US Cyber Strategy of Persistent Engagement and Defend Forward
What implications does the US’ persistent engagement cyber strategy have for its allies and their intelligence collection? In this paper, CSS Senior Researcher Max Smeets addresses this question by evaluating the strategy and identifying potential negative consequences. Smeets also suggests several ways forward, including the creation of a new NATO-memorandum of understanding on cyber operations.
external page Read the publication here.
The creation of a US Cyber Command vision in 2018 and the Department of Defense Cyber Strategy embodied a fundamental reorientation in strategic thinking. Now with persistent engagement, US Cyber Command seeks to achieve ‘superiority through persistence’, that is, constantly engaging with the adversary – wherever they maneuver.
This strategic shift has led to numerous critical remarks about the risks of escalation between the US and its main adversaries in cyberspace. These include the potential to trigger a new perpetual war in cyberspace and how certain feedback loops could amplify cyber conflict.
Risks for Allies and Intelligence Collection
The author addresses four connected risks associated with this US strategy. The first risk is perhaps the most obvious: If US Cyber Command directly operates in allied networks without consent, this would create friction with allies, undermining trust. Secondly, if US Cyber Command increasingly takes up the role of a ‘disrupter’ it may negatively impact its allies' global intelligence collection. This also increases the likelihood that it will uncover and undermine allied capabilities. Third, adversaries could potentially exploit this by actively choosing intermediate nodes that raise serious diplomatic friction between the US and its allies. Finally, if allies adopt their own strategy of persistent engagement, it is likely that this would further undermine alliance relationships.
The purpose of this paper is to provide a benefit-risk assessment of US strategy for its allies and intelligence collection. While the US government’s mission to persistently engage with adversaries may have benefits for allied states, there are clearly several avenues for the strategy to lead to negative implications for alliances. It is therefore worth considering how these risks can be mitigated.