Sophisticated state cyber actors with mature doctrine and pre-staged accesses have repeatedly failed to convert tactical competence into strategic effect. The source of this failure is a misapplied theory of victory: cyber operations are a maneuver problem, not a fires problem. Until campaign logic, authority structures, and assessment frameworks are redesigned accordingly, tactical cyber competence will continue to produce strategic irrelevance — and adversaries who already understand this will continue to exploit the gap. Drawing on Boyd's theory of conflict, this essay argues that cyberspace is inherently initiative-dominant, requiring continuous seizure and maintenance of initiative rather than attrition of adversary capability. The decisive variable in any cyber campaign is orientation — the adversary's capacity to maintain a coherent model of the world adequate for decision and action — not technical infrastructure. The Cheng/Chi dynamic of persistent prior conditioning followed by disproportionate exploitation provides the campaign logic that attritionist frameworks cannot. The essay derives implications for authority structures, assessment frameworks, and the language through which senior cyber leaders must communicate campaign outcomes to civilian oversight.
READ THE FULL ARTICLE HERE
doi.org/10.55682/cdr/f6tc-xdz0
The Cyber Defense Review
Volume 11, Issue 2