IW with intel experience

[JohnH]

I am beginning my packet for both IW and Intel in the next week. My OAR score is a little weak (46), but I come to the table already holding a clearance, and with 5+ years of intel experience from tactical units to theater level, including deployment to Afghanistan. I am currently an Intelligence Sergeant in the Army serving a position above my paygrade. I have served as an E-5 in positions consistently above my paygrade and have won awards for impact on missions.
That said. I love Intel. I love knowing. But I am drawn to IW as well. I am going to submit my packet for both IW and Intel, but I wanted to know if my experience in Intel will actually help me get into IW.

Thanks for the input.

 

[egiv]

You are well-positioned to be a good candidate. I can't speak for Intel, but the IW community is heavy in prior-service and lateral transfer Officers. One thing to remember is that IW is much more technical than all-source intelligence analysis. Some people who are drawn to analysis, geopolitical assessments, etc are disappointed when they find out that's not what IWOs do. On the flip side, some Intel Os are disappointed that they don't get the same technical expertise that IWs do.

That said, IW is where it's at. I'd be happy to answer any questions you have in a PM.

 

[DDE1990]

Agree completely with egiv. If you want to 'do' intelligence work, go IW. If you want to brief intelligence, go intel. IW is one of the most dynamic jobs in the Navy, and it's constantly changing... Lots of fun.

 

[Dark_Matter]

Agree completely with egiv. If you want to 'do' intelligence work, go IW. If you want to brief intelligence, go intel. IW is one of the most dynamic jobs in the Navy, and it's constantly changing... Lots of fun.

LOL...That made me chuckle. YOU obviously do not know much about the other IWO communities.

 

[LFCFan]

If you want to spend your whole career in a SCIF, go IW. If you want to work with operators doing operations, go intel.

 

[egiv]

If you want to spend your whole career in a SCIF, go IW. If you want to work with operators doing operations, go intel.

Clearly we're all biased towards our own communities, but to imply 1810s are not involved in operations is not accurate.

Also, on a side note - I think the fact that an 1830 really believes that is a problem, a large part of which is our (1810s') fault. The 1810 community is bad at explaining what we do and why it's important. A lot of times people are happy to stay in the SCIF, play the 'high and mighty' role and blame classification for not doing this (although many times classification legitimately does tie our arms behind our back). The Intel O's job is much more straight-forward and relatable to other communities, so you don't really have to worry about 'selling' what you do.

We're all intel nerds, just with different roles.

 

[Flash]

...We're all intel nerds, just with different roles.

 

[LFCFan]

Clearly we're all biased towards our own communities, but to imply 1810s are not involved in operations is not accurate.

Also, on a side note - I think the fact that an 1830 really believes that is a problem, a large part of which is our (1810s') fault. The 1810 community is bad at explaining what we do and why it's important. A lot of times people are happy to stay in the SCIF, play the 'high and mighty' role and blame classification for not doing this (although many times classification legitimately does tie our arms behind our back). The Intel O's job is much more straight-forward and relatable to other communities, so you don't really have to worry about 'selling' what you do.

We're all intel nerds, just with different roles.

I absolutely get why what you guys do is important - I use your work all the time. I took issue with the idea that we just "brief" intel and that 1810s actually do it, which is a load of crap since collections is just one part of the process (and there are more INTs than SIGINT, which all fall under the 1830 umbrella). I was being hyperbolic with the "whole career" comment, but other than the few of you who get a tour flying around in the back of a big wing ISR asset, for the most part, you guys spend a lot less time in operational units or directly supporting operational things than we do. By operations I mean things other than collections, like helping people put warheads on foreheads. Not saying we spend a whole ton of time at sea or in the sandbox either, but looking at our career paths side by side, it's clear that 1830s spend more time on that stuff than 1810s. And then there are those amongst you who think that the non-kinetic fires element means you or the larger IWC should be URL (although I won't put that evil on you!), which gets serious eyerolls even from the 1830s.

On another note, I'm glad to see another nerd who uses the term as one of endearment. It's really a great way to sum up all the IWC communities since the group seems to change names every five minutes. While we're on the subject, who the hell decided that you guys should call yourselves cryptologic warfare officers? I mean, "CWO" as an acronym was very much already in use, and since you guys aren't the ones breaking codes, it doesn't really fit anymore (I know the history behind the term). It's kind of like calling an imagery analyst an astronaut.

 

[egiv]

I was being hyperbolic with the "whole career" comment, but other than the few of you who get a tour flying around in the back of a big wing ISR asset, for the most part, you guys spend a lot less time in operational units or directly supporting operational things than we do. By operations I mean things other than collections, like helping people put warheads on foreheads. Not saying we spend a whole ton of time at sea or in the sandbox either, but looking at our career paths side by side, it's clear that 1830s spend more time on that stuff than 1810s.

I mean, yes and no - our career path is very flexible, which allows for us to either do multiple operational tours or just knock out a single 2-year wicket and then stay shoreside the rest of our career (VADM Tighe for example). That said, our operational tours directly support operations and have put more than a few warheads on foreheads. SIGINT has been driving NSW ops for years. Doesn't mean the '2' isn't still pulling together other INTs, making assessments and briefing it, but CTs/1810s are making it happen. The surface community has cryppies PCS'd to the majority of their platforms supporting operations. In other cases, our role is more supported than supporting (even if the URLs don't see it that way); as you mentioned, not so much strike missions, but operational intel collection nonetheless.

And then there are those amongst you who think that the non-kinetic fires element means you or the larger IWC should be URL (although I won't put that evil on you!), which gets serious eyerolls even from the 1830s.

Yes - completely agree, and it's not just 1830s rolling their eyes. I think it's an unnecessary distraction that eats away at the community's credibility.

On another note, I'm glad to see another nerd who uses the term as one of endearment. It's really a great way to sum up all the IWC communities since the group seems to change names every five minutes. While we're on the subject, who the hell decided that you guys should call yourselves cryptologic warfare officers? I mean, "CWO" as an acronym was very much already in use, and since you guys aren't the ones breaking codes, it doesn't really fit anymore (I know the history behind the term). It's kind of like calling an imagery analyst an astronaut.

Yeah, the 'CWO' acronym is unfortunate, but I prefer our new name to 'Information Warfare.' Sure, we're not cracking Japanese JN-25, but I think we're close enough to do justice to the 'Cryptologic' name. Some of the other suggestions floating around were comical - EMSWO (Electro Magnetic Spectrum Warfare Officer) was a legitimate contender, I shit you not. Also glad they got rid of 'dominance' from everything - what does dominating information even mean?

 

[fieldrat]

Yeah, the 'CWO' acronym is unfortunate...

Agreed. I just refer to myself as a "cryppie" most times. That seems to settle it for most folks, and for the few who are still lost, I say "Lead/manage CT[N,R,T] sailors" and the light bulb starts to come on.

 

[LFCFan]

I mean, yes and no - our career path is very flexible, which allows for us to either do multiple operational tours or just knock out a single 2-year wicket and then stay shoreside the rest of our career (VADM Tighe for example).

That's my point - you guys can knock out the wicket with a two year sea duty tour and get to three stars, although some do more than that. So it's hard for me to take it seriously when someone says "IW is where the action is, intel is just powerpoint" even though I am well aware that you guys have CTs on the small boys and folks who do SIGINT for the teams and all that. For us, we have a first sea tour as an ENS/JG, a mid career milestone as a senior O3/ junior O4 (now becoming an O4 milestone), and then O-5 sea tours. Plus, many folks will do additional sea tours (say, a SEAL team after doing a squadron tour), and those O3 sea tours will no longer check the mid-career wicket, but will still have to be filled. So the trend might be that the "golden path" for 1830s, if there ever will be such a thing, will have us doing sea duty at potentially every pay grade below O-6.

 

[Flash]

...That said, our operational tours directly support operations and have put more than a few warheads on foreheads. SIGINT has been driving NSW ops for years. Doesn't mean the '2' isn't still pulling together other INTs, making assessments and briefing it, but CTs/1810s are making it happen.

Lots of folks and lots of things put warheads on foreheads and drive ops, even 1830's in a few cases, so to be frank...you ain't that special.

...In other cases, our role is more supported than supporting (even if the URLs don't see it that way); as you mentioned, not so much strike missions, but operational intel collection nonetheless.

Even those missions are support in the end though, you don't get info for info's sake but do it to support the guys actually pulling the trigger or making the decisions to do so. Fixating on the fact you do 'ops' and continually bragging about it gets really old really quickly and folks you support who don't know any better are going to start tuning you out as a result.

Why do I care? I had to endure sitting next to 1610/40's who would tell me the very same thing you are in the EP-3 while the other half of my crew, a fine group of AT's and AE's, were doing just as good a job without having to constantly tell me how awesome they were. Or how I should be working for them and as an aviator I didn't really know anything about the job I doing on the plane. As LFCFan already said, you are just one INT of many and while you all do a lot of great work you ain't the only belle at the ball with shiny toys and making a contribution. That many of your colleagues belittle what your Intel compatriots doesn't really help things at all either, it may be funny but most URL's would look at that just like the pic I posted.

 

[egiv]

Lots of folks and lots of things put warheads on foreheads and drive ops, even 1830's in a few cases, so to be frank...you ain't that special.

Even those missions are support in the end though, you don't get info for info's sake but do it to support the guys actually pulling the trigger or making the decisions to do so. Fixating on the fact you do 'ops' and continually bragging about it gets really old really quickly and folks you support who don't know any better are going to start tuning you out as a result.

Why do I care? I had to endure sitting next to 1610/40's who would tell me the very same thing you are in the EP-3 while the other half of my crew, a fine group of AT's and AE's, were doing just as good a job without having to constantly tell me how awesome they were. Or how I should be working for them and as an aviator I didn't really know anything about the job I doing on the plane. As LFCFan already said, you are just one INT of many and while you all do a lot of great work you ain't the only belle at the ball with shiny toys and making a contribution. That many of your colleagues belittle what your Intel compatriots doesn't really help things at all either, it may be funny but most URL's would look at that just like the pic I posted.

I understand where you're coming from, but I was responding to another post, not bragging or belittling. My point was that we don't sit just around SCIFs all day while 1830s are in on operations; I'm not saying we are any MORE operational - or special, for that matter - than any one else. If anything, life on a ship is a constant struggle to communicate what we even do, let alone why it is important to the ship, because for the most part nobody cares.

Maybe the attitude the aviation guys are getting from cryppies comes from the fact that they are direct support and not permanently attached to the aviation unit? It seems that we don't have the same sort of friction with SWOs, who we are living side by side with.

 

[Flash]

...If anything, life on a ship is a constant struggle to communicate what we even do, let alone why it is important to the ship, because for the most part nobody cares...Maybe the attitude the aviation guys are getting from cryppies comes from the fact that they are direct support and not permanently attached to the aviation unit? It seems that we don't have the same sort of friction with SWOs, who we are living side by side with.

The direct support has a little bit to do with it but it more had to do with the fact that the EP-3 did a core cryppie mission but they weren't in charge of it, aviators were and it grated on them. Things are apparently better than when I flew ages ago but I still see the same pabulum from cryppies today.

The bigger picture is what I see a lot of cryppies losing focus on, they get so wrapped up in their little crumbs they lose site of the fact they are only part of a much bigger piece of the pie.