das wrote:... we do have pockets of expertise and "familiarity" with IO.
COMEVIL wrote:What is the requirement for IO work at the tactical, operational, and strategic level?
COMEVIL wrote:How much of this is a joint problem vice Navy problem?
COMEVIL wrote:Is there a need for the Navy to source those requirements?
Sum1 wrote:I can only speak for my COCOM, but the J39 is usually the second person the J3 wants in the room (the first being the guys pulling triggers). I won't push too much into tactical IO, but at the strategic level there are real IO requirements as warfighters. We can argue if the Navy has a play (I think we have to), and then further argue if IW should be doing it (I think we're best positioned at the moment), but the reality is the COCOM fights and (hopefully) wins wars in the joint environment. At the strategic and operational levels and whether we like it or not, that includes the Navy. When a COCOM sends an EXORD with specific planning tasks to service components, they expect that someone there knows IO well enough to plan effectively. Reality is that's not always the case.
Sum1 wrote:How do we fight wars? Are we willing to make an informed decision to let another service plan our IO activities? Isn't a Navy problem then also a joint problem, and vice versa?
Sum1 wrote:The Navy does if they want a seat at the planning table. Right now it's largely SWOs, Aviators, Submariners, SEALS, etc, and others who traditional reside in the J3/N3 who go to places like JIOWC or do the heavy lifting planning on Major staffs. I see this akin to letting the Air Force plan all our air operations.
Sum1 wrote:I think we're best positioned at the moment...
COMEVIL wrote:Sum1 wrote:How do we fight wars? Are we willing to make an informed decision to let another service plan our IO activities? Isn't a Navy problem then also a joint problem, and vice versa?
Honestly not following. We fight wars in a joint environment. Joint staff enjoy the strengths of each service. If IO is a strength of another service so be it. There are plenty of examples of this in other areas -- strategic airlift, satellite communications, expeditionary construction, etc.
COMEVIL wrote:So assuming everything you have said is accurate, and that we have a gap in IO planning at the Fleet level (that is what you are saying, right? Have you observed that with the subordinate Fleet in your AOR?) then what is your proposed solution?
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest