wrong dialects to express its concepts for cyberspace, Mike. You can change this if you’ve got the guts.

Mike, the great USAF visionaries like Billy Mitchell and John Boyd never spoke Legalese with a Bureau-American accent. Do you honestly think a great cyberspace visionary will talk like a bureaucrat?

Ask yourself an obvious question, Mike. “When I first saw this guy’s aggressively written logon banner, did I instinctively want to make ‘subtle but important’ changes to it?” If you answer “yes,” then it proves you speak & write in the wrong dialect for a DoD-centric cyberspace mission. Still, Mike, you can do a lot for USAF’s cyberspace doctrines & policies if you mandate the correct dialect.

If you do just this one thing, Mike, you’ll pave the way for the next Billy Mitchell. Do you have the guts it will take to mandate it?

(Uh, please don’t ask me to help you develop an aggressive single voice. No offense, Mike! I really do want to save myself for the next Billy Mitchell. He’ll need all the help he can get and I need to look clean & smell fresh when he beckons for me.)

---

Oh, wait! Perhaps I should ask two more obvious questions:

1. Is DoD itself in a race between the Cabinet secretaries to codify a cyberspace mission across the entire Executive branch?
2. Is the Oval Office itself in an even bigger race with the Legislative and Judicial branches to codify a sovereign cyberspace mission?

If you answer either question with a “yes,” then you can temporarily ignore the fact USAF needs an aggressive single voice for cyberspace doctrines & policies. Why? Because Washington will refuse to let the Pentagon implement its own focused single vision for cyberspace until all of the muddled USG bureaucracies finish all of their own little turf battles with each other.

Or until China reclaims Taiwan by exploiting USAF’s groupthink mentality in cyberspace. Whichever comes second…

Most sincerely,

Rob Rosenberger
SecurityCritics.org

cc: Mr. John Grimes, Pentagon CIO
cc: Mr. Robert Carey, Navy CIO
cc: Lt. Gen. Jeffrey Sorenson, Army CIO