Another work in progress. Starting to track cyber strategies and their hierarchy. Lots of strategies and doctrine mention cyber so they’ll end up on here too. There are law enforcement strategies that will need to be added like the “Transnational Organized Crime Strategy” that has an explicit section on cyber within it.
Click on image to make larger
I’m intrigued by where you’re going with all of your recent efforts to group/categorize/analyze our various cyber strategies/doctrine/incidents/researchers.
Some quick feedback on this chart (a minor nitpick) – I suspect that when you say “COCOM” you are using that as shorthand for “Combatant Command” (the noun) which is probably not what you mean. I believe COCOM normally refers to the type of authority exercised by the Combatant Commander (CCDR) who leads the Unified Combatant Command (UCC) – so perhaps you mean UCC?
Of course, I’m not entirely sure I understand what criteria you’ve used to choose the location of those various documents, so I’d like to see more information in any case. And I’m unclear how UCC’s (or COCOM’s in your description) have more provenance over or tie to the SECDEF documents than some of the ones in the Joint Forces category.
I’ve been doing some marginally related work to identify how all of the analogies between “Cyber” and current military doctrine are influencing our decision-making for better or worse (i.e., the decision to view it as a domain parallel to air/sea/land in the recent “DoD Strategy for Operating in Cyberspace”). If you’re going down a similar path, I’d enjoy a chance to discuss this topic further.
I have a lot more more on this, but it took a back burners. What I’m doing is working through my little black book of research concepts. This one is part of a larger effort to explain/understand and show how strategic, operational art, and tactics are disconnected. So..
I actually mean COCOM because, if you look at the joint operational concept the service chiefs and the secdef have this crazy cross over point. The COCOMS are the operational entities for joint operations campaign planning, but service chiefs are responsible for doctrine within their services except that CJCS is responsible for joint doctrine.
Wheeeee. It is actually quite simple until you start trying to make a policy flow chart that is indicative of the entirety of the process. Then you go crazy. Somewhere around here I have a map based on several authors of strategic and operational art and how they map to doctrinal concepts. When you start doing cyber you end up with tactics crammed up against strategy and very little operational art. It’s a missing component, or what I hypothesize is a missing component.
The joint doctrine map also has a substantial missing component.
Does that answer your questions?
I should add I have an update to this. You could piece it together from the DIME map I did.