Every once in a while a post writes itself. In this case, some comments on our post regarding the Information Warfare Officer name change have done just that.
“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!”
Read more here: http://seanheritage.com/blog/dont-change-evolve/
Are we missing an opportunity to evolve vice simply change?
How should we leverage the CNO’s emphasis on Information Warfare to truly evolve?
27 January 2016 at 18:48
I like the ideas – cyber should stand alone as a discipline. The way it is presented here definitely shatters current paradigms. Here we have the allegorical new kid on the block (cyber) exerting ownership of “the community” and exiling SIGINT to a life of destitution in the land of Intel. That culture clash may result in major setbacks for SIGINT. Perhaps “Cyber” should emigrate away from “SIGINT” and establish its own new community instead. This may all be a matter of semantics, but the cultural undertones should be considered.
28 January 2016 at 04:06
We must consider Electromagnetic Spectrum Operations if we gravitate to Cyber and INTEL.
It is imperative that we build and maintain expertise that pace capability in the EMS domain in order to assure access and freedom of maneuver in this evolving and converging battle space. We will not achieve and maintain Battle Space Awareness, Assured C2 and Integrated Fires without a talented community of EM Spectrum Officers, Technicians and Operators.
We should entertain the convergence of Network ITs, Cyber Engineers and CTNs into Cyber; however, we must have a primary skill set residing in Spectrum Operations. A much needed evolution occurs when we accept that SIGINT is not our profession, but a derivative of what we do. We MUST evolve ourselves to grow EM Spectrum Professionals and it starts with reorganizing and renaming our community. Recommend METOC, INTEL, CYBER and Electronic Warfare.
29 January 2016 at 00:41
Scott, I had a similar thought but prefer to explore how you divided the disciplines. Network administration, operation, defense and attack should be united and there is an argument to unite it within 1820. The ITs to be split between network/ADP and communication/radio. The former staying with the 1820s and merging with the CTNs while the latter potentially going to the 1810. The 1810 focused on EMS/EW/SIGINT with the CTI/M/R/Ts and ‘radio’ ITs. This unites the disciplines that communicate, operate, exploit and attack via the EMS. This also allows appropriate focus on EMS/EW/SIGINT which is arguably more important today than any other time in our history. Just ask a strike group or numbered fleet commander. EW/SIGINT continues to becoming more technically challenging both from the signals and countermeasure perspectives. This would also allow us to free up the 1830s to be intelligence professionals and work between the two: (1) supported by 1810s with SIGINT, but supporting 1810s on EW (targeteering, order of battle, red capabilities, etc). (2) supporting 1820s on cyberspace by providing HUMINT, OSINT, IPE, Intel planning and targeteering (as 1830s do in all other warfare areas). A complex topic to have in a few lines on a blog. V/R Matt
29 January 2016 at 12:46
The consideration of Fleet input, and needs, is valuable and often over looked. Far too often we limit our view to areas within our lifelines. We must also consider those we serve, and provide services to, as enablers. Yes, enablers. Not a bad word — something we seem to be afraid to call ourselves — a more true representation of what we do 90% of the time.
30 January 2016 at 13:12
Now this is the conversation we should be having, not what do we call ourselves. Thanks for engaging! Great thoughts!!!
1 February 2016 at 14:58
Thought about this topic a lot over the weekend. Can't think of a better way than what is proposed above. In addition to reorganizing to follow networks (1820) and spectrum (1810), really need to integrate commands across big IW. As an example, METOC Commands in MS which design, build, and employ underwater drones could benefit from an 1810 together with the 1800s to provide what else we might want in a drone other than hydro survey. Same goes for operational employment on TAGOS. The data and supercomputing in MS could also use some networkers (the new 1820s). All big IW commands are replete with opportunities screaming for intelligent integration. IDC has never touched this. Business continues to be conducted by IDC/IW Flags via separate community equities, rather than subordinating those interests in collectively building something better (something one of the IDC leaders should have done). As a result, the change remains primarily administrative with little real, exclusive value. Still, there remains much opportunity for tremendous improvement if the four communities change their focus to add value to the other communities' products and operations.
1 February 2016 at 15:25
All valid points and worthy of consideration. If you would be interested in writing a paper regarding we'd be happy to host here and help get it visibility elsewhere.