I specifically said that I wasn't advocating this as a military mission. I was just stating that if it was a military mission, the Soldiers themselves wouldn't be the reason that it fails.
>Grunts wearing camouflage sitting in front of a laptop trying to outbrain someone seems humorously perverse.
A grunt is an infantryman. Not all Soldiers are grunts. The Soldiers that work as security analysts do it as a full time job. They still have to take a couple PT tests each year and qualify once or twice a year with an M16, but they spend most of their time doing their job.
I'm not sure how wearing camofluage affects a person's ability to use a computer? They are people like everyone else.
The biggest downside, I think? As a civilian, it is my right to walk off a job at any time. Sure, there are expectations that I'll give you some notice (and I will) but worst comes to worst? I can always walk, and the worst my employer can do is call me bad names.
In the military, those contracts? they mean something. Yeah, you can ask to be transferred around; hell, I know someone who was able to actually quit the navy half way through basic, but it was a big fucking deal.
I mean, there are advantages to the military, too. I'm not saying it's a bad choice for everyone. I'm just saying that wearing dorky pants doesn't even make the list.
The military, like most government jobs, makes a lot of sense for someone who values stability. There are plenty of skilled people that value stability over the ability to leave; I'm just not one of them.
Amusing side note, the MD5 hash of CYBERCOM's mission statement, "9ec4c12949a4f31474f299058ce2b22a", is to my knowledge the only hash emblazoned on an agency seal.
Also, if you were an officer, how willing would you be to trust a hacker from another agency, if you didn't have someone you trusted to vet their advice?
There'd also be concerns about red tape. If a low ranking officer isn't sure about something, can they put in a tech support ticket to a three letter agency?