SELRES_AMDO
Well-Known Member
Why would intelligence officers be qualified to command warships?
I'll be long dead before the Navy ever puts an IWC officer in command of a fleet or COCOM. So I guess I don't really see the point of it.
-
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
DCO Panel Interview Gouge
- Thread starter bubblehead
- Start date
I'll be long dead before the Navy ever puts an IWC officer in command of a fleet or COCOM. So I guess I don't really see the point of it.
I’ll take that bet. What are we betting?
navgovie
IW Officer
To be honest, I think the previous process for 1835 recruitment broke this mold. There was a stretch where the Intel folks were trying to recruit "cross-domain" specialists to augment specific technical leadership roles in the Intel space where they saw "gaps". I think they've recovered from this thinking for now (because the Navy has other designators that can fill these roles!).
Beyond this though, people can still pass through the filters and end up in place they don't belong, which speaks to your premise that the DCO process should be revamped. However I would argue there probably needs to be more interviews, not less!
To add to this: a smart and motivated individual can become an extremely competent intelligence professional in the Navy Reserve with zero prior intel experience.
That person needs to do the following:
- Self-study prior to applying/commissioning, and after commissioning well above and beyond one weekend a month, two weeks a year - there are tons of unclassified intelligence materials, podcasts, texbooks, memoirs, documentary films, etc. out there at low/no cost
- Take NIOBC phases I and II seriously, despite those being not terribly hard, and pursue the 100% rather than the minimums to pass
- Similar to the above: don’t gundeck or skate through your PQS quals; take them seriously and aim to knock it out of the park rather than barely pass
- Find at least one solid mentor who has real world full time IC experience to help you learn the profession and hone your skill set, and has the time to invest in your progress
- Network the heck out of the Navy Reserve IWC and expand your awareness of what others do to be successful
- Jump on E-AT, ADT, ADSW/ADOS, and Mob orders to do intelligence full time, as feasible
The Navy Reserve appreciates STEM backgrounds and foreign languages not because you’ll use them and rely on them as your main expertise, but rather because they hope it will be complementary as you learn your intelligence professional expertise.
TL;DR: grow where you’re planted, be humble, and learn in excess of the minimum learning
Last edited:
Hail_HYDRA!
One more question...
OMG....sheesh.
A former Navy SEAL and 160th Nightstalker said it nicely for all the support staff and enablers to the fight to “not judge your value by your proximity to the target”. By “having a seat at the table” imply we are no longer on the menu?
USN - Don't judge your value by your proximity to the target
Just came across an incredible article entitled "Don't judge your value by your proximity to the target" that I believe is most appropriate to our community, heck all communities of support professionals, as we are the expert IW support cadre providing critical IW capabilities to the warfighter...
www.airwarriors.com
nodropinufaka
Well-Known Member
So much to unpack here.
1- STEM literally has zero bearing on if you can succeed as an intelligence officer. It will make no difference.
2- Foreign Language- I still don’t understand where and how this came about. You will not ever use it. Without going too much into classified material- you can’t even see anything that isn’t translated with foreign language on it as an 1830.
I know I know. That’s why I mentioned them. But the DCO Board instructions to board members, as well as the final DCO selection results memo, both mention those two areas specifically. And recruiters parrot them, too.
What I am saying is I think what you’re saying - applicants who get selected based on those skills tend to lean on them too heavily after commissioning, and get frustrated when they discover Navy Intel probably doesn’t need that skill. Instead, they should be completely rebuilding/establishing their intelligence professional skills from the ground up once they commission.
exNavyOffRec
Well-Known Member
All the Intel DCO's I saw commissioned had non STEM degrees and didn't speak a foreign language, the people doing the panel interviews must have known what to look for.
CW and IP were different as they were mainly STEM.
The foreign language thing was probably added by someone that spoke a foreign language and though Intel officers should be like him. I think it is funny that OR's still push it when like you every Intel officer has said they have never used it and won't.
A STEM degree is absolutely positively not necessary to succeed as a CW or an IP. Period.
They push it because of supply and demand. There are more applicants than slots.
None of the crap they have in the PA is actually necessary to succeed.
How is an aviator qualified to command an aircraft carrier?
exNavyOffRec
Well-Known Member
maybe it is to align with what they are looking for on the AD side? there are lots of positions (military and civilian) that have requirements where you don't actually need those requirements to do the job. A friend of mine has twice now filled in as an IT manager when the actual IT managers have left the company, he has applied and is shot down every time as he doesn't have a 4 year degree and the main corporate office has mandated that the position must have a degree vice degree and/or equivalent experience.
link6
Member
The points about STEM are surprising. I 100% agree that a STEM degree isn't necessary to succeed. I was a successful-ish IC Marine and DoN civilian with no degrees whatsoever. Now I have multiple graduate STEM degrees, one with substantial AI/ML focus, and I'm confident that the skills I've developed in academia would have been quite useful in my previous positions. Moreover, my panel and OIC were very excited about their direct application within the community. Is it just an aspect of officer culture that will keep me from going gangbusters with this stuff if I get selected? Are The Powers That Be just using STEM degrees as a (possibly unreliable) competency heuristic?
nodropinufaka
Well-Known Member
How do you think you would use AI or ML as an 1835?
There is literally no place to use that as a standard 1835.
There is literally no place to use that as a standard 1835.
I wouldn’t go that far. It is just a skill set that the IWC Reserve DCO board desires in applicants for 1835 reserve intel officer. If you want to use it, there are places where you can - you just have to ask around/ search.
Academic/Professional Expertise:
(1) Required: Baccalaureate degree with a minimum 3.0 or greater GPA.
(2) Desired: Preferred fields of study include International Relations with a Language and/Regional Focus (e.g., Middle East or Asian Studies), Political Science, Anthropology, History, Artificial Intelligence and Machine Learning, Data Science, or Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics (STEM). Certified foreign language skills and cultural background/expertise are highly desirable. Skills must be supported by DLPT/DLAB score of 2/2/2. I disagree. But I won’t talk about it here, other than to say you are correct in assuming it’s unlikely most 1835s will end up using it in most circumstances.
That said, the Program Authorization specifically states:
(2) Work Experience: Prior experience in intelligence or cyber-related professions is strongly desired.
(a) Additional consideration will be given to candidates with quantifiable experience in artificial intelligence/machine learning or space professions.
Last edited: