Monday, August 29, 2011

IW - REMOVED as an approved Joint term in IO Doctrine --- How did I miss this?

SUMMARY OF CHANGES REVISION OF JOINT PUBLICATION 3-13
13 February 2006

A few key changes that you may have missed:
  • Aligns joint information operations (IO) doctrine with the transformational planning guidance as specified by the 30 October 2003 Department of Defense Information Operations Roadmap.
  • Discontinues use of the terms “offensive IO” and “defensive IO” but retains the recognition that IO is applied to achieve both offensive and defensive objectives.
  • Removes information warfare as a term from joint IO doctrine.
The JP 3-13 glossary provides this definition of information warfare.
Term                                        Definition 
Information Warfare.     None. (Approved for removal from the next edition of JP 1-02.)

JP 1-02 also changes IWC from  Information Warfare Commander to Information Operations Commander.

Does this mean anything? What is the Joint message here?

15 comments:

Anonymous said...

asleep at the wheel again aye mate?

Anonymous said...

Time to change IWO back to Cryptologist.

Anonymous said...

Captain

You are reminded to always read the fine print.

joelhar said...

My gut says this is a mistake. Wow... thanks for picking that out!

joelhar said...

Information Operations, at peace, crisis and war... but we give it a different flavor in war, don't we? 'not sure I agree.

das said...

"IW" may not be a term in joint IO doctrine, but it's a (relatively) well-understood term. We also don't technically do the full scope of IW or IO, even though various mission statements have said we do, and various parts of our community.

I know cryptology is our history, and cryptologic technicians are our counterparts — but "cryptology", by definition, represents little of what many of us actually do.

In joint doctrine, "Information Warfare" was changed to "Information Operations" — so by that logic, we could be Information Operations Officers (IOOs?). Except SIGINT and space systems aren't doctrinally a part of IO, and CNO is only one of the five core elements of IO.

Precisely what our communities do is hard enough to encapsulate, but none of these definitions really match up anyway. Perhaps this is as good a description as any?

Community Overview: Information Warfare (IW) is a Restricted Line community comprising approximately 900 officers. IW officers (IWO) are the Navy’s Information Warriors who maintain expertise in all facets of Information Operations (IO), to include traditional cryptology, C2 and space systems.

Mission: IW officers create warfighting options for Fleet Commanders to fight and win in the information age. IWOs deliver and operate a reliable, secure and battle-ready global network, and lead in the development and integration of IO capabilities into the Fleet.

Captain - Special Duty Cryptology said...

I am reminded of that great cryptologist and non-IWO, Captain Edwin F. Williamson's constant admonishment - "Words have meaning; actions have consequences." The rest is yours to figure out.

joelhar said...

I put together a list of IO keywords the other day and THOUGHT I had seen Information Warfare in there. Turned out I had downloaded JP 3-13 v. 1998 three times.

BUT, splitting hairs for a second, the 2006 edition says IW is removed in the NEXT edition. So... doesn't that mean it's still technically in use?

Captain - Special Duty Cryptology said...

I don't believe it is "technically" in use. It was, in fact, removed from JP 1-02 DOD Dictionary of Military and Associated Terms. It was updated 15 July 2011. It contained the approved terms, acronyms and abbreviations for DoD.

JCS J39 AO said...

NOTHING TO SEE HERE, FOLKS. MOVE ALONG, MOVE ALONG. NOTHING TO SEE HERE. TAKE NO NOTICE OF THIS.

CWO4 Brian Ashpole, USN-Retired said...

I learned alot under Captain Williamson. Specifically - how to effectively write. My bride referred to him as the consumate gentleman after meeting him at the Navy Day Ball.
One other Williamson quote: "The best way to make a government program permanent is to first call it a temporary program."
Another one: Replace the term "the government should" to "the taxpayer should."

Anonymous said...

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.

Anonymous said...

We may be lost but we are making good time!

LCDRLDO/6440

IOnian in Newport said...

It seems IW was removed over five years ago and it didn't make a lick of difference. The Navy isn't much of player in the Joint IO world (it doesn't even have an office code at OPNAV for IO anymore). The Navy does what it wants without regard to the joint alignment or doctrine. And not many in Navy leadership seem bothered by this.

Jason Knudson said...

My guess is it is an attempt to unify IO back under the IO banner... in the joint environment as recently as the end of last year I saw IO being used for PSYOPs and other media related Information Operations while IW was used for SIGINT. I would guess that someone wants to reestablish the hierarchy of IO encompassing IW and decided the best way was just to eliminate the term IW.