OK, not exactly. But it is coming soon! If you weren’t tracking, the Information Dominance Corps has now been renamed the Information Warfare Community, forcing a change to the 1810 label. According to VADM Branch, “VADM Tighe is working on a name change for the 1810 designator.” No doubt she isn’t doing this in a vacuum, we have some advice to those who are involved in the process.
Don’t Overemphasize Cyber
There is no doubt that cyber is an exciting new discipline and we as a community are certain to be involved in cyber for the long run. Our investment, billet structure, and the FCC/C10F Strategic Plan provides the evidence. But cyber is not everything we do. In fact, it is just one of three core competencies — Cyber, SIGINT, EW. Our investment in SIGINT and EW has not diminished. Actually, given the advent of Distributed SIGINT Operations and our focus on Electromagnetic Maneuver Warfare, that investment is most likely growing. Any name that overemphasizes one of our core competencies sells us short in the other two, and fails to represent what we do as a whole.
On Warfare and “Warfighters”
Warfighter may be the most abused, and misused, term in the military lexicon today. I find this both amazing and surprising, especially as our military faces its 15th straight year at war. For some reason, communities and individuals, in and out of the Navy, find a need to delineate exactly who is and who isn’t a warfighter. I have news for you — WE ARE ALL WARFIGHTERS! Just ask Doris “Dorie” Miller.
As far as warfare goes, there should be no question that our actions as a community both enable and contribute to multiple warfare areas. The key word in that last sentence — actions. No label will make it so, only the effects we deliver. Not to mention, TWO of our core mission areas contain the word warfare — Cyber Warfare and Electronic Warfare. When it comes to our new name, there is no need to create further confusion with unnecessary adjectives and descriptors, such as warfare and operations. If our actions don’t indicate either, then we have a lot more to worry about.
Heritage Matters
The past few years witnessed the release of the Cryptologic Community Foundational Principles. A particularly germane sentence from that document includes direction that we will, “go forward to our roots” and “focus on professionalization within SIGINT, CNO, and EW skill sets.” The idea that we will “go forward” to our roots, as well as the focus on those three core skills, is especially pertinent to this discussion. While communications technology has evolved, the very core of our competence remains grounded in the roots established by the likes of Captain Joseph J. Rochefort, Station HYPO, OP-20-G, and the “On the Roof Gang.” Any “new” title should keep our heritage in mind. More importantly, any change should make it clear that we are a singular Cryptologic Community, both officer and enlisted, aligned in competence, vision, and name.
The Way Ahead
While our community continues to evolve, our mandate remains “to create time and effects” for, and as, operational commanders. As we do just that, it is clear that no single term in the U.S. Military lexicon encapsulates the core skills to which we are clearly committed — SIGINT, Cyber, and EW. A return to the title Cryptologist is far more than symbolic. It is a name that represents our rich history, communicates who we are, and will serve to help focus our future.
v/r
Chuck
Station HYPO 
11 January 2016 at 22:46
Don't agree with going back to Cryptology. The definition of Cryptology is the study of codes, or the art of writing and solving them. I personally have never performed anything Cryptologic. Our community began as Cryptologists but we no longer perform Cryptologic activities by its definition. Maybe we should look at splitting into Cyber Warfare Officers and Signals Intel Officers (EW included). But, if you must stick with Cryptology the SIGINT Officer is the one you label as Cryptology. The reason for the split is Cyber and SIGINT/EW need different skill sets and when Officers switch between the two skills they diversify but that also causes atrophy in the skill sets. If we want to further advance Cyber capabilities and better the workforce we need focused leadership in Cyber to keep up with the constant changes. The same goes for SIGINT/EW. Why must we keep two mission sets in one community.
LikeLike
11 January 2016 at 23:03
So would you advocate for changing the name of our enlisted cadre as well?
LikeLike
11 January 2016 at 23:34
Yes I would. I think this is a great time to make our communities better and move forward. Times have change drastically and we need to embrace the changes and evolve our community to increase our expertise so we can stay at the forefront of Cyber Warfare technologies and not be outdone by our adversaries. Our enlisted cadre naming convention is a little outdated as well. For instance, CTN is not Cryptology it is Cyberspace operations (OCO, DCO). That rate should be changed accordingly. CTI's, they do not do Cryptology, they are linguists. I could see CTR's possibly remaining the same as a small portion of them has some dealings with Cryptology, but CTM's and CTT's should probably change. We need to reevaluate what we all really do in our jobs with a clear and open mind and create a name that truly identifies and represents what we do and what we have to offer. To go backwards and keep the Cryptologic name is a sign of resistance to change to me. We can still keep and celebrate our history and heritage as we move forward with the changes. The name is not needed to keep the history and heritage.
LikeLike
12 January 2016 at 00:26
I wouldn't necessarily disagree with any of this. In fact, I invite you to write more on your plan for hosting on the site. But at this point, those changes aren't on the table.
I do disagree with your comments on Cryptology. That term has history, and is currently relevant. Honestly, it surprises me when I hear members of our community say they don't do Cryptology. That alone may be indicative of our seemingly ongoing identity crisis.
So, assuming the status quo remains, what term is most appropriate?
LikeLike
12 January 2016 at 01:05
I think our community is moving towards convergence, not divergence… hence the IDC subsequent name change. I agree, Information Warfare Officer was a better descriptor of all of our duties – including EW. Cyber and Signals are not much different… the electrons don't distinguish. We would be a better community if we would stop making cyber a special unicorn and treat it as an extension of communications with a unique aspect to it that there is data a rest.
What is an alternative to Cryptologist? I support Cryptologist because of the alignment with the enlisted rates and as a nod to history which is important. I'm also not as wedded to it as others here… what makes sense?
I suggest we stay with Information Warfare and just add OG to it… as in OG IW. Everyone else can be called bandwagon IW (BWIW)… just a suggestion.
LikeLike
12 January 2016 at 01:30
From a peer who wishes to remain anonymous…more pertinent to a sea change, vice a name change.
“WRT Officers…
Step #1 – Code all “SIGINT” billets as 1830
Step #2 – Code all “Cyber” billets as 1810
Step #3 – Rename 1810 as Cyber Warfare Officer
Step #4 – Recode all 1820 and 1840 billets as 1810
Step #5 – Redesignate all 1820s and 1840s as 1810
IWC = OCEANO, Cyber Warfare, and Intel”
Loads of goodness in this plan.
LikeLike
12 January 2016 at 02:43
My comment on Cryptology is based on the definition of the term. I believe our community was founded on Cryptology but over the years we moved away from doing true Cryptology and now really on other Agencies to do the work and moved to automation and just button pushing. For a name, I think Cyber Warfare Officer encompasses more of what we do but from what I can tell you are anti-Cyber and do not seem able to accept the changing environment. Cryptology leaves out our Cyber role, if you wish to break from Cyber it only seems logical you would advocate with my suggestion to split the Cyber Warfare piece out and keep Cryptology for our SIGINT and EW work roles. You can't ignore our new role in the Cyber realm.
LikeLike
12 January 2016 at 02:47
I agree with the first 3 steps, not sure why you would do the last 2 steps. Steps 4 & 5 seems to be a little ridiculous to me.
LikeLike
12 January 2016 at 02:50
You have misread me. Not anti-cyber at all. In fact, I find it an exciting area and would like to add that expertise to my resume. But, as I said in my post, Cyber as a title would do a disservice to our other areas of expertise. I also think much of what we do in Cyber is actually Cryptology, only in a slightly different domain.
LikeLike
12 January 2016 at 02:51
Doesn't using Cyber leave out our SIGINT and EW roles?
LikeLike
12 January 2016 at 11:54
Could you provide your definition of Cryptology? Not sure how you could associate what we do with Cyber as Cryptology. Just trying to understand your point.
LikeLike
12 January 2016 at 12:16
My fellow writer David lays it out nicely:
http://www.stationhypo.com/2015/12/whats-in-name.html
The point being, for the majority of cyber-related work, the SKILL SET and TTPs match those of our traditional work.
LikeLike
12 January 2016 at 12:17
The point is to get to this end:
IWC = OCEANO, Cyber Warfare, and Intel
LikeLike
12 January 2016 at 22:51
Understood, I was trying to be sarcastic but did not come across the way I intended.
LikeLike
12 January 2016 at 23:05
Sorry, I am just not convinced. David wrote a good article but I disagree with his final thoughts and believe he is grasping to say we do Cryptology. So everyone that speaks a second language is code breakers? Does not fit the intended definition of Cryptology for me. That is my opinion and I will respect both your opinions but continue to disagree. I am not saying either of you are wrong and I am right. That is not my intention. My intention is to cause others to think ahead and out of the box, that is how the Cryptologic community came about and how we have evolved as a Community. Many great things in America have came about by thinking ahead to see what is ahead of us and think differently than the past. History is to learn from and be proud of past accomplishments, not to necessarily return to. Thank you for your honest feedback and I look forward to taking on whatever name our Senior leadership assigns. Embracing the change and making it successful is something to strive for and be proud of. That is what makes us the best Military in the world.
v/r Michael McCaffrey
LikeLike
12 January 2016 at 23:08
Concerned 1810 – Sounds like a great foundation for a rebuttal article. If you are willing to write one, we are certainly willing to publish it.
LikeLike
12 January 2016 at 23:16
By the way, was not trying to stay anonymous but thought my email would have been shown when you checked my profile but by default it was hidden. That is my fault for not checking. So hopefully you have broken the code by reading my name now. 🙂
LikeLike
12 January 2016 at 23:29
If I did break the code, would that make me a Cryptologist? ;
LikeLike
12 January 2016 at 23:39
I guess so if the English language is considered code. ;
LikeLike
13 January 2016 at 14:29
This comment has been removed by the author.
LikeLike
13 January 2016 at 14:31
To inform the definition discussion, relying on Websters for the definition of cryptology is too simplistic. Drawn directly from NSA' website: “The National Security Agency/Central Security Service (NSA/CSS) leads the U.S. Government in cryptology that encompasses both Signals Intelligence (SIGINT) and Information Assurance (IA) products and services, and enables Computer Network Operations (CNO) in order to gain a decision advantage for the Nation and our allies under all circumstances.” This definition provides the foundation for all three of our major lines of operation.
LikeLike
13 January 2016 at 15:04
Thanks, SIWO80. Precedence matters.
LikeLike
13 January 2016 at 22:06
Yes, NSA does do Cryptology but they are not saying SIGINT, IA and CNO is Cryptology but they conduct Cryptology for SIGINT, IA and CNO. The Navy does not, we rely on NSA to do that for us. We are consumers of NSA's Cryptologic activities to do our job in SIGINT, IA and Cyber Operations.
LikeLike
14 January 2016 at 01:01
The Service Cryptologic Components are the primary force providers to NSA's workforce. Additionally, taken from NSA's public website: “The Central Security Service (CSS) includes the elements of the armed forces – Army, Navy, Air Force, Marine Corps, and Coast Guard (read: Service Cryptologic Components) – that perform codemaking and codebreaking work along with NSA.”
LikeLike
14 January 2016 at 21:48
I'm sure there are a handful in our community that do work in an NSA role that does perform that but we as a community do not anymore. We did and that is a legacy term that just did not change with the times. The 1810 community as a whole are not Cryptologists and there are a fraction if any 1810's that do codemaking and codebreaking.
LikeLike
14 January 2016 at 21:57
Just to clarify; the term I say is legacy is Service Cryptologic Components.
LikeLike
21 January 2016 at 02:01
I think it's time we get beyond the CHANGE others mandate and truly own our EVOLUTION. We've made this about a name CHANGE when we should make it about a cultural EVOLUTION. We need to break paradigms and embrace OUR future. Personally, I'd love to see us…
1) Combine 1810, 1820, and 1840 into Cyberspace Operations Officers and align the IT and CTN ratings into Defensive Cyberspace Operators, Information Assurance Technicians/Operators, and Computer Network Operators (read CTNs not doing DCO)
2) Migrate all SIGINT billets to 1830 (It's Intel after all) and align CTRs (Communications Analysts/Operators), CTIs (Language Analysts), and CTTs (ELINT Analysts/Operators)
At first glance, this looks like the divergence of the IWC. But as you look deeper, it really is about convergence, specialized expertise, and purposely breaking the old so that we can truly reach our potential. We remain constrained by our history. Change is not the answer, evolution is! Good ideas must die, so that great ideas can live!!!
Don't Just Change. Evolve!
LikeLike
21 January 2016 at 02:09
No doubt evolutionary and worthy of discussion.
LikeLike
21 January 2016 at 14:17
Agree. Way too much focus on title. Names have little meaning without sufficient value.
Wrt to evolving 18XXs, definitely understand the SIGINT billets to 1830 and CTIs/CTTs/CTRs. Lived that in a different service previously, and it's ugly for SIGINT. But, don't believe it's too much uglier than where Navy SIGINT is today. Plus, Navy 1830s should be better shepherds than intel officers from other services (owing to continual deployment/operations).
Wrt to cyberspace operations officer as 1810/1820/1840- good idea, but are we close enough to pull that trigger? Uncertainty reigns. We still don't do CNO other than for national side (no navy specific mission, only coincidences w/ national mission). National mission are fine, but who is paying for the billets? P3 SIGINT receives national funding, but cyber is coming from BSO 60 (USFFC=BSO60). Thus, the “juice” isn't worth the squeeze from the Navy perspective. This BSO stuff has to get fixed – it's a problem lying in wait. Or, build a Navy specific mission, assuming SOTA like delegation, and make juice = $ squeeze. DCO does/starting to do this (huge plus = Fleet value), after a decade under our cognizance. Still haven't seen C10F OPORD (as a numbered fleet tasking deployed units) to the Fleet = tough for the URL to care.
LikeLike
21 January 2016 at 17:54
Captain — can you provide specific examples of how we remain constrained by our history?
LikeLike
21 January 2016 at 23:03
ndrker – I can assure you the DCO mission across the Navy is a growing priority.
David – Let me first say that I am extremely proud of our history and appreciate the opportunity to be a part of the team that builds upon it each and every day. There are many examples that we can point to where the world around us evolved and we have yet to do the same. The most glaring examples off the top of my head are the RL versus URL divide and the tribal thought within what we now call the IWC. Think about the CWC model afloat. We need to break a few things. We need to take more visible ownership of the warfare area we are charged with leading beyond FCC/C10F (we do a good job of that). We need to redefine WE. We need to be a lot less parochial and protective of legacy ricebowls…we need to be one integrated IWC, not just in name, but also culturally. This remains an exciting time full of opportunity. What are each of us doing at our respective level of the team to seize the opportunity? If we make it about a name change, we are failing. CNO has opened the door…let's walk through it vice being OK with merely changing the name on the door.
LikeLike
22 January 2016 at 00:28
CAPT,
I am absolutely convinced that we must change (evolve) with the environment around us. I am equally convinced that the title under which we do so is as important as the manner in which we do it. I would further submit that I find it highly unlikely anyone who has taken the time to participate in this conversation is “OK with merely changing [our] name.” Indeed, we are all extremely proud of our history and have a vested interest in our future. The demonstrated passion surrounding such discussion is fueled by a deep admiration for, and commitment to, what we do and, more importantly, why we do it.
Names and titles impart identity. A collective identity and resultant “buy-in” are critical to the success of any organization. A rose by any other name may smell just as sweet, but roses have no organizational belonging or relational capacity. I am not just proud to be a Sailor because of what it represents historically, but also because of what it communicates contemporarily. Our title should both reflect our very proud heritage and accurately capture and communicate who we are and what we do.
If we are constrained, I would submit that we are so as the result of forces outside of our ties to history. Indecision and lack of vision are more likely culprits. What we need – no, what we crave — is clear direction. In some ways we are getting that more today than we have in the recent past, but we still have a ways to go.
Okay — I am an eternal optimist. My pride for what we have done and how we have done it in our past gives me hope and confidence that we will continue to excel in our future as we remain ready in our particular skill sets “to conduct prompt and sustained combat incident to operations at sea” – yes…regardless of what is decided on our name. Must we evolve? Of course — the environment in which we operate (and, indeed, the very organization writ large) is changing and we must change with it – but let’s do so with a clear identity.
V/r
David
LikeLike
22 January 2016 at 02:11
Well said, David! Thanks for being a part of the conversation.
LikeLike
23 January 2016 at 13:03
And to be more complete, there are many positives at which to point. The work VADM Moran (CNP) is leading is amazing and the initiatives the CRIC are inspiring others to consider is exactly what we need. While some continue to miss opportunities, many are creating opportunities.
LikeLike
26 January 2016 at 17:31
No matter what, not everyone is going to be happy about the changes that we make. So what its going to take is the leaders in our community to take the information from all angles of the conversation and push us forth into the direction we need to go. Too many hang ups, push back and back and forth nagging, just causes strife and animosity over a name change. Change it, push it to the fleet and we as leaders support the decision that is in the best interest of our COMMUNITY not our own personal opinions.
LikeLike
26 January 2016 at 18:39
Are you saying providing input prior to the decision, solicited or not, is counter-productive?
LikeLike
29 January 2016 at 11:59
No, just saying that in many cases we find there to be an over saturation of input that really gets us nowhere other than griping about something that if you really think about it probably isn't going to change. Much like a bunch of sailors on the smoke deck griping over why the CT's having to stick around for a scenario being run in engineering. Do you expect to call the Admiral, her listen to your input and then have a warm fuzzy that she actually listened? Or that she already knows what she wants and is appeasing the masses by “listening”. If she calls us Cryptologists then I know who got into her ear, Chuck. Change it, move on and lets worry about something else.
LikeLike
29 January 2016 at 12:42
Understand. I personally prefer an overabundance of input vice a lack of the same. Regarding methods to provide input, this site is just one of them. Writing a letter to our senior leadership is another.
As far as the name goes, I also agree. Change it, move on, and address our bigger issues.
v/r
Chuck
LikeLike
13 March 2016 at 19:24
A name is so important and it should not be taken lightly. We have missed the mark on this and it *will* cause problems.
There was no rush or deadline to make this decision besides our own artificial ones. We should have done this right the first time, but despite missing that opportunity a few years ago with “Information Warfare Officer” we have somehow squandered another golden opportunity to get it right, and we may not get another.
LikeLike
14 March 2016 at 00:42
To suggest an alternative:
I like what I saw on another post on this Blog, “Electromagnetic Spectrum Warfare Officer”, although for my tongue's sake (and because it’s not just the Spectrum) I would adjust that to, “Electronic Warfare Officer.”
The definition of cryptography is very plain. We are not cryptographers. We just happen to be the ones that do basic cryptography under certain circumstances.
Everything we (181X et al) do (SIGINT, EW, Cyber) is related to electromagnetic phenomena and electronics. Our name should follow our function.
Keeping with the change to the community name, METOC, INTEL, IP would join us in being “Information Warfare Officers,” as Information is what we all have in common. Then we can focus on developing Information Warfare doctrine.
I am concerned that “Cryptologic Warfare” will be a confusing and misleading term that aims to describe an idea that we ourselves can't communicate and don't understand. Words have meaning, and of all the Navy communities I would have expected us to use the right words with the right ideas (or develop them) – and to make our decisions based on logic and not so heavily on heritage and nostalgia.
This is not a matter of, “just make a decision and push through,” though there are certainly times where that is the right course of action. This is not one of them. What we do now shapes this community and our Nation's capabilities for the next century.
We have a rare opportunity and *responsibility* to shape an entire war discipline, just a Rickover did with the nuclear Navy. Our successors will rely on the foundation we give them. That foundation cannot be something that changes every 3-5 years with technology. How can they build upon what we have done?
Will we create something as unmatched as the US Nuclear Navy? Or will we be just a Nation with a hefty defense budge, new equipment, and some neat tricks? The nuclear reactors are not the keystone of the nuclear Navy – it is the culture, the doctrine, and the philosophy behind them. So how does our culture, doctrine, and philosophy measure up? Do they transcend today's technology and capabilities, or will they too become outdated according to the schedule of Moore's law?
LikeLike
14 March 2016 at 15:38
I will less eloquently agree with Foster and CAPT Heritage. Before we worry about evolving our organization to support a (clearly) disagreed upon community mandate, we need to take a hard look at our culture. We need to BEHAVE according to our values. Running around being worried about our warrior status relative to the URL community is demeaning to what we bring to the table. Cyber IS unique to the other specialty areas as it is the only through which forces can be command and controlled to achieve ends that accomplish the same commander's objectives as the Air, Surface and Subsurface domains. The Navy's missions ARE invested in– not just support to national. We need to take ourselves more seriously. The Navy used to be best postured to lead the services in development in the cyber domain, but we are rapidly losing ground to the Army. Time to get back to business and realize the war is happening, regardless of the flavor in our name.
LikeLike