Author Archive
Fouled Anchor Intro: This post appears at the request of a leader in the Information Dominance Corps (IDC) and its Self-Synchronization Team, known as the IDCSync. While the subject may appear a bit specialized on the surface, the concept should have wide appeal, particularly for other relatively small communities. It should also be of interest to members of other warfare communities, arguably beneficiaries of the IDC’s specialized skills, and the IDC can only benefit from your comments and contributions.
I was compelled to ask before posting it how are the discussions, since many take place on Facebook, are they anonymous. Well, Facebook obviously isn’t, but many of the ideas shared via IDCSync appear in their weekly newsletter. They are submitted anonymously or come from other non-attributed sources. They may originate anywhere, from offline discussions to passing comments or unofficial gripes. It is proving an effective means of converting ideas which may have died in the passageway to discussions with a Flag audience.
There are many outlets for this type of post, but the IDCSync sought publication here, on your USNI Blog, because they understand that this blog has Navy-wide relevance and reach…much like the IDC itself.
********
Preamble
In the spirit of taking permission, demonstrating horizontal leadership, and active communication, the below post comes from the “Cloud of Collaboration” that is the Information Dominance Corps Self-Synchronization Team…
“Fostering Collaboration and Conversation Across the IDC”
They have never met in person, individually or as a group, yet they are a team in the strongest sense of the word. They volunteer their time. Their work is strictly unofficial. Their individual anonymity ensures only the group as a whole gains credit for their actions. Their collective efforts enable collaboration and ensure collective situational awareness across a newly-formed community. They are self-starters who believe in “making time” for the collective good of that community. They are the Information Dominance Corps (IDC) Self Synchronization Team.
The Chief of Naval Operations (CNO) ordered the establishment of the IDC on October 6, 2009. As outlined in OPNAV Instruction 5300.12, “the IDC has been created within the U.S. Navy to more effectively and collaboratively lead and manage a cadre of officers, enlisted, and civilian professionals who possess skills in information-intensive fields.” Those personnel include Information Professional (IP) officers and Information Technicians (IT), Information Warfare (IW) officers and Cryptologic Technicians (CT), Naval Intelligence officers and Intelligence Specialists (IS), Oceanography (OCEANO) officers and Aerographer’s Mates (AG), select members of the Space Cadre, and associated civilians. Under the leadership of the newly-established Deputy Chief of Naval Operations for Information Dominance (OPNAV N2/N6) the IDC encompasses more than 47,000 Navy professionals.
The IDC Self Synchronization effort — IDCsync for short — began shortly after the IDC was established with just one person and an idea: Find a way to bring the members of the IDC together using the latest in collaboration and communication tools.
That individual effort soon grew with the addition of a number of like-minded individuals. Today, the IDCsync Team is as diverse as the IDC itself with team members hailing from the ranks of active and reserve force enlisted and officer ranks, as well as civilian members of the community. Their guiding principle is “making time;” each member makes time to make their environment, their shipmates, and the entire IDC better.
The group’s greatest strength, beyond its members, is its unofficial status. This is a grassroots effort of IDC members working for and with other IDC members to move the community forward. As an independent initiative, the individual efforts of the team members are not constrained by anything more than the group’s collective approval. But as IDC members themselves, the group has a vested interest in forwarding a productive, collaborative dialogue aimed at improving the IDC as a whole.
Tools and Channels
To reach the members of the IDC, the IDCsync Team employs a number of channels drawn from the tools of the trade of the information age (and the IDC) — email (using a newsletter format), the web, and various social media venues.
Most of the effort is concentrated on the IDC Self Synchronization Facebook site, which currently serves over 2,000 members. The page’s stated purpose is “To share unclassified information, enhance our collective situational awareness and facilitate the development of a common Navy IDC culture.”
IDCsync Team members independently post information relevant to the IDC on the Facebook page, coordinating their efforts electronically via a team coordination site and online chat. Information shared runs the gamut of the IDC interest areas — technology, innovation, and leadership issues included. if it’s deemed pertinent to the IDC, it is posted on the site. The ultimate goal is to spark conversation and collaboration between members.
In recognition of its growing audience and increasing reach, the site has been used by members of the IDC Flag Deck to disseminate official correspondence and reach the greater IDC collective. IDCsync’s audience includes everyone from the backbone of the IDC, our enlisted Sailors, to commanding officers, current and former IDC Flag Officers, and civilian Senior Executive Service (SES) staff. Administrators and site members alike can post information, share ideas, and collaborate.
The primary IDC Self Synchronization web site contains pertinent IDC documents and resources with the intent of creating a “one stop” library of information.
The team also sends out a weekly newsletter which encapsulates Facebook posts for the previous week. The same information is also disseminated via Twitter, Google+ (Google’s new social networking site), and eChirp on Intelink-U. Details of all the venues are available on the web page.
With the IDC Self Synchronization team and tools in place, the only missing element is you.
Does the idea of sharing, collaborating, and enhancing the professional knowledge of the community resonate with you? Then now is the time to step out of the audience and join the conversation. Join your community conversation by visiting the IDC Self Synchronization Facebook and web sites today. The forum belongs to you — make it your own!
To learn more, visit http://www.IDCsync.org, post a comment on Facebook, or email your questions/comments to [email protected].
Making Time,
IDC Self Synchronization Team
Another insightful blog on CDR Sean Heritage’s homeblog, Connecting the Dots. He offers great advice on how leaders can (at least try to) influence who will relieve them, and why they should do so.
What CDR Heritage did was take Admiral Harvey’s idea about 360 degree input, especially as it relates to screening officers for command, to heart. Not only that; he took the iniative - in spite of “the potential for ridicule” – to implement it. His justification is helping ensure that the right officer eventually takes the reins of his command.
Using a sports analogy, sometimes the best athlete available is not the best fit for the team currently making their draft selection. In our case, sometimes the best person on paper is far from the best person for a given job. I want to help ensure the best Senior Chief and the best Commander for NIOC Pensacola are “drafted” in place of the Senior Chief with the best relationship with the detailer and happens to have the right PRD and the Commander who “looks good on paper”. Our community is far too small for us to ignore the intangibles.
Read CDR Heritage’s entire post here: Succession Planning
Posted by Fouled Anchor in Navy | read comments (0)Tags: 360 degree feedback, connecting the dots, Leadership, succession planning
Final approval of officer and enlisted warfare programs for Information Dominance personnel was great news. A rigorous qualification program has the potential to further professionalize the field, but to do so, the program must be respected.
The good news of program approval was bolstered by a recent Navy Times article, available here, cut and paste from the 29Sep10 CHINFO Clips: Info Warrios, Get Your Pins – by Mark Faram, Navy Times 04Oct10.
In the article, Fleet Master Chief Jay Powers, the senior enlisted Sailor in Fleet Cyber Command and 10th Fleet, committed to a qualification program without grandfathering, the practice of accepting experience in lieu Personal Qualification Standard (PQS) completion. Master Chief Powers’ intent was quite clear; “There will be no fast-tracking or grandfathering of qualifications,” an idea he said was discussed and “hotly contested.”
Disallowing grandfathering is exactly how warfare qualifications should be; however, Master Chief Power’s comments only apply to the Enlisted Information Dominance Warfare Specialist (EIDWS) program; they do not apply to Information Dominance Officer (IDO) qualifications. In fact, the IDO program has an established Accelerated Qualification Process. Behold the double standard.
Sadly, Cyber Command/10th Fleet leaders decided to set different standards for their officers and their enlisted Sailors. Certain officers, many in fact, need only minimal experience and some other qualifications (many experience-based themselves) to qualify for an accelerated qualification process approved by Vice Admiral Dorsett . Officers eligible for fast-tracking need only complete an e-learning tutorial and a 30-question exam for final IWO completion. Although for many it will introduce new information, it’s far from challenging. At least one officer with average experience completed the review and the test (successfully) in just a few hours.
A two-hour review and a 30-question test do anything but maintain the integrity of the program, an imperative according to FLTCM Powers’ interview with Navy Times.
Fleet Cyber Command and 10th Fleet leaders need to quickly reconsider their approach to qualifying a number of officers with a fast-track program, even one which is only available for a short time. As Fleet Master Chief Powers told Navy Times, “anything seen as making it easier for a select few would ‘erode the credibility of EIDWS.’”
And so it would for any warfare qualification, officer or enlisted. In this case, fast-tracking IWO qualifications will not only erode the credibility of a brand new warfare program, it risks eroding the credibility of the nascent IDC community as a whole.
Obviously some number of officers and enlisted members of the IDC need to be designated as qualified in Information Dominance based on experience and a RIGOROUS delta training and examination; otherwise there will be nobody to qualify the less experienced members of the community. But any group so qualified should be strictly limited to the most experienced officers (perhaps CWO4s and 5s, LDO LCDRs and all CDRs and CAPTs) and senior enlisted professionals (perhaps SCPOs and MCPOs).
The Information Dominance Corps needs to treat its officer and enlisted leaders equally, and get rid of the double standard. Doing otherwise could do significant damage to the reputation of IDC officers and the community itself.
And respect as warfighters might already be something the IDC needs to work on.
The first women selected to serve onboard submarines have been identified. Some questions are worth asking…and they deserve answers. In the interest of transparency, the Navy owes the public – at the very least the sub community – an explanation of how these ladies were chosen for this elite duty. How many competed for selection? And how will future female submarine assignments be made?
USNI Blogger MIDN Jeff Withington recently described the rigorous screening process he completed for selection to nuclear power and the submarine community. Considering that annual nuke power and sub assignments were made last October, was a similar selection process held recently for these female candidates? Was some other process used?
Because the first group of females did not compete for assignment in October, they apparently didn’t compete against anyone except themselves. Until we know how many women applied, we won’t know how tough (statistically at least) the competition was. In the future, women should compete against for assignment to the submarine community without quotas, on equal footing against men and each other. Certainly the ‘right’ number of women need to be selected to fill staterooms and not leave a ship’s manning unbalanced, but otherwise, women should compete against every other applicant for assignment to this community.
Posted by Fouled Anchor in Navy, Uncategorized | read comments (14)Tags: nuclear power, submarines, usna, women
117 years and going strong. Happy Birthday U.S. Navy Chiefs!
The investigation into the mass murder on Ft. Hood continues, but there is no doubt who was responsible, and his motivations are clear. He (his name doesn’t deserve mentioning) acted out of a radical belief in Islam and a hatred of the United States.
One decision by the Army will determine how the service, and the administration, view this attack. Will it be viewed only as a crime, or will it be viewed as a terrorist attack committed by an enemy of this nation? The answer lies in whether or not the victims are awarded Purple Hearts.
Army Regulation 600-8-22 (regulation page 20, pdf page 40), article 2-8 b.(6), requires that “the act must be recognized by the Secretary of the Army as an international terrorist attack.”
(6) After 28 March 1973, as the result of an international terrorist attack against the United States or a foreign nation friendly to the United States, recognized as such an attack by the Secretary of Army, or jointly by the Secretaries of the separate armed services concerned if persons from more than one service are wounded in the attack. (http://www.army.mil/usapa/epubs/pdf/r600_8_22.pdf)
The victims of this cowardly and monstrous attack deserved better than to die or be wounded in what was otherwise a place of safety. Their sacrifice must be properly recognized. They earned and deserve the Purple Heart. What, and when, will the Secretary decide?
Posted by Fouled Anchor in Army, Homeland Security | read comments (37)Tags: Army, Ft. Hood, purple heart, terrorism
In a previous post, I posed the somewhat rhetorical question, Is Cryptology Dead? At the time, it appeared that cryptology and Signals Intelligence were not quite dead, but were certainly being under-valued. It appears that is all about to change.
A 23Jul09 Chief of Naval Operations memo titled Fleet Cyber Command/Commander Tenth Fleet Implementation Plan (pdf) directs the formulation of a plan to stand up these two new commands. This new organization will “serve as the Naval Component Commander to [U.S. Cyber Command]” and as the Navy Service Cryptologic Commander. As background, USCYBERCOM is also a new agency, its own formation directed only a month ago by SECDEF memo (pdf).
FLTCYBERCOM is interesting in many ways, but it cannot go unnoticed that this will be a kind of trip back to the future. The purpose and structure will not be unlike the former Naval Security Group Command, one of the organizations absorbed by NETWARCOM just four years ago. Ironically, under the construct described in the CNO memo, NETWARCOM will be subordinate to FLTCYBERCOM. It will also lose an echelon and a star…moving from echelon two to three and its command billet going from three stars to two.
The known plans for FLTCYBERCOM allow limited analysis and lots of conjecture (and I encourage both, especially from folks who really understand naval organization). The implementation plan will provide a lot more information if it’s made public. Two important decisions are location and commander. Because of the relationship with USCYBERCOM (proposed location Ft. Meade) and the National Security Agency (Ft. Meade), FLTCYBERCOM should reestablish the Navy flag officer presence on the Fort. The future commander will likely be an intel officer…or will the information warfare/cryptologic community get a vice admiral?
The final analysis will not be possible until some time after the command reaches full operational capablility, but this is a step toward reinvigorating SIGINT and achieving true excellence in the other functions FLTCYBERCOM will dominate. What is already clear is the CNO’s imperative for change. The implementation plan is due by 31 August and the command will be operational on 1 October. That’s light speed in any bureaucracy.
[For those who might remember, I wasn’t happy about NETWARCOM’s plan to rename to Cyber Command. Well, I still don’t love the name, but you could call it Frank if you wanted, just as long as cryptology is no longer ignored.]
Today is the 100th birthday of former Chief Petty Officer and retired Lieutenant John W. Finn. Still known affectionately to many as Chief Finn, he earned the first Medal of Honor of World War II for actions at Kaneohe Bay, Hawai’i, on 7 December 1941. He is the oldest living Medal of Honor recipient.
According to homeofheroes.com, “Kaneohe Bay was attacked five minutes before Pearl Harbor, which some might argue makes John Finn’s actions that day the FIRST Medal of Honor action of World War II. John has never seen himself as a hero. ‘I was just a Good ‘ol Navy man doing my job,’ he says humbly.”
Chief Finn was originally transferred to the Fleet Reserve as a Chief Petty Officer but was later “placed on the Retired List in the rank of Lieutenant.”
Those of us who have had the distinct pleasure of meeting Chief Finn, hearing him tell the story of the fateful day he displayed such unique valor, will never forget it. His account of the attacks on Kaneohe Bay and Pearl Harbor, and his special way of telling it, are fantastic. It’s no wonder a man who fought so hard that day is a centenarian and the oldest living MOH recipient. He is a Navy and national treasure.
John Finn (Lucy Pemoni/AP file)
Chief Finn’s Medal of Honor citation speaks for itself:
For extraordinary heroism, distinguished service, and devotion above and beyond the call of duty. During the first attack by Japanese airplanes on the Naval Air Station, KanoeheBay, on 7 December 1941, Lieutenant Finn promptly secured and manned a 50-caliber machine gun mounted on an instruction stand in a completely exposed section of the parking ramp, which was under heavy enemy machine-gun strafing fire. Although painfully wounded many times, he continued to man this gun and to return the enemy’s fire vigorously and with telling effect throughout the enemy strafing and bombing attacks and with complete disregard for his own personal safety. It was only by specific orders that he was persuaded to leave his post to seek medical attention. Following first-aid treatment, although obviously suffering much pain and moving with great difficulty, he returned to the squadron area and actively supervised the rearming of returning planes. His extraordinary heroism and conduct in this action were in keeping with the highest traditions of the United States Naval Service.
See this video from NBC News marking John’s 99th Birthday. To quote the report, “there are men alive today because John Finn was on duty that day.”
Happy Birthday Shipmate! 
Annual commemorations of the victory at Midway have a special significance for Navy cryptologists. Also called SIGINTers, these intelligence professionals recall Midway as the battle which brought cryptology and Communications Intelligence to the fore.
Thanks to then-Commander Joe Rochefort and his Sailors, the Navy knew with great certainty – even if many didn’t necessarily believe it – where the Japanese were going to attack. Two simple letters, AF, proved that the Imperial Japanese Navy target was Midway. Trusting in a still new art and science, Admiral Chester Nimitz committed his forces and defeated the Japanese. A defeat from which they would never recover…a defeat that set the stage for victory in the Pacific.
Recently, however, decades of cryptologic history and success, not to mention continuing operational significance, have been ignored. The tide changed in October 2005 when the Naval Security Group merged with Naval Network Warfare Command. At that time, NETWARCOM became responsible for all things SIGINT in the Navy, and the discipline has been largely ignored ever since.
The final nail in the coffin of cryptology and signals intelligence might not have been hammered home, but rational change is needed if these disciplines are to be saved. They remain vital to our national security and they deserve our attention.
In August 2008, a widely distributed NETWARCOM Command Renaming Communications Plan provided details about the intended renaming of Naval Network Warfare Command (NETWARCOM) as Naval Cyber Forces Command (CYBERFORCOM). (The document appears to have a typo in the date, as it is dated 6/4/2009 vice 2008.) A NETWARCOM junior officer later described this as the “fake email” but corrected himself and said it was not supposed to be released, at least not when it was. Regardless of how it was released, or whether or not the plan ever comes to fruition (and it did not as scheduled by October 2008), the consideration of renaming as Cyber Forces Command is shortsighted and demonstrates a lack of emphasis on traditional intelligence capabilities.
Operations in the cyber domain are expanding and are important factors in information warfare and effects-based operations; but cyber is by no means the be all and end all of information operations and intelligence. Adversaries, potential adversaries, and allies still use traditional communications which are the historical niche of Navy cryptologists. Moreover, disruption of electronic communications during combat may necessitate shifting existing cyber communications back to traditional modes. We ignore these factors at our own risk.
Successful intelligence operations continue in the SIGINT realm, and more specifically in Communications Intelligence. If the renaming communications plan is any indicator, NETWARCOM has all but forgotten the art and science of COMINT. Save for one passing reference to past Cryptologic Officers now comprising the Information Warfare Officer community, there is NO MENTION of SIGINT or COMINT in the entire 13-page document.
The overemphasis on cyber is even more troubling considering NETWARCOM’s role as the Type Commander for Intelligence. Traditional Naval Intelligence tasks are being similarly ignored by renaming the command CYBERFORCOM. The NETWARCOM communications plan listed CYBERFORCOM’s role as the “Fleet advocate for all ISR capabilities and ISR readiness.” This command might be capable of being an advocate for fleet ISR to external audiences, but they don’t appear as such to their internal audiences whose expertise is not cyber space. A considering the naming scheme excludes all but cyber, it’s difficult to believe the other disciplines will be adequately represented.
One justification included in the plan was that NETWARCOM “is leading the way in cyberspace.” I hope and believe that is in fact true, but the command should similarly state leadership in all other forms of intelligence, including the various SIGINT disciplines. If they are leading the way for all disciplines, there should not be so much emphasis on just one.
NETWARCOM’s overemphasis on creating a new identity by distancing the command from historical organizations actually dilutes the identity of the command itself. All forms of intelligence share a common goal – information superiority regardless of the spectrum. Did NETWARCOM leadership consider alternatives? How about Navy Information Command? That name recognizes our goals for information superiority regardless of the information source while not ignoring the need to command the cyber domain. You can call it whatever you want, but careful consideration of internal customer reaction is warranted. True cyber specialists make up a very small percentage of NETWARCOM. Even a well-crafted communications plan may not overcome Sailors’ perception of their ‘new’ command and its lack of recognition of their skill sets.
Information professionals deliver significant capabilities – before, during, and after the fight. Navy and IW leadership recognize these contributions, yet IW officers still do not have the status they deserve. In spite of the legal hurdles, it’s time to change the Information Warfare Officer designation from Special Duty Officer to Unrestricted Line. Their weapons may be non-kinetic, but they are shooters nonetheless and the capabilities they unleash damage, disrupt, and deny adversaries the use of military capabilities much like kinetic weapons.
Cryptology isn’t dead, but it’s being treated as if it was, and more than a name change is needed to resurrect it. Naval Network Warfare Command, as the information warfare combatant commander under any name, needs to emphasize the contributions of all of its Sailors in all intelligence disciplines and have an Information Warfare Officer with a blue three-star flag in charge.
Well, this must be the week for late awards for valor. This time, retired Senior Chief Clarence Cooper received a Bronze Star, today, for action in Vietnam in 1968. Senior Chief Cooper is an example of the best attributes of a United States Navy Sailor and Chief Petty Officer:
The Virginia Beach retiree, whom friends call “Coop,” shared that he recommended seven crew members for awards in the battle.
But Coop? He kept little but memories and scars from the sunburn and the shrapnel.
According to the Virgina-Pilot report posted on military.com, “Four Vietnam veterans have received Bronze Star or higher awards since October.” We need to hear more about these. They need to be better publicized by the Navy – not for the Navy to say “hey, we finally corrected this wrong” – but instead to say “hey, look at this shipmate, this American hero. Look what he did for his Sailors, for his country.” And I think it’s appropriate that we take a break from our busy lives and discussions and reflect on the contributions of these heroes to whom we owe much.
There are a lot of heroes mentioned in this article - Navy Cross and Silver Star recipients Jim Walker and Barry Waluda, respectively, among them. Everyone who rose to the challenge, who decided to do everything they could to right this wrong, to get Senior Chief Cooper his richly-deserved recognition, is a credit to themselves and reflects some of what it means to be a shipmate, a brother in arms.
To be respected by your shipmates and brothers is one of the greatest honors. To have these works written about you by a Navy Cross recipient is priceless:
Walker wrote Cooper’s grandson, Derek, a one-page note a few years ago about the battle: “The next time you look at your Grandfather know that he has faced extreme danger in combat, and because of his skill, courage and decisions, the enemy did not overcome. His ship and crew were saved. Derek, be well aware of the absolute fact that your Grandfather is a hero.”
Bravo Zulu Senior Chief…and well done to those who made sure he received the Bronze Star he so definitely earned.
Recent Posts
Subscribe
Tags: IDC, IDCSync, Information Dominance