he Army has recently codified the concept of cyber-

electromagnetic activities (CEMA) within its doc-

trine. At its heart, CEMA is designed to prepare the

Army to address the increasing importance that both

cyberspace and the electromagnetic spectrum will

play in the success of unified land operations.

According to ADP 3-0 Unified Land Operations, CEMA in-

volves “activities leveraged to seize, retain and exploit an ad-

vantage over adversaries and enemies in both cyberspace

and the electromagnetic spectrum, while simultaneously

denying and degrading adversary and enemy use of the

same and protecting the mission command system.” It is im-

plemented via synchronization and integration of three lines

of effort: cyberspace operations, electronic warfare (EW) and

electromagnetic spectrum operations (EMSO).

June 2012 � ARMY 43

By BG Wayne W. Grigsby Jr., COL J. Garrett Howard,

Tony McNeill and

LTC Gregg Buehler, U.S. Army retired

Cyberspace operations employ capabilities to achieve ob-jectives in or through cyberspace. The three main compo-nents of cyberspace operations are offensive cyber opera-tions (attack, exploit), defensive cyber operations (defend)

and DoD global information grid op-erations (build, operate and maintain).

EW is any military action involvingthe use of electromagnetic and di-rected energy to control the electro-magnetic spectrum (EMS) or to attackthe enemy. Electronic warfare consistsof three divisions: electronic attack,electronic protection and electronicwarfare support.

EMSO consists of planning, operat-ing and coordinating the use of theelectromagnetic spectrum through op-erational, engineering, administrativeand policy implementation proce-dures to enable wireless electronic sys-tems to function in the intended envi-ronment without causing or sufferingunacceptable “frequency fratricide.”

When stressed by the commanderand integrated by the staff, CEMA canplay a critical role in the successful ex-ecution of decisive action. Analysisfrom recent history and emergingtrends within the operational environ-ment (OE) support this assertion. The

world in which U.S. forces operate is increasingly wirelessand computer network-based. Rapidly evolving informa-tion technologies are expanding the speed, capacity, agility,efficiency and usefulness of modern networks. The prolif-eration of these systems is changing the way humans inter-act with each other and their environment, including mili-tary operations. This creates conditions that will make U.S.forces increasingly dependent on these technologies andrequire soldiers to counter technology-empowered and so-phisticated adversaries who can utilize commercial indus-try and the network as their primary combat developers.This broad and rapidly changing OE will present aplethora of potential threats and opportunities that are pri-marily limited by our own—and our opponents’—imagi-nation, causing the Army to operate within a cyberspacedomain and EMS that are increasingly congested and con-tested.

In addition, it’s important to recognize the conver-gence of cyber and EMS capabilities. Commercial andmilitary systems are increasingly reliant on both asnetworks and telecommunication infrastructures ex-pand their use of wireless means. This is particularlyimportant for collaborative systems that require con-

nectivity to operate effectively. The synergistic effect ofthese networks is a significant reason why EW, EMSO andcyber operations must be viewed as interrelated and inter-dependent. Though organizations are already executingthese tasks to some degree throughout the Army, the in-herent interrelationship among these three componentsdemands that they be closely synchronized to optimize

44 ARMY � June 2012

BG Wayne W. Grigsby Jr. is the director of the Mission Com-mand Center of Excellence at Fort Leavenworth, Kan. Previ-ous assignments include director of the School for AdvancedMilitary Studies; chief of International Security AssistanceForce Joint Command’s Future Operations Cross-FunctionalTeam during the Afghanistan surge; and commander of the3rd Brigade Combat Team, 3rd Infantry Division, during theIraq surge. COL J. Garrett Howard is director of the U.S.Army Electronic Warfare Proponent Office at Fort Leaven-worth. Prior assignments include chief intelligence planner inIraq on the Multi-National Force-Iraq staff. He has com-manded military intelligence units at the company, detach-ment and battalion levels. Tony McNeill is deputy director ofthe Electronic Warfare Proponent Office at Fort Leavenworth.He is the lead author of Field Manual (FM) 3-36 ElectronicWarfare in Operations. A former Marine Corps lieutenantcolonel, he last served as deputy director and chief instructorwithin the Marine Corps Element at the Army Command andGeneral Staff College. LTC Gregg Buehler, USA Ret., is doc-trine and organizations section chief within the ElectronicWarfare Proponent Office at Fort Leavenworth. He is the leadauthor of FM 3-38 Cyber-Electromagnetic Operations andrecently completed the revision of FM 3-36. Previously heserved as the chief of organizations development within theProponent Office and the lead for the Force Design Update forElectronic Warfare.

Longbow radar (ina close up on anApache attackhelicopter) is a

millimeter-wave firecontrol radar thatoffers exceptional

targeting capability.Visible just behind

the main rotorassembly, an

infrared jammerimproves

survivabilityagainst heat-

seeking missiles.

iSto

ckph

oto

their potential impact on the execution of decisive action. Informed by these observations, the Army built the

CEMA construct on several important assessments. Com-manders play a central and critical role in CEMA: Theymust ensure that cyberspace and the EMS are viewed asimportant elements within their analysis of the OE, andthey must recognize that it is possible to gain an opera-tional advantage over an adversary within these areas andthat such an advantage can be decisive in the conduct ofoperations. This can occur at all levels of warfare (tactical,operational and strategic) and organizational echelons.Conversely, to allow an adversary to gain such an advan-tage or to lose the freedom of movement within cyberspaceand the EMS will set one at a significant disadvantage.

In turn, this will require commanders to reexamine theirview of what constitutes combined arms. This does notmean that one forgoes or diminishes the importance of tra-ditional weapons systems (lethality still matters) but in-stead that one recognizes that commanders should con-sider cyber, EW and EMSO capabilities as part of thecombined arms construct as the equal of their more tradi-tional counterparts. Implicit in this point is that comman-ders must be able to address cyber, EW and EMSO via thesame operations process and integrating functions as anyother available resource.

The requirement for full integration of these capabilities,the dependency of mission command systems on the EMSand cyberspace, and the commander’s critical role in usingthese capabilities resulted in the Army’s decision to con-duct cyber-electromagnetic activities within the missioncommand warfighting function.

To fully empower commanders with the tools they needto execute decisive action, the Army is aggressively pursu-ing ways to bring more cyber, EW and EMSO capabilitiesdown to the tactical edge. Given the recent embrace of theCEMA construct, this also includes seeking ways to pro-vide commanders (brigade combat team and above) withan organic means to integrate these activities into the oper-ations process.

To some degree, this integration is already occurring.Soon-to-be-published revisions to Field Manual 3-36 Elec-tronic Warfare in Operations will task the commander’s EWelement to expand and use the EW working group to facili-tate CEMA integration. This is intended only as a bridge,however, until the Army develops a more appropriatemeans to achieve this. Army Cyber Command and theMission Command Center of Excellence are co-leads in theArmy’s effort to determine how best to accomplish CEMAintegration for the long term.

Current plans envision CEMA integrated within the op-erations process via the Cyber-Electromagnetic WorkingGroup (CEMWG) and integration efforts led by a cyber-electromagnetic (CEM) staff element. The role of theCEMWG will be to integrate and synchronize cyberspaceoperations, EW and EMSO to maintain freedom of actionwhile denying our adversaries the same, ultimately to achievethe commander’s intent and operational objectives.

The CEMA element, the composition of which is to bedetermined, will focus on two important functions. First, itwill seek to integrate and synchronize cyber-electromag-netic capabilities and activities to achieve desired condi-tions in the cyberspace domain and across the EMS. Thiswill involve unifying the offensive and defensive aspectsof cyber-electromagnetic activities and orienting them onthe commander’s stated objectives. To this end, the CEMelement serves as the source of cyber-electromagnetic situ-ational awareness and continually assesses progress to-ward desired conditions. The CEMA element integrates allappropriate capabilities to achieve these desired ends. Sec-ond, the element will integrate cyber-electromagnetic ac-tivities as part of combined arms.

Both functions will be accomplished within thestaff’s three integrating cells: current operations,future operations and plans. The CEM elementwill coordinate the critical components of cyber-electromagnetic activities across all the warfight-ing functions and staff elements (G/S-2, G/S-3,

G/S-6, and so on) both vertically and horizontally. This in-cludes integration with external staffs, organizations andcoalition partners. Given the very dynamic nature of cy-ber-electromagnetic activities, the CEM element will likelyrequire a presence in the current operations cell and mayneed colocated representatives from the G/S-2, G/S-3 andG/S-6 (and potentially others) to achieve real-time aware-ness, direct dynamic actions and responses to unfoldingconditions.

Determining how to address the challenges and oppor-tunities that cyberspace and the EMS present our forceswill remain an evolving process. Time, technology, avail-able resources and a plethora of other factors will influencehow the Army develops its solutions. What is certain isthat the need to operate within this part of the comman-der’s OE will remain and that to gain and maintain an ad-vantage in cyberspace and the EMS will be vital to success-ful unified land operations. �

46 ARMY � June 2012

iSto

ckph

oto