I never understood why a “responsive infrastructure” was one of the three legs of the “New Triad.”

Along with offenses and defenses, I always thought Command, Control and Intelligence (C2I) was the more logical candidate. It makes sense on logical grounds—Satellites that gather intelligence and handle communications are similar to missiles that delive nuclear weapons or intercept other missiles, certainly much more so than the conceptual “robust infrastructure.”

It also made sense on grounds of continuity—folks like Under Secretary of Defense for Intelligence Steve Cambone had long argued for a strategy that placed more emphasis on new strike forces, missile defenses and improved surveillance systems. So relegating C2I to a supporting role seemed … out of character.

During our lunch, Cambone told a story—“out of school” as he described it—about his time as Principal Deputy Under Secretary of Defense for Policy that explained a little.

Apparently Cambone did argue for making C2I, the third leg of the New Triad. He lost out to folks arguing for a “responsive infrastructure,”—“one of the few arguments I lost,” he humbly noted (or something aong those lines). C2I was relegated to a simple sentence noting “This New Triad is bound together by enhanced command and control (C2) and intelligence systems.”

Cambone didn’t, unfortunately, explain why C2I lost out. An interesting data point, none the less.