From Navy Cryptologists: Leaders Across the Spectrum…
Cryptologic Warfare encompasses Signals Intelligence, Cyberspace Operations, and Electronic Warfare Operations in order to deliver effects through sea, air, land, space, and cyber domains at all levels of war.
Read the entire document here.
Station HYPO 
26 July 2016 at 20:42
This comment has been removed by the author.
LikeLike
26 July 2016 at 20:43
Wouldn't “Cryptologic Operations” be the act of delivering effects (to use your phrasing)? What is the difference between Cryptologic Warfare and Cryptologic Operations?
I argue that warfare is much more than delivering effects. Warfare is a struggle to achieve a state.
Using your terms (i.e. “Cryptologic” = Cyber + Electronic + SIGINT):
– Cryptologic Warfare should be defined as the struggle to achieve Cryptologic Dominance. That is, the struggle against an adversary to achieve your goals.
– Cryptologic Dominance is the state within the Cryptologic domain where you have achieved your goals/desires, despite the action of an adversary.
What we strive to achieve is Cryptologic Dominance. We don't conduct Cryptologic Warfare for the sake of effects. The effects have a goal and a purpose. They are a move on a chessboard.
We can make effects all day. By your definition, we would be excellent warriors. But warriors don't make effects; warriors struggle to achieve a goal.
If we want to be taken seriously as warriors, we have to stop running around saying, “Look what I can do! Don't you want to use this?” We are not defense contractors; we don't build tools. We are not the spear. We are the WARRIOR. A warrior doesn't act like a tool, a warrior defines his goal, identifies his opponents, and struggles to achieve the goal in the face of those opponents.
LikeLike
26 July 2016 at 21:22
100% agreed.
LikeLike
26 July 2016 at 22:19
To clarify, this is the approved definition as disseminated in the latest community vision. It also follows a common Navy trend of defined warfare areas — Surface Warfare, Air Warfare, Cryptologic Warfare.
Interesting that you have issue with the term warfare but then state we should seek Cryptologic Dominance.
Regarding your last paragraph, agree that our actions speak louder than our words. From what I see, we are proving our worth every day.
v/r
Chuck
LikeLike
26 July 2016 at 22:35
Is there a Cryptologic Warfare Commander in the Composite Warfare Command concept? Is there a Cryptologic Warfare combat system on a ship?
A Restricted Line Officers is not eligible for command at sea. So who is going to command this warfare area. A quick consult of Naval Warfare Publication NWP 3-56, COMPOSITE WARFARE DOCTRINE reveals that there is an Information Warfare Commander, and he/she appears to be in command of cryptologic warfare.
What are we missing?
LikeLike
26 July 2016 at 22:48
Understood, I just think this approved definition has missed the mark.
I bring up Dominance because that is the goal of war; to impose your will upon another. Why speak of war without the purpose thereof?
I don't have a problem with the usage of the term Warfare when describing the community. But you presented a definition of a term, not the naming of a community.
Surface Warfare is not defined as “effects created on the surface of the water at all levels of war”.
Additionally, what something encompasses and what something is are two different things. This statement is so vague.
“Father, what is the sky?”
“Well, the sky encompasses the earth and trees and birds and oceans.”
“But father, what IS the sky?”
LikeLike
26 July 2016 at 22:49
Chuck, it might be useful to understand Cryptologic Warfare in relation to Information Warfare as defined in NWP 3-13.
LikeLike
27 July 2016 at 00:40
I would argue that dominance is not necessarily the goal of war. To quote Clauswitz, “War is the continuation of politics by other means.” We have moved away from utilization of the term dominance for good reason. It is typically not achievable.
Regarding the usage of Warfare, that is how we are choosing to define our area of expertise. We remain Navy Cryptologists in the Cryptologic Community.
LikeLike
27 July 2016 at 00:41
Not sure I understand your question. But I will say the CWC concept is ripe for updating.
LikeLike
27 July 2016 at 02:25
It would appear that the Navy Doctrine Publication 3-56, the CWC Concept, is the doctrine for the Navy until formally changed.
If the cryptologic community has proposed revisions they need to get them submitted and get the fleet to sign up to what look like significant changes to established Navy command and control doctrine.
Everyone is confused.
LikeLike
27 July 2016 at 02:39
So what does Clauswitz mean by that? What is politics but imposing your will on others?
Clauswitz also said that war is “an act of violence intended to compel our opponent to fulfill our will.”
The end state always comes back to getting “what you want” a.k.a. your will. Those who dominate achieve and maintain their will. Those who are forced to submit do not achieve or maintain their will. Dominance is what we want; war and politics are ways to get it. Therefore the purpose of war is to dominate.
As long as any opponents remain, as long as those opponents want something mutually exclusive to your will, achieving dominance is not possible. This is covered in General Dominance Theory. So warfare never ends… Is this not the way of the world? If we have turned away from this truth, with what have we replaced it?
We have chosen to define our area of expertise in a way that doesn't actually define it. We have chosen a mantra that lacks direction other than, “make effects.” This does not seem like a good thing to me.
LikeLike
27 July 2016 at 13:40
I first thought the document was too wordy and read like a long marketing slick. But after taking a step back, and picking it apart, I found salient pieces that I could take and make my own and “move out on.” I challenge each CT and CWO to do the same. Not all CTs and CWOs will find the same parts to latch onto, but I think that's the beauty of it.
LikeLike