20yearman wrote:Based on the O-5 Command Results it appears that Cyber has overtaken all other IW functions as THE primary deciding factor for selection. Unless I'm mistaken ALL selectees were in a Cyber-specific billet prior to selection (in addition to tours in the Ft. Meade area). Is this sending the correct message to those O-5's who take traditional "hard" (non-cyber) operationally focused jobs (re: # Fleet, Detailer, DIWC, etc.)? Has Cyber taken over all other IW jobs with regards to professional growth?
yoshi wrote:First, it depends upon which community you are discussing. I'm going to assume you are talking about the IW community, as the IP, Intel, and METOC communities picked plenty of people with at-sea traditional operational experience.
I don't think anyone is "sending a message" with the selects. It's just today's reality reflecting what the IW community is today (precept and other promo/admin board guidance). The locations allowing opportunity for hard break outs are almost exclusively in the NIOCs, FCC/C10F, or CYBERCOM (with one, perhaps two exceptions). The IW community has a low level of representation on the Fleet staffs and most of it is insular (N2/39 shops, very little else). Thus, the best hard breakouts supporting command selection are going to come from Ft Meade, where there are a ton of O4s-O6s. With respect to cyber being the IW community's a priori effort - that's pretty clear and shouldn't surprise anyone (read the strategic guidance, look at billet distribution). Today's IW community focus is more cyber service, less sea service (again: guidance, billets). This bothers some (including me, to an extent). Like it or not, though, cyber has to be the answer, as the IW community has ceded its role and influence in traditional (other than cyber) Fleet/Navy operations to the other IDC communities (CSG IPs as D/IWCs, employment outside of skill sets are examples). Thus, it makes sense for O5 Commander selects (which, so far, is de facto O6 selection) to have held a "cyber" billet title.
yoshi wrote:The locations allowing opportunity for hard break outs are almost exclusively in the NIOCs, FCC/C10F, or CYBERCOM (with one, perhaps two exceptions).
yoshi wrote:The IW community has a low level of representation on the Fleet staffs and most of it is insular (N2/39 shops, very little else). Thus, the best hard breakouts supporting command selection are going to come from Ft Meade, where there are a ton of O4s-O6s.
yoshi wrote:With respect to cyber being the IW community's a priori effort - that's pretty clear and shouldn't surprise anyone (read the strategic guidance, look at billet distribution).
yoshi wrote:Today's IW community focus is more cyber service, less sea service (again: guidance, billets). This bothers some (including me, to an extent).
yoshi wrote:Like it or not, though, cyber has to be the answer, as the IW community has ceded its role and influence in traditional (other than cyber) Fleet/Navy operations to the other IDC communities (CSG IPs as D/IWCs, employment outside of skill sets are examples).
yoshi wrote:Thus, it makes sense for O5 Commander selects (which, so far, is de facto O6 selection) to have held a "cyber" billet title.
yoshi wrote:We will have to agree to disagree on much of the rest. I have a hard time believing 1 of 3 hard break outs at Fleet staffs are viewed as positively as 1 of 8+ at a NIOC. I know someone who broke out hard (in the IDC) and soft as the number one at a TYCOM (not IDFOR), two years running and they didn't screen for O5 milestone.
yoshi wrote:What has changed in the billet structure in the last 10, 20, 30 years?!?! Well, the advent of cyber billets, that's what. We repurposed a ton of billets (SIGINT to cyber) and our OPA has grown (ref IDC detailer brief on NPC page), particularly at O4 and O5. That OPA growth was for cyber. We cut staff at USFFC/2nd Fleet when 2nd fleet went away (still trying to do the mission today) from around 30 officers to 18 (if memory serves).
yoshi wrote:CYBERCOM was created and we put a lot of our billets there, and also at FCC/C10F. How are we doing all of this cyber if the billets haven't changed?! Maybe the endstrength/structure hasn't changed much, but we are dramatically and differently focused than we were 12 years ago. Yes, we are filling the billets we have on DIWC CSG staffs, as we always have, but its telling to note all the east coast carrier strike group D/IWCs are actually IPs (although they incorrectly call themselves IWCs (not IAW 3-56)), while the O-5 cryppie just sits there under them. Looking at IWOL, we have roughly 12 CDRs at sea and 24 LCDRs (that includes afloat staffs, SPECWAR). Compare that to the total number of LCDRs/CDRs and then to the number of cyber/cyber enabling billets at O4/O5. Also, our community doesn't "own" those billets, anyway, CNSL/CNSP does. Pretty sure if we could move some of them off the afloat staffs and put them in a NIOC or Ft Meade, we'd do it in a heartbeat (see earlier comments about O5 east coast D/IWC). I would say our support to tactical efforts has widened with the addition of NSW billets (primarily because of AFG/Iraq), but tactical Navy effort (at sea or NSW) isn't what our community views as its first mission (ref strategic guidance), particularly at O4 and above. I think we are much more about cyber service than sea service and the longevity of FCC is kind of connected to that idea. Finally, it doesn't really matter what a command is named. The more important feature is who runs it and what their priorities are.
Thanks for the exchange - look forward to your response:-)
Return to Detailer/Community Management Corner
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests