ShareThis Page
Technology

Carnegie Mellon software, cybersecurity leader nominated to head Pentagon weapons testing

Aaron Aupperlee
| Wednesday, Sept. 6, 2017, 4:39 p.m.
Robert Behler| Photo from Carnegie Mellon University Software Engineering Institute
Robert Behler| Photo from Carnegie Mellon University Software Engineering Institute

President Trump has nominated a leader in software development and cybersecurity from Carnegie Mellon University to head the military's weapons testing program.

The nomination of Robert Behler, chief operating officer and deputy director at CMU's Software Engineering Institute, can be seen as a nod to the increasingly critical and complex role software and cybersecurity plays in U.S. defense systems.

Behler declined to be interviewed until after the Senate confirmation process but said he is honored by the nomination and called the post important in assuring American defense capabilities.

Trump sent Behler's nomination to the Senate on Tuesday.

As a test pilot in the U.S. Air Force, Behler flew more than 65 different aircraft, including the supersonic SR-71 Blackbird and the U-2 spy plane. He retired from the Air Force in 2003 as a major general after serving 31 years.

Behler has been at the Software Engineering Institute since 2012. SEI is a Department of Defense-funded research and development center working to make sure the software and systems used by the military, government and businesses are safe, secure and operational.

Aaron Aupperlee is a Tribune-Review staff writer. Reach him at aaupperlee@tribweb.com, 412-336-8448 or via Twitter @tinynotebook.

TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.

click me