Thursday, November 13, 2014

Masters or Jacks? – VADM Branch Response

Proceedings Magazine - November 2014… by Vice Admiral Ted N. Branch, U.S. Navy, Director of Naval Intelligence/Deputy Chief of Naval Operations for Information Dominance
               
(See Masters or Jacks? by H. Stephenson, pp. 58–63, October 2014 Proceedings) 

I want to thank Commander Stephenson for his recent article, which outlined his views on aspects of the Navy’s approach to developing information dominance (ID) as a fourth warfighting pillar, alongside air, surface, and undersea warfare. I welcome the continued dialogue in Proceedings on these issues that I think are important to the Information Dominance Corps (IDC) and to the Navy as a whole.

Commander Stephenson is concerned that cross-detailing officers in the IDC might somehow diminish the specialized skills and abilities these officers possess and currently provide. I see cross-detailing as quite the opposite—an opportunity to capitalize on their specialized knowledge while at the same time broadening their portfolio by exposing them to the full range of ID capabilities and perspectives in order to maximize operational advantages and warfighting efforts. My intent in cross-detailing officers (i.e., detailing them to billets traditionally filled by officers from other IDC disciplines) is to more deeply professionalize the IDC by developing an acute awareness of all IDC capabilities among professionals who are already master practitioners of their respective disciplines.

This approach is not unique to the IDC; it is used by other communities to develop a similarly broadened perspective in their officers. Strengthening the interdisciplinary nature of the IDC is vital to adapting successfully to the evolving complexity of the future warfighting environment. Our Navy would be ill-served by perpetuating single-discipline solutions to increasingly complex information dominance/warfare problem sets. This approach is supported by years of academic research that points to the value of interdisciplinary education and research.

With respect to the role of ID within the existing Composite Warfare Commander construct, it is still a moving target. While we are working with the Fleet to help define the optimum organizational construct for ID afloat, that structure will ultimately be determined by the Fleet, not the Chief of Naval Operations staff in the Pentagon. It will evolve over time, through trial and error and operational stress, much as the current construct has evolved and continues to evolve today.

Commander Stephenson’s concern that the maturing role of ID afloat will distance intelligence officers from their commanders is unfounded. Having served as a warfighting commander, I’m confident that no commander will allow any organizational construct, particularly one under his or her direct control, to keep them from the intelligence (or any other discipline’s information) they might need to make critical warfighting decisions. Commanders are hungry for interdisciplinary perspectives that shape and deliver a wide range of kinetic and non-kinetic options.

One additional point: Commander Stephenson unduly constrains the impact of ID capabilities by asserting that their effects are limited to the non-kinetic realm. In fact, they contribute to or directly provide effects that go far beyond the electromagnetic spectrum. Navy Integrated Fire Control-Counter Air (NIFC-CA) is a prime example.

The Navy needs its IDC leaders to possess both a great depth of expertise in a specific discipline and a wide breadth of experience across ID and the other warfighting disciplines. This is all about warfighting. The complexity of today’s threats demands us to be both masters and jacks, and that is what we in the IDC will deliver to the Navy.

(Note: The Masters or Jacks article was reproduced in the Monday, 10 November 2014 Information Dominance News Clips)



18 comments:

LT Depthead said...

At NIOC HI, CAPT Mills is an IP and is a shining example of cross detailing done right. CAPT Kershaw was an IW and his legacy was the amount of IGs visits at the command.

Anonymous said...

Dominate this:

With respect to the role of ID within the existing Composite Warfare Commander construct, it is still a moving target. While we are working with the Fleet to help define the optimum organizational construct for ID afloat, that structure will ultimately be determined by the Fleet, not the Chief of Naval Operations staff in the Pentagon. It will evolve over time, through trial and error and operational stress, much as the current construct has evolved and continues to evolve today.

How exactly does a man under investigation for over a year 'dominate' the information?

All of your posts about credibility and integrity seem to melt like snow in the rain when you bring up this guy.

Yes, I am a little angry but why aren't you? Why is he still the N2?

Kevin said...

"This approach (cross detailing) is not unique to the IDC; it is used by other communities to develop a similarly broadened perspective in their officers." JO/hinge experience tours - yes, but not at the senior command level. There are good operational reasons why submariners, for example, don't command aviation squadrons.

Anonymous said...

"There are good operational reasons why submariners, for example, don't command aviation squadrons."

Or why prior Aviation commanders, who aren't even cleared to know what the IDC is doing on a daily basis, SHOULD NOT BE SETTING THE SAILING DIRECTIONS FOR THE IDC.

Anonymous said...

VADM Branch needs to be reassigned, or given his clearance back. Make a decision, good or bad, and live with it. He's doing nothing for the IDC and making us look incompetent as we are trying legitimize our community. A person who cannot attend HIS DAILY OPERATIONS BRIEF is in charge of the IDC?

Anonymous said...

The concept has been evolving since the C2WC concept started this ball rolling over 20 years ago. It remains a nebulous job in search of a mission. Remember CNO Clark called IO a "mission on par" over 12 years ago. We've stumbled from C2W to IO, to ID to Cyber.
I thought LCDR Stephenson's article was well written and thoughtful. To the contrary I though VADM Branch's could have been summed up in one sentence. "You are wrong because I say so."
I don't know him. People say he is a great guy. But, if you dont have access to classifed material, and you are the N2 for the Navy, you are stealing O2.

NSMA said...

Incomplete justification for the cross-detailing -- "...it is used by other communities to develop a similarly broadened perspective in their officers." Which communities? Leaves it to speculation. I don't think it was a reference to submariners and aviators because those are different communities. But, I don't know because, again, an example wasn't provided.

Finally we get a comment from OPNAV about leaving something to the Fleet. Now, if only they'd follow through. The IDC was created "to more effectively and collaboratively lead and manage a cadre of officers, enlisted, and civilian professionals who possess extensive skills in information-intensive fields." (OPNAVINST 5300.12) Didn't see anything in the responsibilities assignments that says Fleet Commanders need to implement the IDC in the CWC. Back off N2N6 and stick to your executive level management responsibilities.

Wonder who's writing for VADM Branch now that some key advisors have left OPNAV.

Anonymous said...

Another point, if I may. VADM Branch, the IDC is not doing "interdisciplinary education and research". We are trying to be warfighters.

DIWC said...

I served with Twig at sea but have to say he is disconnected from the IDC. At least VADM Card went through the qual process and got his IDC pin.

Anonymous said...

This statement was frightening to me: "It will evolve over time, through trial and error and operational stress, much as the current construct has evolved and continues to evolve today."

This suggests we do not know what the hell we are doing. As a warfare area, we are going to leave it to trail and error and see how it evolves??? That is bull!

Anonymous said...

I would say this is an ill formed response from VADM Branch's staff. Not sure who the author was. I wouldn't let them do any more writing for me without supervision. Recommend someone contact Captain Gradisher and let him know.

HMS Defiant said...

I have nothing but the most complete contempt for admiral Branch's ISIC. Any commanding officer under such an accusation would have been furnished a door, a greased ramp and a mighty kick in the fundament.

Not in Intel, of course. That sh!t would all be too highly classified to share, but punting a loser into civilian life does not require anything but an unexplained, unjustified loss of "confidence."

What I enjoy about reading this fine blog is the dedication that so many share in regarding information as something totally subject to the absolute sole control of intel, idc, iw specialists.

When one thinks of fanatical dedication to protecting rice bowls, this community always leaps into the spotlight. It's almost like you cannot help yourselves.

Critical need to know and absolute security demand to say that only a handful of deciders that we choose, get to know the stuff we have come to know; people like Hansen, Walker, and that other hi-level traitor who had access into just about every compartment.

I don't actually admire any part of your prime philosophy. The information is promptly compromised every single time that we hear about it. Ergo, you generate it and restrict access to killer information to only the ranks of ID, IW, and NSA, FBI, CIA, STATE DEPARTMENT and other wonks.

People who sincerely believed in ECHELON and OMNIVORE expect an almost universal application of ID by people more dedicated to secrecy than they are to the Constitution and the Rule of Law. You made us. You shaped the infosphere. You lied and lied and lied and you got caught by SNOWDEN.

One wonders, how was Branch caught all those years ago before his role as head of you all was compromised and he lost his clearance and oversight into your activities and WTF IS HE STILL N2?

Any CO, XO or Master Chief under similar circumstances would not only have been relieved, but cashiered.

I'll just make the question to Mike and the rest very clear.

WHY IS BRANCH STILL THE N2?

NSMA said...

HMS Defiant:

You're entitled to your opinion about more dedication to secrecy than to the Constitution. From where I sit, it's dedication to the latter that drives the former, in accordance with the law.

Offer this to you, if you haven't seen it already: http://news.yahoo.com/new-nsa-director-rips-critics--calls-for-a--less-simplistic--national-conversation-about-surveillance-005140623.html. Suspect it won't change your position but that's okay because you're entitled to it.

As for Branch's situation, I infer that you think it's the Navy Intel Community that is keeping him at OPNAV and on active duty. I'll hazard a guess and say this is completely untrue. This question needs to go to the CNO.

Mike Lambert said...

NMSA

I would go so far as to say that the CNO has 100% confidence in his N2N6 and that the security clearance issue is a legal/security matter that the CNO can not override on his own authority.

NSMA said...

Mike: Don't disagree with you that the CNO cannot override the legal / security matter. Despite potential 100% confidence, however, the CNO can reassign him in favor of designating a new N2N6 who is fully capable of / qualified to carry out the duties assigned.

HMS Defiant said...

OK,

I admit I was over the top but.

Rest assured, I only did it to lure you out. That's why I put my name to it.

Mike used to post every CO firing here and yet he has not done so for about a year.

ISICs firing a CO have been the most common thing but here we have an admiral lingering in dirtbag heaven without any clearance as head of navy INFORMATION DOMINANCE.

In case you missed it.You smell. You're a little putrid. You gloss over the constitution like a fishy aroma. YOU CONDONE THIS SHIT.

Well why not. Your boss has been under investigation and denied a clearance for more than a year.

Mike Lambert said...

HMS Defiant

VADM Branch still has a security clearance. His access to classified material has been suspended by the SECNAV.

Other than an investigation, there is nothing to suggest that VADM Branch has done anything wrong.

I can't speak to why the SECNAV has denied VADM Branch access to classified material. You'll have to take that up with his office.

I can say that there is only a small portion of the N2N6 job that actually requires access to classified information. I say this from my experience as the aide to COMNAVSECGRU. The N2N6 gets sanitized information that he needs to accomplish his job and his staff includes enough experts reviewing classified information to get the job done effectively and efficiently.

The Justice Department is handling the investigation and the Navy just has to accept that it will run its course.

The CNO is a smart man and certainly knows all that he believes he needs to know about the N2N6's ability to get the job done.

HMS Defiant said...

9 days after my post above your boss gets sacked.

I'm more than a little contemptuous that you offered feeble arguments to retain him.
Seriously, that was beneath you.