Page 6 of 6

Re: IW Name Change

PostPosted: Wed Sep 21, 2016 12:27 am
by yoshi
don't see any monumental contributions, either, but still think it's valuable. it may be written one hundred times before, but if we are still discussing it, reading about it, and people are still writing about it - what does that say? Perhaps the approach (still) isn't correct or hasn't yet taken hold, or those outside the community can't understand Information Warfare and how good at it we are. I've seen more than a few of us become quite frustrated and struggle to understand why those outside the IW community "just don't get it" or how they "just don't understand." Sometimes operations or amazing things are confused with value. I think this article seeks to address the value proposition of Information Warfare. We've done very well in a few areas, particularly in the areas mentioned earlier, and also in SPECOPs. But, as a whole, I don't think we've moved the ball much outside of our circles. I've seen briefs to our Flags about how a unit or even group was moved to support a specific effort for us, as though it's an accomplishment bringing value. For comparison, I've never seen a brief to URL flags about how a unit or group was moved to support SUW, AW, AW, etc. They perceive tasks required to conduct warfare as necessary to bring value, not as the actual endstate, or value. For Information Warfare to be understood universally within the Navy, it must share the same purpose as the other warfare areas inside operations. We are really, really good at doing this at the LT and below level (subs, air, surface), but suffer beyond O5. We don't have many O6s outside of the beltway, and those we do have are poorly placed: a prisoner of 2/39 rather than being able to really influence the N00, the N1, the N3, the N7. It's killing us.

My apologies if you were disappointed in your quest for insightful solutions/recommendations. I think the solutions are within us and will be found by modeling what IW is. Definitions on paper aren't as powerful as what is defined in action. Perhaps this is why "we had issues defining what we did as IWOs in a meaningful and lasting way for years". Our present definition will suffice for as long as we are of value... those other than ourselves. I don't think you are callous and I appreciate the discourse. It's important to trade broadsides of ideas and think differently. If everyone agreed with the charted course and everyone thought the same thing we would only be as good as one person/mind. As Patton said, "If everyone's thinking the same thing, some isn't thinking." Too often in our world there is no room for voicing one's views, primarily because everyone guards against their seniors perceiving them as the fly in the ointment, a continual dissenter, etc, etc. I heard someone refer collectively to a friend and I as "company men, unable to disagree". I chuckled because, while I understand the point, pretty sure there are a few senior folks who would instead use the description "rage against the machine". Don't think they pay us to agree; but, some DO eventually "pick us" to agree.