People's Liberation Army Versus the United States Army
Who Wins in the Network Modernization Fight?
By Lieutenant Colonel Randie O'Neal (Retired)
Article published on: June 27, 2025 in the Military Intelligence Continuous Transformation
Special Edition
Read Time: < 20 mins
Editor’s Note: This article was written in early 2024 as part of a professional writing competition
open to the Army Soldiers and civilians of the 305th Military Intelligence Battalion, Fort Huachuca,
Arizona. Competitors drew upon their operational and institutional experience as well as subject
matter experts from across the Military Intelligence Corps to address challenges facing the
intelligence warfighting function. For this competition, writers tailored their articles to the
Indo-Pacific Command’s area of responsibility.
Occupation of the Scarborough Shoal
In a possible near future, the People’s Republic of China (PRC), after an increase of tensions with the
United States and coalition forces in the Indo-Pacific Theater, commences the occupation of Scarborough
Shoal in the South China Sea, some 220 kilometers from the Philippines. The PRC has stated that this shoal
is necessary for the defense of the People’s Republic of China and critical for the protection of their
sovereign right to the freedom of navigation. 1
Elements of the People’s Liberation Army Navy occupy positions within these contested waters and declare a
12-mile limit in and around the shoal–an overt violation of previous international agreements and protocols.
In response, and at the request of the Philippine president, a combined joint task force (CJTF) of the
United States, Philippine, Japanese, and Taiwanese forces announce a combined joint operations area
extending from the Spratly Islands, including Taiwan and the Japanese islands of Taketomi, Ishigaki, Tarama,
and Miyakojima.
Disputed territory in the Indo-Pacific Region (graphic public domain by Voice of
America)
The United States deploys three U.S. Pacific Air Forces air wings that include a mix of strike, bomber,
intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance, and support aircraft to the former Clark Air Base, Luzon.
The U.S. Army’s 25th Infantry Division from Hawaii, bolstered with U.S. Army maritime elements, moves to
forward bases in the Philippines to provide sustainment and mobility for the forces in and around the
combined joint operational area and the CJTF. A U.S. Marine expeditionary brigade deploys to the western
coast of the island of Luzon, with some elements forward based on the island of Palawan. From the start, the
CJTF experiences communications interoperability problems with coalition members and host nation elements.
Tactical communications between the United States and Philippine forces are hampered as jamming and
cyberspace attacks shut down key infrastructure, delay the deployment of forces, and render host nation
utilities and telecommunications inoperable. Unknown entities on social media who notice Japanese
participation in the CJTF announce, “The Japanese reoccupation of Luzon has begun.” This announcement
prompts public demonstrations and Japanese flag burnings across the Philippine islands.
Demonstrations and protests in Manila bring the city to a standstill as the government struggles to maintain
order. The local press and social media call for the expulsion of “foreign occupiers” and an ouster of the
sitting president. The PRC offers the Philippines $50 million of immediate aid, with another $50 million in
Dragon’s Gift 2 conditional
assistance and loans over 10 years. The Dragon’s Gift mandates the deployment of Chinese specialists in the
country to remediate and rebuild infrastructure and assist in developing agriculture and other projects. The
sole condition for providing this assistance is that the Philippines must cede the Scarborough Shoal to the
PRC and expel any “foreign forces” currently residing in the Philippines and any territory it controls.
Introduction
This work examines the People’s Liberation Army’s (PLA’s) strategy to counter the United States Army’s
efforts to modernize its networks as part of the Joint All-Domain Command and Control strategy. A review of
the relevant literature indicates that most of the PLA’s efforts focus on replicating our strategic and
doctrinal efforts, as well as our technology. The PLA’s systems approach to warfare is its version of our
joint multidomain operations; however, China has expanded the continuum of warfare beyond the kinetic phase
into the right now. The PLA began this fight well over ten years ago, and it continues to this day.
If the PRC develops its doctrine into actionable warfighting systems capable of affecting the United States
presence and forward deployment to support key Indo-Pacific allies, this or a similar scenario may become a
reality.
People’s Liberation Army: Modernization Across Domains
The PLA is rapidly modernizing its capabilities across all warfare domains. It is also developing its own
version of the Joint All-Domain Command and Control, which is the U.S. joint force “warfighting capability
to sense, make sense, and act at all levels and phases of war, across all domains, and with partners, to
deliver information advantage at the speed of relevance.” 3 This modernization is changing how the PLA defines warfare in its
doctrine; it now views modern warfare as a “contest between opposing operational systems” rather than merely
opposing armies. 4 Further, the
PLA views conflict in terms of systems confrontation and systems destruction.
Members of the People’s Liberation Army Information Warfare Support Force browse online
news on desktop computers. (Image from the National Security Archive)
The PLA’s approach to warfare separates systems into two categories:
- Large, integrated systems made up of multiple, smaller systems (an interconnected system of systems).
- Individual systems that execute specific functions, such as command and control (C2), fires support,
electronic warfare, intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance, logistics, and sustainment.
This approach is designed to identify targets both before and during a conflict.
Underlying this doctrinal framework are two concepts that aim to transform the PLA: informationized
warfare and intelligentized warfare. Informationized warfare is described as the strategic
implementation of information technology in the digital age with the aim of improving C2 and operations
across the warfighting functions and the spectrum of conflict.
5 Intelligentized warfare “seeks to increase the pace of future combat
by effectively fusing information and streamlining decision making, even in ambiguous or highly dynamic
operating environments. . . . It also amplifies the nascent concepts embodied by the Military-Civil Fusion
effort.” 6 This strategy
focuses on acquiring technologies such as quantum computing, semiconductors, fifth-generation mobile
network/long-term evolution (5G/LTE) data, nuclear and aerospace technology, gene editing, and artificial
intelligence to achieve Chinese military dominance. These technologies are the backbone of an
informationized and intelligentized PLA. “Careful alignment of military and civilian efforts enables the
synchronization of efforts and streamlines the fielding process for the PLA.” 7
For the PLA, the final steps in its efforts to counter peer and near-peer threats are to enable its
operational and tactical forces through the informationization and intelligentization of its integrated
joint service capabilities and the use of emerging and disruptive technologies and techniques, which are
described as—
- Attrition warfare through intelligent swarms of unmanned aircraft systems or other platforms to
overwhelm the adversary’s ability to respond.
- Cross-domain (joint) warfare that will integrate capabilities across land, sea, air, space, and
cyberspace, as well as the emerging cognitive domain.
- Artificial intelligence-based space confrontations that will deny and destroy the adversary’s use of
space-based C2, global positioning systems (GPSs), and intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance
capabilities.
- Cognitive control operations that will improve information processing in support of situational
awareness and decision making at the operational and tactical levels. 8
These capabilities currently appear aspirational, even for Western militaries. However, given the assets and
resources the PLA is devoting to the effort, it is likely the PLA may achieve some breakthroughs, providing
China with a significant advantage, as demonstrated by its cyberspace capabilities in recent years.
What works against China is its lack of operational military experience in modern warfare, its other
significant efforts, such as the Belt and Road Initiative’s international infrastructure projects, and its
declining population. 9 All
three hamper Members of the People’s Liberation Army Information Warfare Support Force browse online news on
desktop computers. (Image from the National Security Archive) 4 Military Intelligence China’s ability to
field an effective military and a technological and industrial workforce competent enough to actualize this
great leap forward. Nevertheless, it is likely the PLA may see some significant improvements to their C2 and
intelligence within 8 to 10 years, as well as advancements in cross-domain operations that they could
leverage against peers, near peers, and other adversaries in the Indo-Pacific region. Given China’s
aspirations for informationized warfare and intelligentized warfare in the near future, what does this all
mean?
The PLA has methodically analyzed the strategy, doctrine, tactics, and wars that the United States (China’s
primary adversary) and other adversaries in the Indo-Pacific region have fought since the early 1990s. This
analysis has resulted in a review of China’s warfighting capabilities across the five military domains—land,
maritime, air, space, and cyberspace—to which they have added a sixth: the cognitive domain. Even in Western
military science, the cognitive domain materializes as a distinct domain that molds how an adversary
perceives information to gain knowledge and understanding. Using this analysis in combination with the
concepts of informationized warfare and intelligentized warfare, the PLA has determined that warfare will
further fall into two distinct realms: systems confrontation and systems destruction.
Systems Confrontation: The War Before the War
Systems confrontation is defined as “a contest among adversarial systems” 10 waged not only in the traditional domains
of land, air, and sea but also in space, cyberspace, and even the psychological domain. This emerging domain
encompasses the PLA’s concept of cognitive domain operations, which expands on traditional
psychological warfare using information to influence the adversary’s thought processes, ranging from
peacetime public opinion to wartime decision making 11 as well as the Western notion of, cognitive warfare, which
expands the accepted continuum of warfare into how individuals perceive information to gain knowledge and
understanding. 12
Cognitive Warfare
While cognitive warfare lacks a widely accepted definition, initial proposals contain at least one of three
common themes:
- The intent to influence specific individuals and groups on political matters, understanding that war is
a continuation of politics by other means. 13
- The explicit targeting of human cognition—how people perceive and interpret information to gain
knowledge and understanding. 14
- The use of psychology and advanced technologies to target individuals or groups precisely. 15
Systems confrontation is a duel between opposing military operating systems, with the center of gravity
being the information architecture. The destruction of key technological capabilities, weapons, and
organized personnel can paralyze an enemy’s operating system. An approach integrating land, sea, air,
cyberspace, and space domains can render opposing information systems inoperable, thus achieving information
dominance. Systems confrontation gives the PLA a better understanding of its adversaries, allowing it to
find their weaknesses and counter their strengths. The PLA wants to infiltrate and probe its adversaries’
human and technical systems for weaknesses. 16
One example of these targeted intrusion activities is Operation Shady Rat (2006–2011), which targeted
systems around the world, identified key information, and exfiltrated hundreds of terabytes of research data
(technical, defense, infrastructure, and organizational) back to the PRC for exploitation and use. 17 Many experts believe the
operation is still ongoing today. 18
Another example is the U.S. Office of Personnel Management data breach between 2013 and 2015. This
data breach targeted security clearance records and compromised the personal information of over 21 million
cleared U.S. federal employees and contractors. 19 The information acquired through such active cyberspace operations
has furthered the PRC’s technical capability to develop better weapons, disrupt or destroy key information
technology infrastructure, and further develop human intelligence sources through influence and coercion
using compromised personal data. Systems confrontation is “the war before the war,” pervasive and ongoing.
It strikes at the adversary’s human, physical, and technical systems to develop them as targets in the event
of a conflict.
Systems Destruction: Target and Destroy the Systems
Systems destruction intends to “disrupt, paralyze, or destroy the operational capability of the enemy’s
operational systems.” 20 This
goal is achieved through a mix of “kinetic and non-kinetic strikes against key points and nodes.” 21 Systems destruction begins
at the onset of open conflict with an adversary, taking advantage of the groundwork laid through systems
confrontation. Systems destruction specifically targets four key areas:
- Information flow of the adversary’s operational systems.
- Essential elements of the adversary’s operational system (e.g., C2, reconnaissance, intelligence, and
firepower assets).
- Operational architecture of the adversary’s operational system (e.g., C2 network, reconnaissance
network, intelligence network, or firepower network).
- “Time sequence and/or tempo of the adversary’s operational architecture.” 22
Systems destruction targets these four areas with the intent to “undermine the operation system’s own ‘reconnaissance-control-attack-evaluation’ process.” 23
Having described the PLA’s possible future capabilities, let’s examine its key target: the U.S. Army and its
network modernization efforts.
U.S. Army Network Modernization
One of the most important (and targetable) of the U.S. Army’s six modernization priorities is the
modernization of its networks. These networks include command post mobility, secure wireless communications,
cybersecurity, and edge computing. 24 The improvement and expansion of network capabilities will enable
the U.S. Army to fight and win in a multidomain environment by maintaining peer and near-peer adversary
communications and information technology overmatch in the next 5 to 10 years. This nests within the U.S.
Army’s intent to be “capable of conducting Multi-Domain Operations (MDO) as part of an integrated Joint
Force in a single theater by 2028, and ready to conduct MDO across an array of scenarios in multiple
theaters by 2035.” 25
Network Modernization Initiatives
- Command post mobility is the ability for a command post to quickly displace, move, and
operate on the move, with the idea that the fight doesn’t stop because the command post is moving.
Ground forces need ruggedized, hardened, on-the-move equipment and ability networking. This means that
the command post is small, adapts to any terrain, and is reliable in the face of unanticipated weather,
power, and cyberspace conditions. 26
- Secure wireless communications is a newer class of deployable, small wireless access systems
that bring the benefits of classified wireless access to warfighters in the field. It allows warfighters
to use commercial smartphones, tablets, and laptops to access classified information over Wi-Fi and
5G. 27
- Cybersecurity is the prevention of damage to, protection of, and restoration of computers,
electronic communications systems, electronic communications services, wire communication, and
electronic communication, including information contained therein, to ensure its availability,
integrity, authentication, confidentiality, and nonrepudiation. As an emerging warfighting domain,
cyberspace has gained significance because it transcends and touches all other domains. The Department
of Defense considers cyberspace to be at the same level as traditional land, sea, and air warfighting
domains. With our ever-increasing use of the cyberspace domain and the expansion of connectivity and
devices available to tactical forces, the requirement to secure and defend these networks from
disruption and destruction is a top priority. 28
- Edge Computing involves bringing computing capabilities to where the mission is in the field.
It means that data does not have to travel back to a data center to be processed or analyzed. With the
expectation that communications will be degraded from the start of large-scale combat operations, the
Army wants to decentralize communications and make tactical networks function like forward data centers
that will host situational awareness, mission command, and command and control applications and
databases. 29
People’s Liberation Army: Countering U.S. Modernization
The PLA’s demonstrated pervasive capabilities in technical collection, offensive and defensive cyberspace
operations, open-source intelligence, and human intelligence make the U.S. Army’s network modernization the
most important and most targetable of its modernization priorities. 30 The PLA’s doctrinal shift and its
concentration on systems confrontation and warfare are direct challenges to our network modernization
efforts, affecting all aspects of how the U.S. Army will conduct multidomain operations.
These efforts will directly affect how intelligence is collaborated, coordinated, and disseminated
throughout the operational environment. The network is connected to every warfighting function, including
intelligence; if it is degraded, disrupted, or compromised, our ability to provide situational awareness and
timely intelligence to the commander in support of multidomain operations will be significantly degraded.
Avoiding Disruption and Countering People’s Liberation Army Actions
Fortunately, Army network modernization is still in the early stages, and we know what the PLA is planning.
At the operational and tactical levels, the Army must emphasize training on analog procedures for the
military decision-making process and other intelligence warfighting function tasks, particularly during
intelligence preparation of the operational environment, to ensure continuity in the event of disruption and
as backups to our digital systems. Also, our tactical and operational forces should exercise and practice
these analog tactics, techniques, and procedures at home stations, and they should be evaluated regularly at
combat training centers on their use of analog methods across all warfighting functions.
While our systems are still in the developmental and early operational phases, we must emphasize
cybersecurity for networked systems. We must also develop built-in, standalone, unplugged capabilities that
allow systems to continue operations when the network is disrupted, compromised, or out of service.
Other remedies across the doctrine, organization, training, materiel, leadership and education, personnel,
facilities, and policy spectrum might include an aggressive mix of—
- Heightened operations security on developmental efforts (doctrine, organization, personnel, training,
and policy).
- Expanded research into low bandwidth and stand-alone solutions that could relay content through
proximity connects while disconnected (materiel).
- Low-signature communications systems that would allow connectivity to the network using high-frequency,
wired, mesh, or other connectivity options (facilities and materiel).
Other actions could involve assisting host nations with cybersecurity for critical infrastructure such as
networks, telecommunications, utilities, etc., as well as assisting in developing and refining analog
tactics, techniques, and procedures. Providing this assistance will help avoid operational disruptions and
maintain continuity of operations in the coalition environments.
Impact on the Warfighter
Operating in an environment where digital networks are vulnerable to disruption may limit the ability to
communicate. Therefore, warfighters must train to fight across all warfighting functions in analog methods.
Emphasize analog intelligence procedures to support the commander, learn to operate without connectivity,
and understand that regular training with the analog options is necessary.
We need to explore and expand on the importance of the cognitive domain in relation to networks. We must
broaden our awareness of the use of social media and other perception- generating systems and their
influence on operations by both the PLA and the U.S. Army in the Indo-Pacific Region. As the cognitive
domain becomes more significant, Army intelligence professionals must consider how perception influences
operations before forward deployments.
Conclusion
Although the PLA seems to have a head start in its efforts to modernize and counter U.S. Army network
modernization efforts, we must realize that much of what they have done is a product of replication and
mimicry, with little or no a priori experience, effort, or research. The PRC’s advanced persistent threat
operations, 31 like Operation
Shady Rat, might provide technical details, specifications, and other information about our network
modernization activity, but their methods were compromised. However, we should not be complacent—we must
recognize that our networks, however modernized they are, are under constant, advanced, persistent attack.
Further research into low-bandwidth, stand-alone solutions and minimal signature communications that could
serve as a survivable fallback must be developed. We also must plan for the disruption and denial of our
networks and train on analog procedures as a contingency solution, allowing us to continue the multidomain
fight. So, who wins the network modernization fight? The United States can by reinforcing analog procedures
and working closely with coalition partners on communications, operations, and cyberspace security.
Now, let’s review our notional scenario again, but this time, we’ll incorporate the countermeasures we’ve
discussed.
Coalition Forces Prevent Occupation of the Scarborough Shoal
Upon the commencement of the PLA’s actions to take the Scarborough Shoal, the United States Army deploys
training elements to work with the Philippine Army tactical and operational units to provide training on
staff procedures and interoperability. At the same time, the United States sends cyber-focused advise and
assist teams to review the Philippine national cyberspace infrastructure and local network surety. At their
home stations, the U.S. Army and Marines emphasize using analog tactics, techniques, and procedures while
working in digitally austere environments. As the PLA Navy’s actions become more provocative, the GPS and
radio communications of coalition forces on the eastern coast of Luzon are increasingly inaccurate and
periodically disrupted. However, because the coalition forces have trained in alternative, analog methods,
this is a minor inconvenience. United States military operational and tactical personnel and their
Philippine counterparts work in coordination and engage the host nation’s civilians, employing many of them
to assist as interpreters and laborers, both skilled and unskilled. The PLA Navy’s inability to intimidate
the coalition forces results in an operational standdown and a pullback from the area around the Scarborough
Shoal. In the aftermath, the Philippine president thanks the United States and requests the permanent basing
of United States forces in the Philippines after a forty-year absence.
Endnotes
1. Andrea Chloe Wong, “The 2012 Scarborough Shoal
Standoff: Analyzing China in Crisis with the Philippines,” Encounters and Escalation in the
Indo-Pacific: Perspectives on China’s Military and Implications for Regional Security, NBR
Special Report No. 108, ed. Oriana Skylar Mastro (Seattle, Washington: The National Bureau of Asian
Research, 2024), 75.
2. Min Ye, “The Dragon’s Gift: An Empirical Analysis of
China’s Foreign Aid in the New Century,” International Trade, Politics, and Development 6, no.
2 (2022): 73-86, https://doi.org/10.1108/ITPD-06-2022-0010.
3. Department of Defense, JADC2 Cross-Functional Team,
Summary of the Joint All-Domain Command & Control (JADC2) Strategy (Washington, DC, 2022),
https://media.defense.gov/2022/Mar/17/2002958406/-1/-1/1/SUMMARY-OFTHE-
JOINT-ALL-DOMAIN-COMMAND-AND-CONTROL-STRATEGY.pdf.
4. Jeffrey Engstrom, Systems Confrontation and
System Destruction Warfare: How the Chinese People’s Liberation Army Seeks to Wage Modern Warfare
(Santa Monica, CA: RAND Corporation, 2018), iii, https://www.rand.org/pubs/research_reports/RR1708.html.
5. Department of the Army, Army Techniques Publication
(ATP) 7-100.3, Chinese Tactics (Washington, DC: Government Publishing Office [GPO], 09 August
2021), 1-9–1-10. Change 1 was issued on 24 November 2021.
6. Department of the Army, ATP 7-100.3,Chinese
Tactics, 1-10–1-11; and Department of State, Military-Civil Fusion and the People’s
Republic of China (Washington, DC, 2020),
https://www.state.gov/wp-content/uploads/2020/05/What-is-MCF-One-Pager.pdf
7. Department of the Army, ATP 7-100.3, Chinese
Tactics, 1-11.
8. Michael C. Horowitz and Lauren Kahn, “DoD’s 2021
China Military Power Report: How Advances in AI and Emerging Technologies Will Shape China’s Military,”
Council on Foreign Relations (blog), November 4, 2021,
https://www.cfr.org/blog/dods-2021-china-military-power-report-how-advances-ai-and-emerging-technologies-will-shape.
9. Laura Silver and Christine Huang, “Key Facts About
China’s Declining Population,” Pew Research Center, December 5, 2022, https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2022/12/05/key-facts-about-chinas-declining-population/;
and James McBride, Noah Berman, and Andrew Chatzky, “China’s Massive Belt and Road Initiative,”
Council on Foreign Relations (blog), February 2, 2023, https://www.cfr.org/backgrounder/chinas-massive-belt-and-road-initiative.
10. Engstrom, Systems Confrontation and System
Destruction, ix.
11. Nathan Beauchamp-Mustafaga, “Cognitive Domain
Operations: The PLA’s New Holistic Concept for Influence Operations,” China Brief 19, no. 16
(September 6, 2019), https://jamestown.org/program/cognitive-domain-operations-theplas-new-holistic-concept-for-influence-operations/".
12. Andrew MacDonald and Ryan Ratcliffe, “Cognitive
Warfare: Maneuvering in the Human Dimension,” Proceedings (U.S. Naval Institute) 149, no. 4
(April 2023), https://www.usni.org/magazines/proceedings/2023/april/cognitivewarfare-maneuvering-human-dimension.
13. Ibid. MacDonald and Ratcliffe’s note consisted of
commentary stating, “inclusion of the word ‘political’ distinguishes cognitive warfare from economic
tools—such as targeted advertisements—that seek to influence behavior for profit.”
14. Paul Ottewell, “Defining the Cognitive Domain,”
Over the Horizon, December 7, 2020, https://othjournal.com/2020/12/07/defining-the-cognitive-domain/.
15. Koichiro Takagi, “The Future of China’s Cognitive
Warfare: Lessons from the War in Ukraine,” War on the Rocks, July 22, 2022, https://warontherocks.com/2022/07/the-future-of-chinas-cognitive-warfare-lessons-from-the-warin-
ukraine/.
16. Engstrom, Systems Confrontation and System
Destruction, ix.
17. Dmitri Alperovitch, White Paper Revealed:
Operation Shady Rat (Santa Clara, CA: McAfee, 2011), http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/technology/
mcafee_shadyrat_report.pdf.
18. “The Biggest Hack in History—Operation Shady
Rat,” Hacked.com, https://hacked.com/the-biggest-hack-in-history-operation-shady-rat.
19. U.S. Congress, House Committee on Oversight and
Government Reform, The OPM Data Breach: How the Government Jeopardized Our National Security for
More than a Generation, 114th Cong., 2d sess., H. Rep., https://oversight.house.gov/wp-content/uploads/2016/09/The-OPM-Data-Breach-How-the-
Government-Jeopardized-Our-National-Security-for-More-than-a-Generation.pdf.
20. Engstrom, Systems Confrontation and System
Destruction, iii.
21. Ibid.
22. Ibid., 18.
23. Ibid., x–xi; and Li Yousheng [李有升], Li Yin [李云],
and Wang Yonghua [王 永华], eds., Lectures on the Science of Joint Campaigns《联合战役学教程》 (Beijing:
Military Science Press [军事科学出版社], 2012), 74.
24. Charlie Kawasaki, “Four Future Trends in Tactical
Network Modernization,” Industry Insight, Army AL&T, (January-March 2019): 122-125, https://asc.army.mil/docs/pubs/alt/archives/2019/Jan-Mar2019_ArmyALT.pdf.
25. Department of the Army, 2019 Army
Modernization Strategy: Investing in the Future (Washington, DC: GPO, October 2019), 3, https://stratml.us/pdfs/AMS.pdf.
26. Kawasaki, “Trends in Tactical Network
Modernization,” 123-124.
27. Ibid., 124.
28. Ibid., 124-125.
29. Ibid., 125.
30. Department of the Army, Army Training and
Doctrine Command (TRADOC) Pamphlet 525-3-1, The U.S. Army in Multi-Domain Operations, 2028
(Fort Eustis, VA: TRADOC, 27 November 2018), https://adminpubs.tradoc.army.mil/pamphlets/TP525-3-1.pdf.
31. Advanced persistent threats are “stealthy
cyberattack[s] in which a person or group gains unauthorized access to a network and remains undetected
for an extended period. The term’s definition was traditionally associated with nation-state
sponsorship, but over the last few years we’ve seen multiple examples of non-nation state groups
conducting large-scale targeted intrusions for specific goals.” Sarah Maloney, “What Is an Advanced
Persistent Threat (ATP)?” Malicious Life (blog), Cybereason, https://www.cybereason.com/blog/advanced-persistent-threat-apt.
Author
Lieutenant Colonel Randie O'Neal (Retired) is an intelligence professional with over 40
years of service to the U.S. Army as an officer and a contractor. After his retirement as a lieutenant
colonel in 2014, he worked as a contractor for Program Manager-Saudi Arabia National Guard and U.S.
Military Training Mission Saudi Arabia in support of training, modernization and transformation
initiatives. He is currently a senior instructor for the Intelligence Analysis Committee at Ft.
Huachuca, AZ. Notable assignments during his military career include as the all-source intelligence
production section leader for Joint Task Force Panama (U.S. Army South) during Operation Promote
Liberty; Commander, Company B, 104th Military Intelligence Battalion; G-2, 63rd Regional Readiness
Command; Counterterrorism Mission Management Center team leader, National Security Agency; and as an
advisor team leader and camp commander in support of the Headquarters, Iraqi Federal Police and the
Kurdish Peshmerga Zeravani during Operations Iraqi Freedom and New Dawn.