We know we to exploit and understand how the adversary, or a potential adversary, commands and controls his/her forces. We know we need to be able to disrupt, deny, deceive, degrade and if necessary destroy their C2 as well. What do you need to do that? You need a cadre of people and tools that lets you exploit their C2 and then act against it. So maybe we need not worry too much about what we call it, but ensure we have the people and tools to do this.

I am hopeful and confident the leadership understands this and will act to make sure we have this capability. It may not be a pretty process getting there and we may not like what it’s called, but in the end I think we’ll be capable of doing what we need to do.

I never meant to imply there were not thousands of dedicated cryptologists still hard at work. I was implying, if not outright stating, that they and their skills have been largely ignored since COMNAVSECGRU ceased to exist. Cyber is sexy these days, and that’s where the budget money is, I get that. But, while cyber is a valid and vital mission area, it should not be pursued at the expense of traditional (legacy has a negative connotation) mission areas that remain similarly vital to our national security. I believe the actions and words coming from the IW community have largely excluded traditional SIGINT, even while it remains a major responsibility of the community. And the plan to rename NETWARCOM as Cyber Forces Command, albeit unrealized, was a demonstration of that. You can call the damn thing anything you like, but when your actions and words alienate a good part of your community, you need to stop and rethink a few things.

@Bucherm – I think we could find a solution that includes both URL and LDO/CWO officers in the community. The community had in fact planned to eliminate LDOs; another signal that so-called legacy skills, by and in leaders, are under-valued (IMHO).

@Sean – My suggestion for URL certainly has nothing to do with being part of the “in crowd” – I couldn’t care less about that. It has to do with allowing an IW officer to ascend to the peak of the community – a community that should be led by an officer with a long career in the trade craft…not a ship, sub, or jet driver. IW is the only warfare community I can think of that is not led by a specialist its discipline.

There are pockets of people who will confidently state, “Yes, and with good reason.” Those very “Cyber Warriors” likely view the term cryptology as legacy speak referring to the RF spectrum and see that as a medium of yesteryear. Many others will argue their point by stating that the very essence of current/future successes in the cyber domain is founded upon the cryptologic skills we developed while working in the well-framed SIGINT domain. Personally, I believe that entire debate to be destructive. Instead I offer that the focus of the author’s discussion on that of the word he omitted…”Community.”

The answer to that question, most certainly deserves our attention. And rather than share how I might answer that at this time, I believe we all should choose to answer it through our collective action. By embracing this site (and others like it), contributing to the conversation, offering constructive recommendations to our seniors and truly listening to our juniors we will answer that very question on a daily basis.

Additionally, quite a few conversations of late seem to converge on the URL/RL topic. Please understand that the current definition of a URL Officer is “Officers of the Line in the U.S. Navy who are qualified to command ships and aviation squadrons.” I do not believe that is something to which we should aspire (reminds me of high schoolers more worried about being a part of the “in crowd” than about doing what is right), but I do believe the accession consideration that come with that label is something we have earned. I used to believe there were many reasons by being a URL is the right thing to do, however this job (Officer Community Manager) has taught me a great deal about how much overhead comes with being a URL. Until the false and overly subjective URL/RL/Staff barriers disappear and we talk about the definitions and how they need to change, lobbying to hop the fence and become a URL (part of the perceived “in crowd”) brings with it a great deal of overhead for which we are not prepared to embrace.

Great conversation and thanks to “Fouled Anchor” for making the time to initiate it!!

There are still superb cryptologic technicians (of every type) and special duty/limited duty/warrant officer cryptology officers performing cryptologic functions around the world (on the sea/beneath the sea/ashore/airborne). I think their value is well-understood and appreciated. The information warfare piece is a bit more difficult to quantify – and therefore, less understood or appreciated.

More on the transformation at http://therealnavy.com/Documents PROCEEDINGS%20Article%20-%20Transformational%20Phoenix.pdf

Right as I was getting out(2005-06) my ship was one of the first vessels on the west coast to have the SSEE INC E system installed on it. It was so new that SPAWAR was teaching the school on it in Charleston instead of the Navy at Corry Station. I remember the PM of the program telling us on the first day that the entire program thus far had spent less than a billion…and it was struggling to compete with programs like torpedoes, when we hadn’t fired a torpedo in anger since WW2! Signals just isn’t “sexy”, even in our post 9/11 “rah rah intelligence collection” world.

As for making IW officers unrestricted line, I don’t like the idea of excluding prior Mustangs from SIGWO(or SIWO, depending upon your ship) just for the heck of it. I think an CWO3(or O-2E) who spent 20 years in the business is probably more qualified than a j.o. out of school.