-
Please take a moment and update your account profile. If you have an updated account profile with basic information on why you are on Air Warriors it will help other people respond to your posts. How do you update your profile you ask?
Go here:
Edit Account Details and Profile
intel realignment, who does it affect?
- Thread starter IS.m.ras
- Start date
+1 I agree, but also note that the A2 spot on the Air Staff is not an Intel type, he is a F-15 pilot. Air Force does remind their support types from time to time that pilots rule the roost and the top two spots are traditionally pilots unlike Navy (aviators have to vie with SWOs and Submariners for top spot and SWOs have had three CNOs in a row, which is atypical), Marine Corps (best an aviator can strive for is number two spot due to glass ceiling) and Army who favors ground related Combat arms over aviators.
For the Navy, we now have quite a few platforms (those with E in the T/M/S and all unmanned platforms) residing in the recently established N2/N6 organization orchestrated by the first 3 star intel officer who is the architect behind the warfare pin(s), IDC, etc. so it will be interesting to see how that plays out. Those flying the E-2, EP-3, E-6B, EA-6B, etc. will be resourced by the IDC Kingpin who outranks N88 so the Air Warfare czar doesn't even get to sit at same higher level resource meetings as the IDC counterpart does.
On the other hand, look at FLTCYBERCOM/C10F, where the commander is a three-star SWO (VADM Barry McCullough) and his deputy -- where a lot of the leadership and vision will reside -- is a one-star IW (RDML Bill Leigher). You need someone who knows how to bring in dollars and build relationships alongside the organization-specific leadership.
Issues about the IDC pin and quals aside, the Navy has one of the most forward-looking views on the information domain among the services (including Air Force). Looking at the commentary those who have been in for 10-20 years (or longer), I can see that a lot of the changes are viewed with some trepidation. This is perhaps a function of major change in any organization.
I know there will always be the ribbing -- sometimes good-natured, sometimes not -- between communities, arguments about what is/isn't a real "warfare" designator, etc. The bottom line is that operating in the information domain is increasingly critical, and we need experts, operators, and leaders there, too. Everyone is part of the total force.
Is that too touchy-feely? :icon_wink
Issues about the IDC pin and quals aside, the Navy has one of the most forward-looking views on the information domain among the services (including Air Force). Looking at the commentary those who have been in for 10-20 years (or longer), I can see that a lot of the changes are viewed with some trepidation. This is perhaps a function of major change in any organization.
I know there will always be the ribbing -- sometimes good-natured, sometimes not -- between communities, arguments about what is/isn't a real "warfare" designator, etc. The bottom line is that operating in the information domain is increasingly critical, and we need experts, operators, and leaders there, too. Everyone is part of the total force.
Is that too touchy-feely? :icon_wink
Well, you have that right as VADM McCullough just came from arguably the most powerful 3 star position in the Navy and one used to groom 4 stars, the OPNAV N8 position where all the dollars get programmed. Of course, your comment on bringing in dollars is what Flash is talking about. It's a zero sum game in DC. If he brings in dollars for FLTCYBERCOM, it's has to come from other communities unless he can tap ISR Task Force, JIEDDO or other OSD or Joint coffers.
You can have all the vision statements, views, perspectives and the like you can muster and make lots of speeches and craft organizations that look good on paper and in the press, but you then have to make them work day in and out. They'll certainly get their chance, but "there I was" only last week in LTGEN Deptula's Conference Room with Army G2 (3 star), JIEDDO himself (3 star) and all the DOD, Joint and agency equivalents at that level (Who's Who in ISR resource decision making) to mark and decide a crucial point in a rapid reaction Joint ISR initiative* that involved NAVY assets and is smack in the IDC lane yet NOBODY showed from 10th Fleet or FLTCYBERCOM. Hundreds of millions were commited yet the IDC was nowhere to be seen except for a Navy O-6 serving in a Joint assignment. So, if they were too busy working, they missed being passed by Deptula who tapped a big chunk of coin for something that could have been a flagship of the 10th Fleet.
*Here's his recent public remarks on subject
I agree on your bottom line, but saying Everyone is part of the total force makes Flash's point. My concern has always been with Intel and other collection activity that it often becomes a conduit within those pipes and forgets about the other members of the total force who need the info to be effective and survive. There's been too many situations where Intel withholds info because trigger puller doesn't have a need to know in their mind or requisite clearance/access. Feeding info to the top and those wearing stars seems to dominate many architectures and unwritten doctinal practice. IMO, if they want to be truly accepted as valuable members of the Total Force as you call it, they need to work on getting horizontally integrated as they build the vertical pipes.
The whole intelligence/information-handling paradigm is built on these vertical stovepipes -- erm, cylinders of excellence. In an environment where information is treated as "capital" (i.e., something to be collected and hoarded), there is no incentive to release or share it, save for to those who can "reward" you for it (usually up the chain). The entire intelligence production and dissemination process is in need of reform, as many commissions, reports, recommendations, and even legislation have indicated since 9/11. Until the business processes that support intelligence production change, the prevailing mindsets will remain.
The whole community needs to move from a "need to know" to "need to share" philosophy; requisite security controls can still remain, but sharing with appropriate parties* should be the default state, not the exception. However, as you know, it's not just intelligence that is at play in the IDC, though it is certainly a dominant player. It's also IO/IW/cyber and all that comes with it, traditional IT operations, etc.; integrating all of these successfully will be a challenge. The Navy's mission may not be CNO or SIGINT, but those activities support the mission -- without the mission, they are meaningless. However, the mission is lost without such support.
It will be awhile for the IDC and things like FLTCYBERCOM/C10F to find their collective footing. But I'd ask this: does anyone believe we need less support in the information domain? If anything, I would imagine most would agree it's the exact opposite, so one question I'd ask -- and this is a serious question, if naïve, but not rhetorical -- why the disdain for so many information-related communities (particularly intel and IW)? Is it because of the secrecy, the attitude, broken processes, or...? Keep in mind this question stems largely from my own inexperience, but perception is often reality...
* "Appropriate parties" also includes trigger pullers
Couldn't agree more
"Need to share" or simply facilitating access for push/pull to the tactical level is a worthy goal. I just sat ina meeting where a vendor promised to have 1 Gbps in our hands by next year. Often IDC related components endeavor to increase pipe capacity/bandwidth because it's been such a constraining factor. If you read what Deptula is pushing forward (esp Gorgon), there is going to be all sorts of data/FMV flowing because technology is responding to need, BUT that in turn has an unintended consquence. The IDC (primarily) and warfighters on the pointy end will have Terrabyte upon Terrabyte (if not Petabytes and Yottabytes of data and probably have to create yet another exponential characterization soon enough), but is it accessible and is it useful/actionable information. That is a primary challenge for IDC and needs to be worked with warfighters integrated into the equation (Kennedy Center for Irregular Warfare at ONI is a good example of warfighters, Intel types and anlaysts working to support the forward elements).
Note: Who says the Navy doesn't have a SIGINT or other INT type duties? Navy has unique capabilities in that regard (note Deputla trying to intrude into that domain)
Absolute F--ing BS young man. We are at F--ing war and those who created the IDC lobbied and cajoled and politiced long and hard so they knew exactly what they were getting into and better f--ing deliver pretty quick or it will all tumble down. It's not an experiment or "watch this space while we are under construction. If you want to be part of the "total force", then you better step up to the plate. The warfighters whose job is to face those who would do us harm don't ask for "awhile to get our collective footing". You better use your cranial bandwidth to worry about that and not whether others harbor disdain or ridicule or whatever. Where I work, nobody f--ing gives two flying whatevers about that crap. You deliver results or find something else to do. You can worry at reunions down the road about ego crap.
On the last point, nothing to say except, "point taken"!
By the way: I wasn't meaning to say that the Navy didn't have, e.g., SIGINT missions; I was speaking more to Flash's point earlier:
That is, all of these tasks support the mission. The mission of the Air Force may not be to guard airplanes, but they still need to do it, and hopefully do it well...
There are several reasons that there is a certain level of disdain towards Intel and IW/Crypto/Information Dominators from operational types, some of it isn't really the fault of the IDC types but a lot of it is. One of the more basic reasons is that operators want all the information that they can get on a target/area/country/system but often can't get it because the Intel/IW/Metoc O can't deliver. That often can't be helped, sometimes because there is too much data to try and pick out the important stuff because of inexperience (Intel O's attached to squadrons are usually on their first tour), the data may not be available for mass consumption (too technical or too classified) and sometimes we just don't have it. Frustration ensues when you ask for info and all you get is a shrug and "I don't know".
Another big reason that there is some disdain towards info-types is that they don't 'know their role'. Simply put, they believe their piece of the pie is more important than others, including operational types. Outsiders and many new Intel/IW types think that they are going to be some kind of James Bond/Jason Bourne type running around the world handling highly secret stuff that incredibly vital to national security. The reality is far different, where you mainly search the internets for the info needed and then brief powerpoint with CNN/Al Jazeera beating you too the punch most of the time, on top of being the butt of jokes and shennanigans in the wardroom while trying to balance the mess fund ordering t-shirts, mugs and going away plaques. Later on in your career you might have the opportunity to do some really cool stuff, but you will almost always be in some support role where you merely a cog in the machine. The often slow realization that none of it is dry martinis, targeted assassinations or handling Col Penkovsky is a hard thing for some to swallow.
The problems start to arise when Intel/IW/IT types think that there job is more important than the people they are supposed to support. Being told that the information/capability you request is not necessary because in their judgement it is not. Playing 'I got a secret' when it isn't necessary is grating too, even when classification allows it. And claiming that they are 'warfighters' too, which can only be true if you stretched the definition to it's breaking point. Basically, thinking that their Intel/IW/IT job is more important than the people they are supporting, ie. failing to 'know their role'.
This is not to say that most Intel/IW/IT/Metoc officers are bad, the vast majority of them are good guys/gals who do their job well. But there is a significant minority that often gets too big for their britches, thinking that they know better than the people they are supporting. Sometimes they may be right, idiocy knows no designator or rank among others, but they aren't there to make the big decisions on operations, they are there to provide a service to those who need it. Lots of people want to be special, get a gold star and be an important person in the fight and while info types are very important, they are almost always on the sidelines and not on the field. Those who are IDC would be wise to remember that, dominating 'warfare' pin and all.
It all boils down to "We do Pick-your-INT because we have a Navy, not the other way around". As a former URL (yet still well inside the intelligence side of the house) now turned IW, my primary complaint with the 16XX crowd has always been that all too often the impression they/we leave is that we conduct operations to collect intelligence...the big database in the sky guys may think that way, but my allegiance will always be with the folks closer to the action.
I fully understand that sometimes we need to keep things secret (ULTRA comes to mind as an example) that may negatively impact the short term for the long term gain, but we better be damn sure the benefit to the long term is really worth it.
As 16XX's, we also need to keep in mind that just because this current war is intelligence-heavy (ie hard to find but relatively easy to kill once found) it will not always be so. Like it or not, we are supporting elements...critical, sure...but supporting nonetheless. And if we want to gain street cred, we need to get much better at answering the "so what" part of the question after we pull the back the secret squirrel curtain and pass our information/intelligence on to the trigger puller crowd.
As far as the warfare device...I guess I'm okay with it. I'd prefer we hadn't lumped 4 disparate communities under one pin...but I'll get over it. What will kill my soul is when I have to wear it over my NFO wings...
I fully understand that sometimes we need to keep things secret (ULTRA comes to mind as an example) that may negatively impact the short term for the long term gain, but we better be damn sure the benefit to the long term is really worth it.
As 16XX's, we also need to keep in mind that just because this current war is intelligence-heavy (ie hard to find but relatively easy to kill once found) it will not always be so. Like it or not, we are supporting elements...critical, sure...but supporting nonetheless. And if we want to gain street cred, we need to get much better at answering the "so what" part of the question after we pull the back the secret squirrel curtain and pass our information/intelligence on to the trigger puller crowd.
As far as the warfare device...I guess I'm okay with it. I'd prefer we hadn't lumped 4 disparate communities under one pin...but I'll get over it. What will kill my soul is when I have to wear it over my NFO wings...