Station HYPO is proud to host the following article written by CAPT David Houff, an active duty Intelligence Officer and Commanding Officer of NIOC Texas.
My first insight, and one that my CMC and I comment upon frequently with our sailors, is that we’re amazed at the talent level of our force. Frankly, we both note that “our junior sailor- and JO-selves” would simply not have been able to compete with the sailors/officers we see on a daily basis in the command. It makes it very easy to accomplish mission with such a talented and dedicated workforce. It is not at all unusual to see our most junior sailors provide subject matter expertise and briefings to very senior officers and members of the intelligence community. We’re in great shape now, and will continue to be, as these junior personnel mature into future CMCs and COs.
Second, I greatly benefit from cross-detailing personally and see the potential to expand cross-community/cross-designator opportunities for officers at more junior levels moving forward. Although it is critical to allow JOs to develop their tradecraft within designator, there are probably selective opportunities for cross-designator billets that will help broaden the IWC’s ability to synchronize and leverage the diversity of the community in support of the fleet. Numerous officers in my wardroom have asked about the potential to do this and are eager for the challenges such assignments would bring. My observations in Texas lead me to characterize the information warfare community (particularly linkages between “intel” and “cryptology”) as “never closer.” In fact, I was surprised at how much our notionally “single source” command leverages “All Source” to conduct our current missions, and I already knew the value of cryptologic input into the work being done at intel centers or on major intel staffs. Bringing a higher knowledge level of METOC and IP capabilities could help us grow even closer as an IWC. It is clear that we’re progressing well on building an IWC culture.
Third, and certainly not specific to just the IWC, is a question that I (and my CMC) get asked frequently by our officers and sailors–“how do you prepare to command (or to become a Chief/CMC)?” My answer is that nothing fully prepares you for the variety of “command” scenarios that are always circumstantially different, but the best steps to prepare are to: (1) seek out a diversity of billets and responsibilities that will broaden your experiences in various scenarios and (2) seek duties that bring you into contact with command decisions (e.g., be the legal officer, SAPR POC, DAPA, etc.). Similar to working out physically, building “reps” of situations and decisions arms you to be a better sailor, chief, and/or officer and gets you as prepared as possible for command challenges.
CAPT David Houff biography:
Captain Houff is currently assigned as the Commanding Officer, Navy Information Operations Command, Texas at San Antonio, TX.
As a Junior Officer, he served in USS UNDERWOOD (FFG-36). Transitioning from Surface Warfare to Naval Intelligence, he was assigned to the Chief of Naval Operations Intelligence Plot (CNO-IP) at the Pentagon as a watch officer. Following the Pentagon assignment, he served as Naval Intelligence Watch Officer and Director of Naval Intelligence (DNI) briefer at the Office of Naval Intelligence (ONI), Suitland, Maryland. He then was the Senior Intelligence Analyst at U.S. Naval Forces Central Command and U.S. FIFTH FLEET Headquarters in Manama, Bahrain, supporting Maritime Interception Operations and OPERATIONS SOUTHERN WATCH and DETERMINED RESPONSE. He also served as the Assistant Flag Intelligence Officer (N2) for Commander Cruiser-Destroyer Group TWO/Commander GEORGE WASHINGTON Battle Group, where he completed a combat deployment including missions in support of OPERATION ENDURING FREEDOM, OPERATION SOUTHERN WATCH, and OPERATION NOBLE EAGLE. After CRUDESGRU TWO, he served as Assistant U.S. Naval Attaché in Moscow, Russia, where he represented Senior US Government, DOD, and USN officials to their counterparts in the Russian Federation. He also was a military professor at the Naval War College in Newport, RI. Immediately prior to reporting to USAFRICOM, he was the Deputy Commander of the Joint Special Operations Command Intelligence Brigade (JIB), where he led over 500 all-service, civilian, interagency, and contractor intelligence personnel supporting JSOC’s vital special operations missions.
CAPT Houff earned a B.S. degree in History, with distinction and honors, from the U.S. Naval Academy in 1991 and a M.A. degree in History from the University of Maryland, College Park. He is a graduate (with highest distinction) from the U.S. Naval War College’s College of Naval Command and Staff as well as from the Joint Forces Staff College (JFSC). While at the JFSC, CAPT Houff received the MacArthur Award for excellence in critical campaign analysis/writing. He is a Joint Qualified Officer. He also is a graduate of the Defense Language Institute-Washington, D.C., in the Russian language.
31 January 2017 at 13:06
What a thoughtful piece from a true professional. We are so fortunate to have him co-leaading a strong team down in Texas. I agree wholeheartedly with Mark’s message and at the same time I think the term “cross-detailing” undermines our true intent. I have said this publicly on many occassions and evened voiced my concerns with the model at the IW Senior Leadership Seminar last year. Cross-detailing is about giving people opportunity to broaden their experiences by serving in capacities that are not traditionally aligned with their core skills. That may make the individual a little stronger, but it doesn’t necessarily help the team. We need to take the next leap. We need deliberate cross-billeting. We need to code billets in a way that ensures the required core skills across the IWC are resident where needed. At NCDOC we have all IWC designators and ratings (less METOC/AG and CWE) present. It is that way not because we want to expose Intel, IP, Cryptologic Warfare Officers, Cyber Warrant Officers, ITs, CTRs, ISs, and CTNs to the Defensive Cyberspace Operations mission. It is that way because we have a discrete requirement for their expertise. We believe that they will take our mission to the next level. And we believe that the skills they grow while on our team will both strengthen their core skills and expose them to the unique abilities of our teammates with different designators/rates.
There are billets that any IWC officer can fill and that is what we are saying with cross-detailing. Any billet that we see as a cross-detail opportunity ought be coded in such a fashion that we admit that. It would allow people to plan for such opportunity, it would help us see that it is a little more deliberate than it appears, and it would allow us to evolve even more. The IWC construct has gotten us to where we are and that’s a good thing, but cross-detailing won’t get us to where we need to be…cross-billeting will. Cross-detailing undermines our commitment to designator/rating mastery. Cross-detailing embraces the generalist mindset.
I get to spend a few hours with the IW Mid-Career Course tomorrow and I look forward to exploring the IWC wins we have experienced over the last few years. We most certainly have seen changes and we continue to come together as a team (still plenty of unnecessary tribal protectionism), but I ask each of us…where are the visible operational wins? Among your list, how many were directly correlated to the IWC construct?
Cross-detailing is a good idea, but a limiting one and an idea that doesn’t speak to the “All-In” culture we need across our singular tribe.
Thanks for inspiring a conversation, Mark. Well done!
LikeLike
1 February 2017 at 02:41
Isn’t cross billeting just doing manpower (matching requirements with skills and translating them into billets to be filled)? Ncdocs non-CWO/CT billets happen to be from other IW communities, but if the mission set called for it they could be from any rating. NIOC MD has had CS’s on the books since they were called Mess Specialists and I don’t think anyone ever called that an attempt to synchronize, etc; it’s just part of getting the job done. Same as on a ship. As for cross detailing, I think we need to figure out (at least in the CWO “tribe”) what we want and expect from our Officers during an ENS-CAPT career before we start farming them out to the other communities at lower and lower pay grades. It still seems like a moving target to me.
LikeLike
1 February 2017 at 11:47
Do you know the community’s latest plan on cross-detailing? Has it been published or promulgated? Haven’t seen it if so.
LikeLike
2 February 2017 at 01:49
Yes, that is all it is. Stating a requirement for specific skills you need. Cross detailing is something different. I see it as providing a specific officer with the opportunity to grow in ways he or she wouldn’t if they were detailed to a billet coded for their designator. We may be talking past each other, so happy to explain offline.
LikeLike
6 February 2017 at 15:38
CAPT Houff, Good post. With respect, I’m not convinced of your statement, “My observations in Texas lead me to characterize the information warfare community (particularly linkages between “intel” and “cryptology”) as “never closer” — this is positive rhetoric but does not jive with our own Naval/Defense history. Intel and CW (as have METOC and DPs, RMs, ITs, list goes on…) have worked side-by-side — successfully — long before the existence of an IWC TYCOM or warfare pin. There may not have been coded billets or a PQS, but fusing specialties for a common goal is not new. Cross-exposure is a tried-and-true method employed throughout the DoD for decades; single-track/group-think has never been the preferred way to operate.
Consider Joint Analysis Centers/Joint Intelligence Centers/Special Ops Tactical Ops Centers. If the IWC made Sailors “never closer”, wouldn’t its construct be the envy of our joint brothers and sisters sitting to our left and right? Certainly, if the Navy had a better weapon or platform, you can guarantee the Army or Air Force would hop on the bandwagon. They seem to be staring right past the”success” and “never closer” aspects we gained by blending ‘2s’, ‘6s’, and the like.
When it comes to bringing IWC/C4ISR-focused specialties to the point of “never closer”, the other services don’t seem to be so obsessed — why are we laboring this “integration”… this “cross-detailing”… this “never closer”… so hard to ourselves? You’re not alone in this — senior leaders across the IWC seem to beat this drum to the point of exhaustion in all-hands calls, tri-fold pamphlets, and other vision documents.
I’m increasingly convinced that we are at this peculiar point where we continually profess closeness because we’re expected to say so much by our senior leaders to keep our own standing in the community. In other words, to have future influence you must be approved by those with current influence. Are we just mirror-imaging our leaders’ statements that attribute success to the IWC to the point of our blindness? Just some thoughts to consider…
LikeLike