-
Please take a moment and update your account profile. If you have an updated account profile with basic information on why you are on Air Warriors it will help other people respond to your posts. How do you update your profile you ask?
Go here:
Edit Account Details and Profile
IW/IW vs INTEL
- Thread starter mike172
- Start date
Arkad
Member
To the outsider the differences will appear very subtle, but to those of us on either side of the fence, there are dramatic differences. The biggest difference to me is that of the respective culture. Intel Officers “support the warfighter”, while IW Officers serve in positions where we support the warfighter and others where we are the warfighter. Because we are a restricted line community, the aviators will liken us to kickers on a football team (aviators of course being the QBs) and using that metaphor Intel Officers would be the statisticians on the sideline. I say that not to take anything away from our Intel brethren because they do provide value. They are very good briefers and have a wealth of knowledge on the specific target. However, they are not decision makers, have extremely small opportunities to lead (officer to enlisted ratio is more like USAF) and have virtually no command opportunities. We, on the other hand, have the opportunity to ride subs, be PCS afloat, fly and embed with SPECWAR. There is no other community in the Navy that offers so many opportunities to contribute across every warfare area. Ironically, we continue to struggle to have URLs acknowledge the warfare area of Information Operations as ours to lead.
I have had this discussion with many Intel Officers and the general sentiment is that it is more challenging to have an Intel Officer fill the role of an IW Officer than the reverse. Here’s what to expect from a generic career as an IWO:
1)IW Basic Course (Pensacola)
2)Cryptologic Center (HI, MD, TX, GA)
3)PCS Afloat, SPECWAR or other opportunity to lead IW in a tactical arena
4)Shore Staff Duty (OPNAV or NETWARCOM) and/or PG School
5)Operational Staff (Carrier/Expeditionary Strike Group)
6)XO and/or War College
7)Joint/Operational Staff
8)Command
We do not have a structured career path, but there are certain common experiences to which we funnel our future leaders. If you’d like to discuss in greater depth, please send me a note.
I have had this discussion with many Intel Officers and the general sentiment is that it is more challenging to have an Intel Officer fill the role of an IW Officer than the reverse. Here’s what to expect from a generic career as an IWO:
1)IW Basic Course (Pensacola)
2)Cryptologic Center (HI, MD, TX, GA)
3)PCS Afloat, SPECWAR or other opportunity to lead IW in a tactical arena
4)Shore Staff Duty (OPNAV or NETWARCOM) and/or PG School
5)Operational Staff (Carrier/Expeditionary Strike Group)
6)XO and/or War College
7)Joint/Operational Staff
8)Command
We do not have a structured career path, but there are certain common experiences to which we funnel our future leaders. If you’d like to discuss in greater depth, please send me a note.
mike172
GO NAVY
Thank you ARKAD very enlightening. I read on a website that the desired majors for selection to IW are computer science and the like, while potential intel officers should have political science, international relations etc. So my question is does this really matter?
What are the day to day duties of an IW officer? I know that intel officers are researching a topic area getting information and preparing briefs, so what is the IW officer doing at his/her unit. be it assigned to a ship or assigned to a specwar unit? Sitting at a computer monitor? I am just trying to get a bette feel for what they do.
I am reading some of the info in the above posted link. I am looking for a more personal explanation.
thanks
What are the day to day duties of an IW officer? I know that intel officers are researching a topic area getting information and preparing briefs, so what is the IW officer doing at his/her unit. be it assigned to a ship or assigned to a specwar unit? Sitting at a computer monitor? I am just trying to get a bette feel for what they do.
I am reading some of the info in the above posted link. I am looking for a more personal explanation.
thanks
mike172
GO NAVY
Is there a page similar to this for Intel? I mean with the links and descriptions what what you can do and where. I am looking but I don't see a general information option there like there is for IW.
I don't suppose you have heard of the Supply Corps?
Sorry, you have to log in to BOL for the INTEL gouge. It must be G-14 classified. Only warfighters can post their info for public knowledge.
Then that is stretching it.
I know exactly what you are talking about. I am certainly not an expert on this topic, but know enough of the details.
I wasn't necessarily arguing his point, just yours. If you have to "change the definition of a warfighter," then that is "stretching it."
I am sorry but I have to wholeheartedly agree with HH-60H here. Intel and IW have always been and will always be support, to think that they are otherwise is wishful thinking and someone is drinking too much kool-aid.
I am relatively familiar with the IW community, espcially in its former Cryppie form. I know that IW is reforming and expanding what they do, but to start calling themselves 'warfighters' is stretching it just a bit too much, even with its expanded mission set. Even the expanded mission set still falls in the realm of support.
The reason this issue really gets under my skin is partly because I have worked with cryppies and intel types for most of my career. When support folks start to think of themselves as more than that, they tend to lose focus on the bigger picture. There seems to be a recurring failure of people to 'know their role' in support functions, losing focus on what people really need to be concerned about. I was always support in my flying career, as an EP-3 guy where I provided ISR support to everyone who needed it, and as a EA-6B guy who provided support to other flyers going into threat rings and even troops on the ground. I knew what my role was in the bigger scheme of things and so did my fellow aviators. Even attack guys are support......and when you think about it everything in the military is support, revolving around supporting the infantrymen on the ground shooting bad guys. Probably the biggest thing I admire about the Marines is that they get that better than any other service.
Where I currently work I really am rear area support, I still know my role and I am very happy with it while continuing to serve my country. Most people where I work know that too but there are some that are more focused on the self licking ice cream cone. That does nothing but waste peoples time and money, at the cost of the people on 'the tip of the spear'. When people start talking themselves up or taking on airs, like the USAF space rangers wearing flight suits and their 'wings', that invites nothing but ridicule......which people do to the USAF space rangers (when USAF Intel O's ridicule them, you know it is bad
). So, even if you do expand the definition of 'warfighting', it is probably wise to call it something else before people start sniggering behind the IW community's back. This is from someone who 'gets it' and has been on both sides of the fence......and someone 'who knows his role'.
phrogpilot73
Well-Known Member
What if the IW Officer/Community IS the focus of effort? I'm only wargaming, and Lord knows - I know shit from shineola about the community, but what if resources and efforts are focused on the IW Officer/Community so whatever form of "warfare" that he uses is used to prevent a conventional battle on another front? I'm not saying that they are warfighters 99.9% of the time, but I think there is that 0.1% where they are.
Edit - and just to clarify, the "non-warfighter" PSW has more time outside the wire (boots on the ground vice in the air) in Iraq than her husband...
Edit - and just to clarify, the "non-warfighter" PSW has more time outside the wire (boots on the ground vice in the air) in Iraq than her husband...
They might do some things seperate of the the servicemen and women out in the field, possibly even trying to prevent a 'conflict' from becoming a shooting war, but call it something else other than 'warfighting'. The term just invites mockery and ridicule from people who really are getting shot at, instead of just sitting at a computer terminal in CONUS. Whatever happened to propoganda? Or even Information Operations?
Still support, just like you are.......