Putting this here, as I can't seem to log in to HYPO. Just my attempts to answer some of the questions you posed and why I think the way I do.
Could be wrong, but I think the Navy values CW O5 commanders and gets them to O6 more often than not, like somewhere “near” 100%, although here have been a couple AZ selects. I’m curious about why we felt it important to reinforce the value, given the success rate. With CW input to O6 convening order, command opportunity, and typical O5 zone size (to O6), seems like the language is trying to make O5 command screen de facto selection for O6. There is potential value in self-determination for any community and that is exactly what convening orders do. Our language points to generating CAPTs who are: post O5-Command STEM grads with deep foundational expertise gained typically at NIOCs and NSA staffs.
As for the questions, - not all IWC communities value command equally. If they did, we’d have more similar convening orders, just to start, or at least more common themes. Also, IWC not evolved enough to make IWC afloat valuable to Navy. Differing convening orders and community briefs highlight this. How can the Fleet Commander expect a consistent IWC afloat product from such differences? For flag, some communities have IWC afloat at the O6 level in their community brief (a generalist perspective). CW does not, but does have doctorate (specialization). So, here again, picking an 1860 is picking between dissimilar options - a disservice to the rest of the Navy. If the IWC afloat and 1860 concepts make any sense at all, which the URL Navy says it does, shouldn't the IWC focus on the common attributes required of IWC afloat and 1860? It seems like IWC communities are focused on THEIR individual operations rather than what the Navy needs collectively from the IWC. Also, not sure IWC has Flag numbers to support the 1860 ideal, at least in any credible way. Do we expect the Navy would not select an IP or CW for Flag for 5-6 years and risk losing all representation for that community at the Flag level?! Seriously doubt it. Correspondingly, I wonder if that possible outcome bothers any of the IWC communities who would be unaffected or even benefit from the misfortune of the other communities. Since URLs drove both concepts, IWC Afloat and the 1860 are clear indicators (to me, anyway) of what the non-IWC folks think the direction should be from the IWC folks. Yet, the 4 communities can’t seem to figure out the Navy isn’t interested in how awesome they each are inside their own organizations, but how awesome they could be together for the Navy outside of those organizations. It wants a general level of ability/support outside of COMETOCOM, ONI, NCTAMs, and C10F upon which the Fleet can rely. At this point, the likely candidate for making any sense of the IWC is IFOR, especially once the IWDC is stood up. Seems thus far to be beyond the ability of the IWC communities themselves, especially given how slaved each community is to its respective "operational" organization (C10F, ONI, etc). All this said, though, none of this is tragic. The Navy will fix it. Until its fixed, change is on the horizon, and will remain so, for the IWC and its communities. In fact, I think I feel some coming now.
A couple of questions for you: do our IWC commands hold the same level of responsibility as other non-IWC commands? Are our commands/commanders involved in equally consequential matters from the non-IWC Navy perspective? If not, why not? Our officers are very successful in command, arguably more so than non-IWC communities. To what would you attribute our level of success?