CDR and LCDR Milestone List (Updated as of 20 Aug 2018)

[Sum1]

https://www.milsuite.mil/book/servlet/J ... 20LIST.pdf

The updated CDR and LCDR milestone list was just posted. Frankly, I'm a bit surprised at some of the billets added and even more surprised at some of the billets removed.

BLUF: ALL billets at geographic combatant commands previously flagged as milestone have been removed. There are billets at the functional combatant commands (CYBERCOM, SOCOM, TRANSCOM, STRATCOM), but NONE at the other combatant commands. Why TRANSCOM gets three LCDR milestones and EUCOM/AFRICOM/INDOPACOM get zero is completely beyond me. The NSA/CSS STUTTGART job was added, as well. Maybe it pays dividends to EUCOM, but I was disappointed at the level support provided to the J3 at AFRICOM.

I'm hoping those in billets that were previously flagged as MS still get credit. It's a bit disingenuous to push people to MS billets (sometimes in places the people didn't want to go) and then pull the carpet out from under them. I'd expect leadership to do the Sailor right and grandfather.

Thoughts?

[yoshi]

actually ok with this list, although it's still too large for both ranks. and, still far too much credit given to FCC/C10F (given small impact to Naval operations) and way too much given to cyber. but, I suppose that is owing to our community confusing Title 50 operations with warfighting. It isn't. I do agree that geographic COCOMs are where the cyber war fighting would occur; thus, we should absolutely have billets there. In fact, most of our billets should probably be there instead of at FCC/C10F and CYBERCOM (this isn't up to us). It's a shame we built the community in a way which doesn't support warfighting. The FCC/C10F C2 structure is a separate and broken topic of conversation which only supports a single 3 star and remains disconnected from the Navy it should be wowing with value. The milestone list kind of shows why. Compare the number of FCC/C10F milestones against the number at 2nd Fleet, USFFC, and all Type Commands - it's no wonder we have O6 COs who don't know who to call when they have facilities issues and O5 COs who think we don't do EW.

all in all - there is no way for a community lead to win. no one is going to love everything on the list. other than being blinded by its own FCC/C10F "brilliance" (classic case of mirror imaging probably produced by the herd of O6s at Ft Meade - value long since lost for the Navy) and disregard for warfighting 4 stars, this one is ok. Can't really blame the folks that put the list together, though, given the insular viewpoint fashioned by the Maryland echo chamber. That is more the doing of the two Flags who recently retired.

[yoshi]

Think you'd appreciate this bit from CAPT Rielage, if you haven't already seen it:

"Similarly, we needed to align our command and control across warfare domains. We decided that fleet commanders could synchronize, command, and control all the tools of naval warfare—except in cyber. I am convinced that the separation between the fleet and its cyber support elements will come to be regarded in the same way the division between Admiral Thomas Kincaid’s Seventh Fleet and Admiral Bull Halsey’s Third Fleet is regarded today. At Leyte Gulf, the gap between Halsey and Kincaid nearly cost the landing force. Taffy Three saved the Philippine landings. In cyber, there was no Taffy Three for us. If cyber was decisive, it should have been part of the DNA of our operations, not the preserve of a separate chain of command too complex to allow synchronized operations. "

https://www.usni.org/magazines/proceedi ... acific-war

[Mjölnir]

I got a chance to look at the list today; overall am okay with it. Para 1 of the cover letter states that the billets are critical in support of Fleet operational and tactical SIGINT/cyber/IO requiremetns servicing afloat and ashore Fleet and Combatant Commander staffs. It does look like Fleet and (national) operational billets dominate the lists

I can't state why geographic commanders were removed and functional commanders retained. I see on the O4 list that my previous MS billet is no longer there (which I think is appropriate -- and wonder if my opinion when asked by the previous CO influenced that). I have never been stationed at C10F, but would hope that the senior command for our mission would be on there (is it too much? not sure.) I would imagine that part of the Maryland / Ft. Meade-centricness of the billets is based on where very senior CW folks are reaching to / touching to get answers / results etc. ... not sure.

Concur on the hope that personnel who are currently incumbent in deleted billets still get credit based on the previous list

[Sum1]

Well, if working cyber planning at a geographic combatant command isn't MS worthy, then I have no idea what is. The job was joint, interagency, and required you to be intimately familiar with both operational and strategic levels of war as you worked to integrate cyber into existing operations AND fought for the proper authorities to execute those operations. Not to say doing cyber key terrain stuff at TRANSCOM or sitting in an ISR planner job at 10th fleet isn't important, but come on.

This might be my "sky is falling" assessment, but I wonder if this portends the official realignment of ALL cyber missions from GCCs to CYBERCOM. I would lose my damn mind, but I saw time and time again as CYBERCOM sought to reassert their dominance over the global cyber mission, even if that meant impacting regional (GCC) operations and expertise.

[yoshi]

Our O6s and above don't see it this way, I don't think. Their career path wasn't fashioned in a way which inculcated primacy of Fleet and warfighting breadth. CYBERCOM will always seek to realign everything it possibly can, just as any other organization would. CYBERCOM and its service components are in competition the SERVICES and GCC. The C2 is bad - disfunctional and destructive. Not too many of our folks view it that way, given their backgrounds, billet concentrations, etc. You stand where you sit, I guess.

[navyguy2]

I'm with everyone else in that I'm unsure of why the COCOM billets aren't on the Milestone but from the cover letter it appears they didn't meet the criteria of supporting our core war fighting areas; I know 2 of the AFRICOM billets did not. I know many don't see it this way (me included) but C10F is a numbered Fleet and on par with the others albeit with a much different AOR; looked at from that perspective it doesn't seem so far fetched to have a number of milestone's there. Many will argue that C10F isn't on par with the other #FLTs, and they're right in many regards, but they still have quite a bit of responsibility to the navy service components.

[Sum1]

I'm with everyone else in that I'm unsure of why the COCOM billets aren't on the Milestone but from the cover letter it appears they didn't meet the criteria of supporting our core war fighting areas; I know 2 of the AFRICOM billets did not. I know many don't see it this way (me included) but C10F is a numbered Fleet and on par with the others albeit with a much different AOR; looked at from that perspective it doesn't seem so far fetched to have a number of milestone's there. Many will argue that C10F isn't on par with the other #FLTs, and they're right in many regards, but they still have quite a bit of responsibility to the navy service components.

Yea, two of the billets at AFRICOM definitely didn't, but I'm not sure why the EUCOM billet (Cyber Planner) and the 3rd AFRICOM billet (Cyber Planner) wouldn't have met the mark.

In any case, with new leadership comes new priorities and new ways of doing things. It'll be interesting to see where we go from here.

[yoshi]

"didn't meet the criteria of supporting our core war fighting areas". Yeah, if only we had a 3 star capable of lobbying to ensure the COCOMs were supporting our community's core war fighting area.
Anything wrong there?

Two things:
1) COCOMs are the top level operational commanders with ALL Warfare areas under their commands. They are supported entities and deserve support from The Navy's Cryptologic Community. The more we retract from COCOMs and their 95+% warfighting, the less relevant we are to COCOMs and other commanders (less relevant to warfighting). Our Flags and CAPTS must begin to comprehend this. If, as an alternative to warfighting relevance, you are going to survive through what is provided to your service, you must build value for your service (as other components have done, found elsewhere on this forum).
2) we do have a 3 star capable of molding/influencing billets and their usage. Otherwise, what good are Admirals? For operations? Please - Not hardly. I don't believe we understand the purpose, utlity, and value of senior leadership or even the purpose of our existence. We keep talking about operations as though our community owned some. Newsflash: we don't and neither does any other community. Commanders owns operations. Hence, 10th Fleet owns some, but 10th Fleet is not the Cryptologic community. To community detriment, we have a really, really, really hard time understanding this.

[Sum1]

"didn't meet the criteria of supporting our core war fighting areas". Yeah, if only we had a 3 star capable of lobbying to ensure the COCOMs were supporting our community's core war fighting area.
Anything wrong there?

Two things:
1) COCOMs are the top level operational commanders with ALL Warfare areas under their commands. They are supported entities and deserve support from The Navy's Cryptologic Community. The more we retract from COCOMs and their 95+% warfighting, the less relevant we are to COCOMs and other commanders (less relevant to warfighting). Our Flags and CAPTS must begin to comprehend this. If, as an alternative to warfighting relevance, you are going to survive through what is provided to your service, you must build value for your service (as other components have done, found elsewhere on this forum).
2) we do have a 3 star capable of molding/influencing billets and their usage. Otherwise, what good are Admirals? For operations? Please - Not hardly. I don't believe we understand the purpose, utlity, and value of senior leadership or even the purpose of our existence. We keep talking about operations as though our community owned some. Newsflash: we don't and neither does any other community. Commanders owns operations. Hence, 10th Fleet owns some, but 10th Fleet is not the Cryptologic community. To community detriment, we have a really, really, really hard time understanding this.

I'd argue that none of the fleets really "own" operations. The CCMD does, which means unless you're chopping forces to the CCMDs or providing direct support, you're doing Title 50 intel work and worthless to the military commander.