There are some valid points in this article, but many of them can be explained away as the growing pains of developing structure for a relatively new corps community.
I can't get into the specifics of it, but trust me, cyber is a legitimate platform.
The author claims here that further integrating the community will hurt the specializations of its personnel, but every senior Intel and IW officer I've spoken to preaches the need for it, especially at the O-5 and above level.
Having already spent a good six years in the community at a variety of IDC-centric commands, I can honestly say that much of what is stated in the link you've posted is an "old-school" mentality. The author can rest assured that Information Dominance as a warfighting discipline isn't taking anything away from the enabler side of the house.
I don't think he's arguing that cyber isn't legitimate, just that we all don't do cyber so we aren't all some kind of "non-kinetic operations" force. I do see how the IW and CT communities are relevant to me as an intel O, since they are the SIGINTers of the Navy, but I don't see how the operations piece of cyber deals with what I do any more than actual kinetic operations. I even see how metoc shapes the battlespace like the threat does. I don't think this means that we are all one happy family.
I think his comment about "Do I worry about the Kilo sub or the broken email server" sums it up nicely. As in intel officer I already feel like everything I do is already broad and watered down enough as it is, I don't need to throw weather and IT support into the mix (which somehow a lot of people already think is what intel does) as I become more senior. Judging from your desire to go IW (and the background of PettyOfficerCJ) it is clear that you guys are from a different corner of the IDC, and I have yet to meet a single person in the intel community who isn't concerned with what the IDC is going to do to it. The IW, IP, and metoc communities stand to gain more than the intel community.
The O-5 and above level is the problem (usually). They don't see that sailors and junior officers are stretched thin in terms of expertise, and that in many ways we provide inferior to support compared to what other services have to offer because of the "jack of all trades" mentality.
usnavymie hit the mark with his post. Increased collaboration is becoming an even more important and integral part of the IDC. It is not just the IDC community within the Navy, but it is also the Intelligence Community as a whole. The push is for the CIA, NSA, FBI, NGA, (continue with all the other 3-letter agencies as well as additional intelligence organizations), to work collaboratively and share information and resources.
Integration with three letter agencies has nothing to do with the IDC whatsoever. I agree that working with them is a good thing, though.
There are some excellent tools now to enable such collaboration and many more are being developed. What usnavymie referred to as the "old school mentality" is the mentality of "I want to sit at my desk, stay in my cubicle, work on my analysis/project, and only talk to other people when I absolutely have to. Sharing my findings with other people will just take time away from what I'm doing." I am not poking fun here. I actually see this mindset in some at work. It is frustrating to work with those who are so inflexible because I see the huge difference it makes when true collaboration with others either at work or within the rest of the IC takes place. Sometimes, the reason that I see these people take on that mindset is because their personality is truly a bit reclusive. (It is true that the IC as a whole attracts a lot of people who fit the profile of those who like to be alone at their computer all day. They do amazing work and are truly technical experts. We do need skilled technicians like this.)
I don't see how this is relevant, as the whole point of the article is about supporting a strike group or other operations, not sitting in a cubicle. If your community has that problem, it doesn't need to drag my community in to fix it. I think if anything, your point just shows how different the IW/CT side of the house is from intel.
Other times though, the reason is that these people just don't get the big picture of what is happening and what needs to happen in the intelligence community. As Officers, our job is not to be the technician. If someone wants to be the expert technician, then they need to enlist. (I am currently a technician, and so I know what this involves. I also see the difference between what I do now and what I will do as an Officer. I am excited to get back to working in a job that deals more with looking at intelligence on a larger and broader scale.) The job of the technician is to create the dots; the job of the Officer is to connect them.
How effective am I supposed to be as an officer if I'm working with a bunch of technicians from areas that I know nothing about? How am I supposed to have an intelligent conversation (pardon the pun) about weather with an AG, or IT issues with an IT, when I'm an 1830 who suddenly is in charge and has to make decisions and recommendations to operators about what do to? How the hell is a weatherman supposed to say "CAG, I think the enemy is going to do XXXX on the strike" and understand the words coming out of this mouth? No one is arguing that officers are technicians. The argument is that stretching us even thinner than we are is going to backfire. I'd even argue that it would cost lives, because putting weathermen in charge of intel for ops is exactly the kind of thing being discussed.
