That makes sense. I'll be curious to see whether it happens though. I remember as a Nuke (almost a decade ago) there was a lot of talk about Nuke ETs, EMs, and MMs all becoming one rate and, as far as I know, they are all still separate. Also, from what I've read, IPs, IWs, and INTEL all perform very different functions, so I would be surprised if they were replaced with a single "IDC Officer" designator. If anything, I read a report recently by a LCDR intelligence officer stressing the need for specialization, as opposed to generalization, among the naval intelligence community. He made some very valid points about the changing nature of warfare as compared with the singular-target mentality that formed during the Cold War. Instead of changing jobs, commands, etc. every few years, we would adopt a focus and develop upon that focus for the rest of our naval careers. The LCDR mentioned that the Navy depends too much on outside consultants for detailed information on a target, geographic area, terrorist organization, etc. because naval officers don't traditionally work long enough in any one position to specialize or develop an expertise. He said that the only thing currently holding us back from specialization is that present promotion potential favors officers with a broad range of assignments/experience. I can understand both sides of the argument since specialization is important to the task at hand but generalization is important to developing officers with a broad range of knowledge for strategic planning conducted at the higher echelons.
