LOTS OF GOOD NEWS IN THIS !!
In order to enhance our Navy's ability to develop and implement strategy and policy while strengthening the connective tissue between our education programs and strategy billet assignments, the CNO has created a Strategic Enterprise that will: --Ensure the focused development of Navy Strategy. --Align Navy Strategic Documents. --Establish informed linkages between strategy and our budget. --Coordinate and synchronize strategic messaging and engagement. --Create a culture of strategic thinking. --Develop a cadre of Navy strategists.
You can read the entire NAVADMIN HERE.
And, you must read this USNI article by Commander Michael Junge in the February 2012 issue of PROCEEDINGS - So Much Strategy, So Little Strategic Direction.
10 comments:
No 18xx on the list. I know of at least one 1830 who clearly deserves it. Good step. Poor execution.
While the wording of the NAVADMIN leaves some wiggle room...the non-inclusion of National War College or ICAF/Eisenhower School is interesting.
More concerning to me is the explicit exclusion of non-URL officers. If we're going to argue and inform naval strategy...perhaps we should encompass the entire spectrum of Naval warfare activities and experience.
Hopefully, this is a first step with a planned approach to bring the RL side of the house along for the ride at some point.
The NAVADMIN clearly states that it is for URLs only. Some reasoning behind it. URLs hold the strategy billets - Strategy resides in the 5 shop. Second, there are not 18XX billets coded for strategy. Easy fix, kind of. Stresses the assignment process, so need to think is this is right for the IDC. Is this where we really want our officers?
Make it open for IDC, than we need to be willing to invest in the requirement. Not the training, but the willingness to consistently place our officers in Strategy billets.
Navy jargon is as follows:
URL = Navy warfighters
RL = Navy support to warfighters
Not necessarily true in any way, but it is the way our Navy writ large thinks WRT officers in particular.
Check the FEF message from this year, there is an 1810 going to Duke next year.
Wanted to echo Jason's comment ... not a single 18xx on the list ... poor form for not giving the IDC a chance .
This echo's Stout's article "5 REASONS WE DON’T HAVE GOOD STRATEGIC THOUGHT ABOUT CYBER" and the lack of the IDC is disconcerting. Cyber is not an afterthought anymore, yet the Navy is still treating us that way.
Time for change? You bet. How do we do it? Let's start with an 1860 as N2/N6 instead of a URL.
Wanted to echo Jason's comment ... not a single 18xx on the list ... poor form for not giving the IDC a chance .
This echo's Stout's article "5 REASONS WE DON’T HAVE GOOD STRATEGIC THOUGHT ABOUT CYBER" and the lack of the IDC is disconcerting. Cyber is not an afterthought anymore, yet the Navy is still treating us that way.
Time for change? You bet. How do we do it? Let's start with an 1860 as N2/N6 instead of a URL.
Oh Bog! What were the fools doing in the past.
Yes, I know. I worked briefly on an LST which had a CHENG who designed a part while at NPS that is used on all space satellites. The Navy just detailed him to a crippled unrepairable amphib. Later, working at SPAWAR I noticed that the USMC carefully detailed post graduate students to billets that let us all benefit from the graduate degree program. We invested in. The Navy treated such degrees as a vanity ticket punch instead of what they are.
Chris Weis: I couldn't agree more with your comment: "Let's start with an 1860 as N2/N6 instead of a URL." Let's make sure he/she has an active security clearance too.
Interestingly, both of the programs that would "qualify" someone for this subspecialty (Political-Military Masters (PMM: http://www.public.navy.mil/bupers-npc/reference/messages/Documents/NAVADMINS/NAV2014/NAV14164.txt) and Federal Executive Fellowship (FEF: http://www.public.navy.mil/bupers-npc/reference/messages/Documents/NAVADMINS/NAV2014/NAV14170.txt)) are open to 171X (FAO), 181X (IW), and 183X (Intel). It appears that a deliberate decision was made to remove them from the subspecialty. All selectees from these three designators are required (like their URL counterparts) to complete a tour at a "strategic" command after earning their degree (POL-MIL) or completing their fellowship.
Odd to identify the need for these designators to complete the education, but not the need to include them in the subspecialty. ALSO the current FEF and PMM selectees are given a subspecialty code of 2000P for completing the program - not sure why another subspecialty code needed to be created.
Of note:
(1) In 2012, there were 4 FAO/IW/Intel officers selected for the FEF and 3 for the POL-MIL
(2) In 2013 zero were selected for either program
(3) In 2014 only one officer was selected for the FEF program (zero for POL-MIL).
Will be interesting to see if both programs will become URL-only programs this year.
Post a Comment