WHY WE NEED IO......

Re: WHY WE NEED IO......

Postby Sum1 » Tue Jan 10, 2017 10:55 pm

COMEVIL wrote:
Sum1 wrote:
COMEVIL wrote:
Who is the target and what is the desired endstate? Does the Navy specifically have a role? What do we uniquely contribute that other forces cannot?

IO campaigns are typically targeted against people. Naval Forces, beyond NSW and NECC, don't typically interact with the local population in the way that ground troops do. So what exactly would a Naval force contribute to IO beyond broadcasts and pamphlets?


That question really needs to be asked while taking into account the phases of conflict and what your specific objectives are. Additionally, the question needs some kind of context because the implications at the tactical level are vastly different than the implications at the strategic or operational levels.

From a tactical level influencing individuals (KLE) or target audiences (MISO), the interaction with a population is important. What about virtual interactions through social media? Did we send a tactical message when we sent a couple Navy combatants to do counter-piracy in GOA? Why is a low altitude overpass sometimes in the ROE for the escalation of force? Would we do that if we assessed the target audience wouldn't see that "message" as credible? What about maritime capabilities leveraged to delivery other types of messaging? At the operational/strategic levels, what kind of message does our government send when they park a couple of CSGs off the coast of a foreign adversary? How is that action synchronized with SLEs between senior government officials of two or more nations? Does that synchronization amplify the intended message?

We can provide smart, strategic, critical thinkers who can help translate foreign policy into military strategy, which the services then use as guidance to do their jobs. At the very tip of the most pointy spear (or the deepest bowls of the most remotely operated warship) this stuff may seem inconsequential in the moment, but we (the U.S.) isn't in this for the short game. We NEED to be in that conversation because to ignore it means we continue operating in our stovepipe of excellence. If Information is really a warfighting domain and we consider it important in today's military, then we represent TWO elements of national power that absolutely must be leveraged in constructive ways.


All credible, important work. By why WE, as in the CWO community? Other than a misstep labeling us IW for a few years, we are plenty engaged in our current mission set -- SIGINT, Cyber, EW. And we can fill all of those jobs as it is. So why WE? Without additionally manpower, we shouldn't even consider it. Pretty certain, in fact, we are divesting for this very reason.


Great question. Before I give you my initial take on it, I would like to point out another misstep that's gone on for as long as I can remember (and I'd love to hear from others in longer, as well). This misstep is taking our unique skillsets and shoving us under N2/N6 when two out of our three main skillsets are quite clearly N3/J3 functions. Now, if you buy that, then it becomes clear that as IWC members we are probably best aligned to merge those technical, analytical, and operational considerations across all phases and levels of warfare. I couldn't help but smile today when someone chimed in during RADM Filipowski's Q&A about our over-reliance on technology. I had been thinking the EXACT same thing at that very moment, and had been about to jump in to assert that where we most often fail isn't technologically... we fail to manage the information that the technology gives us access to and we fail to smartly allocate limited resources (time, people, money, etc.). If every single one of us isn't questioning processes and looking for better ways to manage resources, then we're going to fail, even if we have the best tech and know-how money can buy. Someone has to be multi-faceted in the IWC. Leaving it to the flag deck isn't the right answer. I don't see Intel, Metoc or Space doing it. And for us to NOT do it means we leave it up to a terminal O-5 URL dude to do it for us.

The manpower issue you bring up is another hot button issue. I can say that all we keep hearing at the CCMD is how CYBERCOM needs more people and more money, but they can't tell us how they plan on using those scarce resources to support GCC requirements. They have CYBERCOM requirements. I'd argue that if your organization can't tie resource allocation decisions back to GCC/SOCOM warfighting requirements (phase 0 included), then you are wasting money. I was sitting in a room with a CYBERCOM LNO, NSA LNO, ARCYBER LNO, and half a dozen multi-service O-5's in a meeting not too long ago and, exasperatedly, asked to see the CMT's CAPES and LIMS doc. What the hell should a CMT be able to do? When was the GCC asked to inform the nominal team capabilities? What is the REQUIREMENT? Dude, you should have seen the looks on their faces. The NSA guy (former TAO'er, national mission team dude) just smiled at me. No one could say such a document exists. How do you man, train, and equip to a mission you haven't fully defined? I mean, that's planning 101. Conduct some mission analysis, maybe get some OR guys in a room to help you go through some COA models.

Sorry, I went off the deep end there for a second.
  • 0

Sum1
Experienced Member
 
Posts: 882
Joined: Wed Jun 11, 2008 1:43 am
Reputation: 13

Re: WHY WE NEED IO......

Postby 20yearman » Tue Jan 10, 2017 11:36 pm

Have to agree with COMEVIL, IO is no longer in the CW capabilities portfolio (thank God!) as codified by VADM Tighe's guidance and the name change from IW to CW. The CW Community floundered way too long in pretending we did IO but failed to follow-up with necessary training, doctrine, NWP, etc; moving away from it was the right move. Also our Community's direct Customer is the Fleet (to include #FLTs), not CCMD's - we provide capabilities based on Fleet requirements so correlating any of our Naval CW capabilities to a Joint requirement isnt necessarily the correct strategy; each service brings it's unique capability to a Joint fight.

The Cyber community is a mess right now, they're trying to build the contraption while flying it so their processes are still being developed. With that said, a Capes/Lims brief on Cyber is useless as most Cyber capabilities are developed for specific targets and require the big three before being a valid capability (Access, Capability, Authorities) with the 1st two being the hardest IMO.
  • 0

20yearman
Registered Member
 
Posts: 23
Joined: Tue Nov 25, 2014 4:42 am
Reputation: 0

Re: WHY WE NEED IO......

Postby Cryptonite » Wed Jan 11, 2017 5:04 am

All great points everyone. Just a few observations:

1. As 20yearman pointed out, Our name shifted back to its roots; however, before the name change we were still operating in the Information Environment (IE) as Cryppies.

2. I get that our direct customer is the Fleet, but what about the Fleet of 2030+. Technology is definitely not the end all be all, but lets face it, the exponential growth curve for emerging technology has compounded and doubled. This will result in our end customers relying heavily on as Admiral Parode would define as: "Content, Spectrum, Protocol". I believe we are addressing the Spectrum piece via the EMW initiatives, and the Protocol Piece via Cyber. However, we have yet to address the Content piece both defensively and offensively unless you want to have a discussion about OPSEC...........

Cheers
  • 0

User avatar
Cryptonite
Registered Member
 
Posts: 20
Joined: Tue May 26, 2009 6:42 am
Location: VA
Reputation: 0

Re: WHY WE NEED IO......

Postby yoshi » Wed Jan 11, 2017 7:18 am

WE are still saying we do IO in all of our command names and in our billets - not exactly divested. Took a read through the IWC tri-fold. It's clear we still claim to do IO (using everyone else's definition). We even modeled the definition of IW after the definition of IO ("The integrated employment of Navy’s information-based capabilities (Communications,Networks, Intelligence, Oceanography, Meteorology,Cryptology, Electronic Warfare, Cyberspace Operations, and Space) to degrade, deny, deceive, or destroy an enemy’s information environment or to enhance the effectiveness of friendly operations"). Also, two of the 'IW Strategy Framing Concepts' are directly related to IO: "Align and translate smoothly to Joint Doctrine, IO, and Joint Electromagnetic Spectrum Operations" and "Align with all DoD Information-related strategies". We even specifically indicated IO IRCs, like cyber, JEMSO, etc. To say such assertions are mixed messages is accurate to all but those who don't understand or disregard the IWC message. Is there not a link between what others know IO to be and the type of stuff we do? If there is some connection - who should be leading/managing it? It's almost like we believe our information based capabilities somehow don't exist in the same information environment defined by joint and service specific IO doctrine. In the end, it doesn't really matter who does IO - someone will. The COCOMs are going to keep on using their J39s to determine what we in the Navy wind up doing at the Fleet and below level, as well as what the AF and Army do as components under that same COCOM. I personally would prefer someone Navy (from any community) be relevant in those determinations. I'm not sure how else the maritime service can ensure it is used sufficiently, efficiently, and properly (appropriately relevant) by the COCOMs. That doesn't have to be us, it can easily be someone else. But, it should be done.

To say numbered fleets are our customers, vice COCOMs, is an interesting perspective. All fleet requirements are generated from joint requirements, and our capabilities are specifically mapped to support/nest with a joint effort (think DRRS-J, DRRS-N congruence). Also, in looking at our numbered fleet billet presence relative to other communities, someone on the outside could easily infer our customers need very little from us. The biggest direct customer we have is C10F. The irony is C10F - at the end of the day - is a service provider to a different numbered Fleet commander (usually a service component contribution to the Joint COCOM mission). Interesting to note we have detachments in the US reporting to the 3 star via WAR on missions carried out in CENTCOM under a different numbered Fleet - not sure why unless those missions belong to both C10F and the other numbered fleets(?). Do the other numbered fleets and CNO see it that way? Our collective community understanding is unique inside our community/C10F and a little different than the Navy/joint understanding, I think. Believe it's our role to resolve, mitigate, and translate those differences to the rest of the Navy and other services (maintaining customer relationship).

Also- don't think we must provide something uniquely Navy CWO specific to an effort before we should be involved (cyber comes to mind immediately). There is no certain criteria for topicality compelling the CWO community to be engage in, or disengage from, certain efforts. We're all one team, and if we can help in some way, no matter our flavor or where we are planted, we should. Once acknowledged, this fact helps advance the discussion past the contentious and into the practical.
  • 0

yoshi
Experienced Member
 
Posts: 377
Joined: Thu Jul 10, 2008 5:10 am
Reputation: 15

Re: WHY WE NEED IO......

Postby Sum1 » Wed Jan 11, 2017 11:54 am

yoshi wrote:Interesting to note we have detachments in the US reporting to the 3 star via WAR on missions carried out in CENTCOM under a different numbered Fleet - not sure why unless those missions belong to both C10F and the other numbered fleets(?). Do the other numbered fleets and CNO see it that way? Our collective community understanding is unique inside our community/C10F and a little different than the Navy/joint understanding, I think. Believe it's our role to resolve, mitigate, and translate those differences to the rest of the Navy and other services (maintaining customer relationship).


THIS. Everything else you said I completely agree with, but the above I think is particularly important. I've personally experienced a significant amount of tension between CYBERCOM and the GCCs (which filters down to the service components and the force providers) on this very topic. The UCP clearly describes the responsibilities levied upon the combatant commands, and as a joint force provider, the Navy service component has to do their part. As Yoshi stated, I want at least someone from the Navy at the table when decisions are being made on how we're to be employed, and I want someone who understands our stuff AND is familiar enough with IO to ensure we aren't wasting limited resources and (potentially) Sailors' lives.
  • 0

Sum1
Experienced Member
 
Posts: 882
Joined: Wed Jun 11, 2008 1:43 am
Reputation: 13

Re: WHY WE NEED IO......

Postby 20yearman » Thu Jan 12, 2017 1:13 am

"The COCOMs are going to keep on using their J39s to determine what we in the Navy wind up doing at the Fleet and below level, as well as what the AF and Army do as components under that same COCOM. I personally would prefer someone Navy (from any community) be relevant in those determinations."

Not sure I understand this statement; the CCDR's Navy Component provides planning/operational input to Naval operations within the CCDR AO. The J39 planning doesn't happen in a vacuum, normally Components are provided opportunities to participate or at a minimum chop on any CONOP utilizing that Component's capabilities. Our capabilities are consolidated into the overall JFMCC plan provided to the CCDR J3.
  • 0

20yearman
Registered Member
 
Posts: 23
Joined: Tue Nov 25, 2014 4:42 am
Reputation: 0

Re: WHY WE NEED IO......

Postby COMEVIL » Thu Jan 12, 2017 1:26 am

Also, still not seeing why WE need to do this vice SOMEONE in the Navy.

I personally think WE, the CW Community, has our work cut out for us as it is...
  • 0

User avatar
COMEVIL
Experienced Member
 
Posts: 791
Joined: Mon Jun 15, 2009 11:54 am
Reputation: 33

Re: WHY WE NEED IO......

Postby 20yearman » Thu Jan 12, 2017 2:22 am

Concur!
  • 0

20yearman
Registered Member
 
Posts: 23
Joined: Tue Nov 25, 2014 4:42 am
Reputation: 0

Re: WHY WE NEED IO......

Postby yoshi » Thu Jan 12, 2017 5:40 am

Doesn't have to be us doing it, if we're fine with the Army or maybe a SWO (if we're lucky) determining how and when Navy and other service information related capabilities are going to be used, planned, and deconflicted inside that COCOM's AOR.

We definitely have our work cut out for us, no doubt it. As warfighting and policy are/will be done inside the COCOM, may be important to ensure all that effort/work is directly connected at the COCOM. Right now, much of our community's connection is heavily leveraged through, and modulated by, CYBERCOM (up and over, vice inherent). Works now, at least from our perspective inside of CYBERCOM/FCC, but lots of question marks on the other side of a CYBERCOM split out and a new Commander.
  • 0

yoshi
Experienced Member
 
Posts: 377
Joined: Thu Jul 10, 2008 5:10 am
Reputation: 15

Re: WHY WE NEED IO......

Postby Sum1 » Thu Jan 12, 2017 10:22 am

yoshi wrote:Doesn't have to be us doing it, if we're fine with the Army or maybe a SWO (if we're lucky) determining how and when Navy and other service information related capabilities are going to be used, planned, and deconflicted inside that COCOM's AOR.

We definitely have our work cut out for us, no doubt it. As warfighting and policy are/will be done inside the COCOM, may be important to ensure all that effort/work is directly connected at the COCOM. Right now, much of our community's connection is heavily leveraged through, and modulated by, CYBERCOM (up and over, vice inherent). Works now, at least from our perspective inside of CYBERCOM/FCC, but lots of question marks on the other side of a CYBERCOM split out and a new Commander.


I can tell you that while CYBERCOM/FCC's perspective is it's working, most of the combatant commands do NOT think it's working (DCO isn't bad, though). One recent example is the re-write going on for one of our major EXORDs. Every relevant CCMD non-concurred (again) because CYBERCOM edits essentially remove any requirements to seek approval/concurrence from the GCCs when CYBERCOM wants to conduct an operation. Not cool. The CCDR's very valid concern is any negative effects or unforeseen issues becomes THEIR problem in THEIR theater, and so therefore they want a seat at the table. CYBERCOM likes to say things like "we're basing our organization off the SOCOM model," but I don't think they understand that SOCOM does not take that kind of operational role. I think someone thought that likening themselves to SOCOM would give them free reign to be digital cowboys, but they didn't really think through the rest of the C2 relationships the TSOCs have.

We're way off topic now, but what I'd like to see is a true COCOM-like organization at CYBERCOM (aka complete removal of all operational responsibilities) and the creation of cyber components OPCON to each of the combatant commands. Keep your national teams to do all the stuff they're supposed to do, and align other forces appropriately (can probably now really invoke the SOCOM/TSOC model). CYBERCOM gets to provide strategic guidance, organization, resources, and authorities just how the UCP says it should, and the GCCs get fully integrated cyber support tailored to their respective requirements and fully taskable.

There are problems with my proposal, but I don't think the current model is working. It worked to get training and resources moving, but now we're at a stalemate operationally. I feel like 90% of what we do now outside of straight DODIN/DCO is just to say we did SOMETHING, or it's working on projects that the TOPIs are already well-entrenched in and not really relevant to our title 10 responsibilities.

As far as the question about WHO should be doing the Navy's IO work, I would ask who is currently doing it right now, and whether or not there is someone better equipped to carry that burden. A portion of it is done by URL people on their disassociated tour (SWOs/Aviators to JIOWC) who will never touch it again. Another portion is done by us (despite our advertised desire to divest) as we sit in assignments within N39s across the globe. It's also done by an entire command dedicated to it in Norfolk and run by us. We have jobs that require some IO experience, even if the job isn't specifically sitting in the N39 (e.g. DIWC, CRC). If we really want to hot potato this then we need to clarify that to the workforce by removing those jobs from the LCDR/CDR milestone lists and by doing the JMD/manning doc work to change it. If we all agree that we are stretched thin and we "don't do IO" then the obvious next step is to ACTUALLY stop doing it. Unfortunately, that hasn't materialized, and if we are assigned those jobs then we need to do the Navy and the taxpayer justice by putting trained, knowledgeable people equipped to succeed in those positions.
  • 0

Sum1
Experienced Member
 
Posts: 882
Joined: Wed Jun 11, 2008 1:43 am
Reputation: 13

PreviousNext

Return to Detailer/Community Management Corner

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

cron