PDA

View Full Version : Instant E7 or O6?



Mjölnir
06-22-2016, 01:09 PM
Defense Secretary Ash Carter wants to open the door for more “lateral entry” into the military's upper ranks, clearing the way for lifelong civilians with vital skills and strong résumés to enter the officer corps as high as the O-6 paygrade.

The idea is controversial, to say the very least. For many in the rank-and-file military, it seems absurd, a bewildering cultural change that threatens to upend many assumptions about military life and traditional career paths. But while it's not universally embraced, there is interest in Congress and among some of the military's uniformed leaders — even, they say, in exploring how the services could apply this concept to the enlisted force.

cont.


http://www.militarytimes.com/story/military/careers/2016/06/19/military-lateral-entry-force-of-the-future-ash-carter/85884998/

It is an interesting proposal, the Navy and Air Force seem to be the most supportive, the Army and Marine Corps being more reserved.

I see benefits and drawbacks to the idea.

As admitted by the Navy, the focus for this effort currently is in the cyber warfare community where, the skills just don't exist in the current force to meet the mission, the people who have the skills do not want to assess as an E1 or E3 or O1 so ... what to do. In that respect making them an instant E5 or E7 / O3 or O4 is the same thing we do with lawyers and doctors etc.

As a drawback (probably what the more combat oriented services are concerned about) is the lack of military experience that these technical experts have. And a potential lop-siding of the rank structure in particular fields. For officers specifically there are limits on the number of a particular grade of officer built into Congressional end-strength limits (gain an O5 technician, lose an O5 tactician).

A possible work around would be to establish something like the discontinued Army Specialist ranks that went from E4 to E9 (non-NCO's with technical expertise.) They could still be compensated more appropriate to their skill sets, but do not exercise the authority of an NCO the way a SGT or SSGT would.

Rusty Jones
06-22-2016, 01:25 PM
What about the people who've busted their asses and paid their dues for 20 years, and never reached those paygrades? Not that the Generals and Admirals making these decisions give two shits, but such a program would be a slap in the face to them.

It also suprises me that, of all services, the Navy is among the most open to this.

I don't agree with Army Specialist ranks. It's like this: first off, Spec 8 and Spec 9 only existed on paper. In other words, no one in the Army has ever held either of these two ranks. Secondly... this is second hand information that I've heard from a few Vietnam vets (i.e., I can't find anything on paper that states this as official practice), but the ranks of Spec 6 and Spec 7 were supposedly filled by slow-witted or high functioning autistic personnel who were inducted when the Army's standards for entry were at their lowest.

If this is indeed the case, then bringing back something reminiscent of those times... probably not a good idea.

If they want these guys to get paid for their expertise and experience, then a better idea would be to offer higher bonuses than what's given to nukes and SpecOps or an extra grand or two a month in some form of differential pay; but still bring them in as E1-E3, like everyone else.

Mjölnir
06-22-2016, 01:39 PM
What about the people who've busted their asses and paid their dues for 20 years, and never reached those paygrades? Not that the Generals and Admirals making these decisions give two shits, but such a program would be a slap in the face to them.

The plan would allow accessions UP TO those grade, not necessarily everyone would get that senior of a direct.

Sorta the same problem already ... some MOS's promote much faster than others (I have seen E4's with more time in service than E6's) ... pick your rate, pick your fate in many cases.


It also suprises me that, of all services, the Navy is among the most open to this.

Not me, the navy is targeting their cyber warfare area right now with it. The Navy is the service with the biggest 'delta' on the cyber skill set. It will take 10 years to train a cyber specialist from zero level to the level of knowledge that they need.


If they want these guys to get paid for their expertise and experience, then a better idea would be to offer higher bonuses than what's given to nukes and SpecOps or an extra grand or two a month in some form of differential pay; but still bring them in as E1-E3, like everyone else.

Good point, the counter argument to just the money is that most of the young 30's crowd that have the skills regardless of pay don't want to deal with the BS of being an E3 etc.

Rusty Jones
06-22-2016, 01:47 PM
Well, when I give it a bit more thought... there is one way that I could get onboard with this. Two conditions would have to be met:

1. ALL potential recruits would have to be screened for work and supervisory/managerial experience, and ALL ratings would have to be eligible. For example... if someone was shift manager at Applebee's, they should be able to come in as a CS1. If someone owned a corner store, barber shop, or dry cleaning/laundry facility, they should be able to come in as an SHC.

2. This program would have to be phased in by paygrade over a 15 to 20 year period. For example, for the first few years, the highest you can come in as is an E4. After awhile, they extend it to E5, and so forth. This would prevent that sudden shock that would throw the military into a big upheaval but putting in E7's right away. It also allows the people who are under what will become the "old school" mindset to retire before they're affected by it.


Good point, the counter argument to just the money is that most of the young 30's crowd that have the skills regardless of pay don't want to deal with the BS of being an E3 etc.

Then going in as enlisted isn't for them. They need to finish their degrees and go officer.

Rainmaker
06-22-2016, 02:14 PM
Total Bullshit. DoD already outsources for the Technical SMEs it supposedly "needs" thru service contracts with Private Industry to the tune of $150+ Billion a year.

But, there's not enough "Diversity" in the senior ranks to satisfy the social engineers, so what better way to get it than by instituting direct appointments of a bunch of Soviet style political officers of the correct color/gender to get to the result they want.

Rusty Jones
06-22-2016, 02:32 PM
But, there's not enough "Diversity" in the senior ranks to satisfy the social engineers, so what better way to get it than by instituting direct appointments of a bunch of Soviet style political officers of the correct color/gender to get to the result they want.

Can you please, for once in your life, stop going out of your way to find ways to relate completely unrelated topics to your personal issues with "diversity?"

sandsjames
06-22-2016, 02:44 PM
Can you please, for once in your life, stop going out of your way to find ways to relate completely unrelated topics to your personal issues with "diversity?"

He can't do it. Like any partisan politician, he has his list of talking points and buzz words and any topic will circle back around.

Rainmaker
06-22-2016, 02:58 PM
Can you please, for once in your life, stop going out of your way to find ways to relate completely unrelated topics to your personal issues with "diversity?"

It's completely related Rusty.

Maybe you missed it. But, the DoD already outsources for the Technical SMEs it supposedly "needs" thru service contracts with Private Industry to the tune of $150+ Billion a year.

So Mr. Rainmaker, what military purpose does ramming all this other dumbfuck stuff thru serve you ask?

Well ....all you have to do is look at the rhetoric that's coming from certified neocon and Goldman Sachs weenie, Ash Carter that's right there for all to see!

http://www.militarytimes.com/story/military/pentagon/2016/04/13/pentagon-proposal-rooney-rule-minority-officers-raising-internal-concerns/83004196/

http://www.defense.gov/News-Article-View/Article/604799

Translation: If these pentagoon faggots get their way, chix with dix will soon be coming off the street and serving key positions alongside with rest of the that PC hacks that are being groomed to become the next generation of General Officers.

Rusty Jones
06-22-2016, 03:04 PM
It's completely related Rusty.

Maybe you missed it. But, the DoD already outsources for the Technical SMEs it supposedly "needs" thru service contracts with Private Industry to the tune of $150+ Billion a year.

So Mr. Rainmaker, what military purpose does ramming all this other dumbfuck stuff thru serve you ask?

Well ....all you have to do is look at the rhetoric that's coming from certified neocon and Goldman Sachs weenie, Ash Carter that's right there for all to see!

http://www.militarytimes.com/story/military/pentagon/2016/04/13/pentagon-proposal-rooney-rule-minority-officers-raising-internal-concerns/83004196/

http://www.defense.gov/News-Article-View/Article/604799

Translation: If these pentagoon faggots get their way, chix with dix will soon be coming off the street and serving key positions alongside with rest of the that PC hacks that are being groomed to become the next generation of General Officers.

I'm not addressing this bullshit. This is a good topic, and I'm not going to participate in its derailment. Not this early, when we haven't even made it past the first fucking page.

Rainmaker
06-22-2016, 03:08 PM
He can't do it. Like any partisan politician, he has his list of talking points and buzz words and any topic will circle back around.

You should probably log off now and retreat to your safe space, before we start being divisive and your feelings get hurt.

Mjölnir
06-22-2016, 03:10 PM
1. ALL potential recruits would have to be screened for work and supervisory/managerial experience, and ALL ratings would have to be eligible. For example... if someone was shift manager at Applebee's, they should be able to come in as a CS1. If someone owned a corner store, barber shop, or dry cleaning/laundry facility, they should be able to come in as an SHC.

Problem is, we don't need more CS1's or mechanics ... we need the Cyber Warfare people right now (which is a huge part of the Navy's support for the idea).

From an HR perspective, we can train a mechanic in 3-6 months, a basic (non-SPECOPS) infantryman in 2 - 3 months, those occupational fields necessitate a pyramid shaped rank structure that is fat at the bottom and gets progressively thinner as we go up. The Navy has more of a diamond shaped rank structure, fatter in the middle (E5, E6 & E7) than at the most junior or senior ranks. In the more technical fields, we may send someone to entry level training for 30 months, they serve the remainder of their initial contract and leave after 5 or 6 years (usually having to do a longer contract because of training) and then we start over ... it is a loss of money.

My support behind a non-NCO or PO type of thing is sort of based on how civilian employees can be supervisory or non-supervisory. My first Division in the Navy had zero E1-3, 1x E4, 1x E5, about a dozen E6's, and 4x E7's (all CT's). Granted, most of my E6's were at their terminal grade for one reason or another, and most frankly would have made poor CPO's ... they were technically astute but lacked leadership. Maybe a non-supervisory/NCO role that affords upward mobility can keep people with the technical know-how but not shoot ourselves in the foot by putting them in charge of people.


2. This program would have to be phased in by paygrade over a 15 to 20 year period. For example, for the first few years, the highest you can come in as is an E4. After awhile, they extend it to E5, and so forth. This would prevent that sudden shock that would throw the military into a big upheaval but putting in E7's right away. It also allows the people who are under what will become the "old school" mindset to retire before they're affected by it.

I think the vast majority of people would be coming in as E5's and O3's. But, non-supervisory positions would alleviate the "old school" folks from really being impacted.




Then going in as enlisted isn't for them. They need to finish their degrees and go officer.

I think 30 or 35 year old with the type of skills the program targets would want to be an Ensign either.

Mjölnir
06-22-2016, 03:13 PM
Total Bullshit. DoD already outsources for the Technical SMEs it supposedly "needs" thru service contracts with Private Industry to the tune of $150+ Billion a year.

Specific to Cyber, there are certain things we can't have an outsourced contractor do ... has to be uniformed military. Title 10 authorities can be exercised by a civilian operator.

Rainmaker
06-22-2016, 03:15 PM
In the more technical fields, we may send someone to entry level training for 30 months, they serve the remainder of their initial contract and leave after 5 or 6 years (usually having to do a longer contract because of training) and then we start over ... it is a loss of money.







Maybe a non-supervisory/NCO role that affords upward mobility can keep people with the technical know-how but not shoo t ourselves in the foot by putting them in charge of people.




I think 30 or 35 year old with the type of skills the program targets would want to be an Ensign either.




So, Why wouldn't we continue to contract for these shortfalls or hire GS employees as we do now?

SomeRandomGuy
06-22-2016, 03:23 PM
Problem is, we don't need more CS1's or mechanics ... we need the Cyber Warfare people right now (which is a huge part of the Navy's support for the idea).

From an HR perspective, we can train a mechanic in 3-6 months, a basic (non-SPECOPS) infantryman in 2 - 3 months, those occupational fields necessitate a pyramid shaped rank structure that is fat at the bottom and gets progressively thinner as we go up. The Navy has more of a diamond shaped rank structure, fatter in the middle (E5, E6 & E7) than at the most junior or senior ranks. In the more technical fields, we may send someone to entry level training for 30 months, they serve the remainder of their initial contract and leave after 5 or 6 years (usually having to do a longer contract because of training) and then we start over ... it is a loss of money.

My support behind a non-NCO or PO type of thing is sort of based on how civilian employees can be supervisory or non-supervisory. My first Division in the Navy had zero E1-3, 1x E4, 1x E5, about a dozen E6's, and 4x E7's (all CT's). Granted, most of my E6's were at their terminal grade for one reason or another, and most frankly would have made poor CPO's ... they were technically astute but lacked leadership. Maybe a non-supervisory/NCO role that affords upward mobility can keep people with the technical know-how but not shoot ourselves in the foot by putting them in charge of people.



I think the vast majority of people would be coming in as E5's and O3's. But, non-supervisory positions would alleviate the "old school" folks from really being impacted.





I think 30 or 35 year old with the type of skills the program targets would want to be an Ensign either.

Why do we need a new program? As you said, this type of thing already exists in the Medical Corp. Take for example this Cardiac Surgeon who was award the rank of O-5.

http://www.cnn.com/2005/HEALTH/07/19/profile.cardiac.army/

It can't be that hard to simply evaluate how the medical version of this program works and extend it to other technical fields.

Mjölnir
06-22-2016, 03:26 PM
So, Why wouldn't we continue to contract for these shortfalls or hire GS employees as we do now?

For some of the jobs, we are not / can not by law contract or hire GS's. The billets are gapped.

Mjölnir
06-22-2016, 03:27 PM
Why do we need a new program? As you said, this type of thing already exists in the Medical Corp. Take for example this Cardiac Surgeon who was award the rank of O-5.

http://www.cnn.com/2005/HEALTH/07/19/profile.cardiac.army/

It can't be that hard to simply evaluate how the medical version of this program works and extend it to other technical fields.

The medical program is the model, but under law it only works for certain job fields (medical, law, dental) ... cannot be extended to other fields without a change in the law.

USN - Retired
06-22-2016, 03:31 PM
Specific to Cyber, there are certain things we can't have an outsourced contractor do ... has to be uniformed military.

Such as?? Why would someone sitting in front of a computer need to be uniformed military?

I'll be more specific,... why would a cyber warfare specialist need to be uniformed military?

Rainmaker
06-22-2016, 03:36 PM
The billets are gapped.


BS.

The same argument (inherently governmental function) was made & for all intents ignored when we outsourced a huge number of our IC core positions to private industry. For instance at one point the forward deployed billets of IC in Afghanistan were probably running 80% contracted. Legally pretty much everything but a Contracting Officer and the very senior decision maker positions can be outsourced.

However, if that's the concern than the vast majority of these positions can be filled with Federal employees can perform these functions at an equivalent salary to an E-7 or an 0-6.

DarkHeart
06-22-2016, 03:36 PM
Why do we need a new program? As you said, this type of thing already exists in the Medical Corp. Take for example this Cardiac Surgeon who was award the rank of O-5.

http://www.cnn.com/2005/HEALTH/07/19/profile.cardiac.army/

It can't be that hard to simply evaluate how the medical version of this program works and extend it to other technical fields.

This is the only way I see this working without too much foaming at the mouth from the Mess, though I don't think they could stand someone coming out of Great Lakes as a CPO no matter their skill set.

Maybe bring on just enough personnel for a period of 3-5 years to build a Cyber Warfare community akin to Navy Medicine while training existing CTs and the like to take over with little to no direct accessions from the civilian sector after that period. Excepting the few individuals with skill and experience the Navy can't easily get from the inside.

Rusty Jones
06-22-2016, 03:46 PM
Here's another possibility: why not make Cyber Warfare jobs a warrant officer program, where people can join as a warrant officer? SECDEF would have to force the Air Force's hand to bring back warrant officers to make this happen, but I don't think anyone but Air Force Generals would be bitching.

Many, if not most, warrant officers are not in charge of anyone away. They exist mostly, and many cases solely, for their technical expertise. Stuff like this is specifically what warrant officers were designed for.

So again... why not make them warrant officers?

Rainmaker
06-22-2016, 04:08 PM
So again... why not make them warrant officers?


Because warrant officers are selected based on merit & the Warrant Officer Corps is not currently diverse enough to satisfy the Marxist ideologue's agenda ( which is to diversify the military's senior ranks). There's no actual military purpose or necessity for it.

http://www.airforcetimes.com/story/military/careers/air-force/2015/03/09/air-force-secretary-deborah-lee-james-opportunities-women-minorities-and-enlisted-airmen/24505205/


"The plan before Carter would direct each of the services to establish goals for race, ethnicity and gender among the officers it commissions to “reflect the diverse population in the United States eligible to serve in our military"."

Mjölnir
06-22-2016, 05:45 PM
Such as?? Why would someone sitting in front of a computer need to be uniformed military?

I'll be more specific,... why would a cyber warfare specialist need to be uniformed military?

Basically, the difference between Title 50 and Title 10 authorities. ie. The Senior Operations Officer on the NSA Watchfloor is either a GS-15 or an O6, the Director of Cyber Operations at the NSA NTOC is either a GS-15 or an O6, the Cyber Battle Captain at USCYBERCOM has to be a uniformed military officer (billeted as an O5) to execute Title 10 missions for DoD ... a contractor or GS cannot do it per law.

Even though it is via a computer, conduct of offensive operations is an execution of war power.

Mjölnir
06-22-2016, 05:47 PM
BS.

The same argument (inherently governmental function) was made & for all intents ignored when we outsourced a huge number of our IC core positions to private industry. For instance at one point the forward deployed billets of IC in Afghanistan were probably running 80% contracted. Legally pretty much everything but a Contracting Officer and the very senior decision maker positions can be outsourced.

However, if that's the concern than the vast majority of these positions can be filled with Federal employees can perform these functions at an equivalent salary to an E-7 or an 0-6.

Conduct of intel operations and offensive warfare (kinetic or non-kinetic) operations is different.

Non kinetic isn't as cool or sexy and kinetic ... but based on legal interpretation of war, degrading or destroying something that doesn't belong to us (US) is an execution of war power.

Mjölnir
06-22-2016, 05:49 PM
This is the only way I see this working without too much foaming at the mouth from the Mess, though I don't think they could stand someone coming out of Great Lakes as a CPO no matter their skill set.

Maybe bring on just enough personnel for a period of 3-5 years to build a Cyber Warfare community akin to Navy Medicine while training existing CTs and the like to take over with little to no direct accessions from the civilian sector after that period. Excepting the few individuals with skill and experience the Navy can't easily get from the inside.

A program kinda like that is already being done in the Navy (Cyber Warfare Engineers), start as O1, promote through O3, MUST offramp at O3 to something else. They can come on without a degree or if they complete a degree before mandatory offramp they can laterally transfer to another community (most likely IW or Intel)

Mjölnir
06-22-2016, 05:51 PM
Here's another possibility: why not make Cyber Warfare jobs a warrant officer program, where people can join as a warrant officer? SECDEF would have to force the Air Force's hand to bring back warrant officers to make this happen, but I don't think anyone but Air Force Generals would be bitching.

Many, if not most, warrant officers are not in charge of anyone away. They exist mostly, and many cases solely, for their technical expertise. Stuff like this is specifically what warrant officers were designed for.

So again... why not make them warrant officers?

Not a bad idea. A friend of a friend whose friend told him ... there is too much disparity between what would warrant someone brought on as an E5 and someone brought on as an O3/4 to make it work well. Allowing it for E4-O6 enables them to more appropriately place someone based on their qualifications they bring from the outside.

Mjölnir
06-22-2016, 05:53 PM
Because warrant officers are selected based on merit & the Warrant Officer Corps is not currently diverse enough to satisfy the Marxist ideologue's agenda ( which is to diversify the military's senior ranks). There's no actual military purpose or necessity for it.

Most of the time ... however the Army selects Warrant Officers for aviation duty as straight/entry level accessions.

USN - Retired
06-22-2016, 06:11 PM
Basically, the difference between Title 50 and Title 10 authorities. ie. The Senior Operations Officer on the NSA Watchfloor is either a GS-15 or an O6, the Director of Cyber Operations at the NSA NTOC is either a GS-15 or an O6, the Cyber Battle Captain at USCYBERCOM has to be a uniformed military officer (billeted as an O5) to execute Title 10 missions for DoD ... a contractor or GS cannot do it per law.

Even though it is via a computer, conduct of offensive operations is an execution of war power.

You are dodging the question.

First of all, a law is not a commandment. Laws can be changed. Secondly, this discussion is about the cyber warfare specialists, i.e. the people who actually do the work. We're not talking about some dumbshit O-5 or O-6 who just sits around drinking coffee and taking credit for all the work that other people are doing. Third, do you really think that that the CIA is not already heavily involved in cyberwarfare, including offensive cyber operations?

In 1960, Francis Gary Powers was sitting in a U-2 over the Soviet Union, and he was not "uniformed military" at that time.

Mjölnir
06-22-2016, 06:21 PM
You are dodging the question.

First of all, a law is not a commandment. Laws can be changed. Secondly, this discussion is about the cyber warfare specialists, i.e. the people who actually do the work. We're not talking about some dumbshit O-5 or O-6 who just sits around drinking coffee and taking credit for all the work that other people are doing. Third, do you really think that that the CIA is not already heavily involved in cyberwarfare, including offensive cyber operations?

In 1960, Francis Gary Powers was sitting in a U-2 over the Soviet Union, and he was not "uniformed military" at that time.

I am not avoiding your question, I have to be vague because of the platform we are communicating on ... plain and simple.

A couple of points:

Yes, laws are not commandments ... but we are (supposed to be) a society of laws.

I would imagine, that the CIA already is involved in cyber operations, they would be conducting covert operations. Title 50

No, Francis Gary Powers was not a uniformed officer, he was not conducting an offensive mission either ... he was conducting an Intelligence, Surveillance and Reconnaissance mission. Covert operations. Title 50

Offensive Cyber Operations by the U.S. Military are overt military operations. Title 10

USN - Retired
06-22-2016, 06:32 PM
I am not avoiding your question, I have to be vague because of the platform we are communicating on ... plain and simple.

A couple of points:

Yes, laws are not commandments ... but we are (supposed to be) a society of laws.

I would imagine, that the CIA already is involved in cyber operations, they would be conducting covert operations. Title 50

No, Francis Gary Powers was not a uniformed officer, he was not conducting an offensive mission either ... he was conducting an Intelligence, Surveillance and Reconnaissance mission. Covert operations. Title 50

Offensive Cyber Operations by the U.S. Military are overt military operations. Title 10

The point that I am making, and the point that you are avoiding, is that the cyber warfare specialists, i.e. the worker bees, can be civilians.



I would imagine, that the CIA already is involved in cyber operations, they would be conducting covert operations. Title 50

Offensive Cyber Operations by the U.S. Military are overt military operations. Title 10

Do you really believe that the CIA is not conducting Offensive Cyber Operations, especially against ISIS?

Rainmaker
06-22-2016, 06:51 PM
Right. Collecting Intel via certain sources is also an inherently governmental function and yet it's currently being done by contractors and has been for years. Why? Because we said we could.

Cyber attacks are now an act of war. Why? Because, we said they are.

This is what happens when the state becomes infested with neocon/neolib parasites and pollutes itself with corporate lackeys the likes of Ash Carter and Debbie James

Unfortunately, the young generation will pay a heavy price for their insanity/corruption (and that of the quisling generals who go along with it)

But, the good news is that these political hack officers they appoint will be among the first to get fragged in the coming WW3!

Rusty Jones
06-22-2016, 06:56 PM
Wait... is it even the CIA's job to conduct "offensive operations" in the first place? I thought their job was to collect and disseminate intel to the people who DO conduct the offensive ops.

Mjölnir
06-22-2016, 06:59 PM
The point that I am making, and the point that you are avoiding, is that the cyber warfare specialists, i.e. the worker bees, can be civilians.?

For Computer Network Defense, yes. For overt Computer Network Exploitation and Offensive Operations, no ... must be military.


Do you really believe that the CIA is not conducting Offensive Cyber Operations, especially against ISIS? I believe if they are doing Offensive Cyber it falls under covert ops (Title 50) vice overt ops (Title 10).

Mjölnir
06-22-2016, 07:06 PM
Wait... is it even the CIA's job to conduct "offensive operations" in the first place? I thought their job was to collect and disseminate intel to the people who DO conduct the offensive ops.

The CIA conducts Covert Operations, some of which could be considered offensive (deny, degrade, destroy), but being covert, they are governed by Title 50. Military Operations are overt, governed by Title 10.

The SeAL mission (supported by other entities) that killed Osama bin Laden was a covert operation and governed by Title 50, not by Title 10.

Rainmaker
06-22-2016, 07:11 PM
The SeAL mission (supported by other entities) that killed Osama bin Laden

Pfftttt. .Shoot us a PM commander. Rainmaker's Got a cant miss investment opportunity for you on some reclaimed swampland!

USN - Retired
06-22-2016, 07:24 PM
For Computer Network Defense, yes. For overt Computer Network Exploitation and Offensive Operations, no ... must be military.

I believe if they are doing Offensive Cyber it falls under covert ops (Title 50) vice overt ops (Title 10).

So back to the question that you keep dodging...

Why would a cyber warfare specialist, i.e. the person at the computer terminal, need to be uniformed military? The person in overall command may need to be military, but the worker bees on the computer terminals don't need to be military. The cyber warfare specialists are support personnel just like all the other DOD civilians.

Mjölnir
06-22-2016, 07:25 PM
Pfftttt. .Shoot us a PM commander. Rainmaker's Got a cant miss investment opportunity for you on some reclaimed swampland!

That worked for Walt Disney ...

Rainmaker
06-22-2016, 07:27 PM
That worked for Walt Disney ...

Disney's company has since been taken over by Jew-fags! /s

SomeRandomGuy
06-22-2016, 07:29 PM
So back to the question that you keep dodging...

Why would a cyber warfare specialist, i.e. the person at the computer terminal, need to be uniformed military? The person in overall command may need to be military, but the worker bees on the computer terminals don't need to be military. The cyber warfare specialists are support personnel just like all the other DOD civilians.

I believe the point he's making that you keep missing is that laws such as Geneva Convention and the Law of Armed Conflict require that attacks must be conducted by members of the military.

He's saying that hacking into China's servers is an act of war just lake invading Iraq via land is an act of war. Some things need to be done by actual military troops or they violate the Geneva Convention.

Mjölnir
06-22-2016, 07:34 PM
So back to the question that you keep dodging...

Why would a cyber warfare specialist, i.e. the person at the computer terminal, need to be uniformed military? The person in overall command may need to be military, but the worker bees on the computer terminals don't need to be military. The cyber warfare specialists are support personnel just like all the other DOD civilians.

I am not dodging it, I don't think you understand the situation.

Think of the cyber operator on the keyboard as the non-kinetic infantryman. When he/she pushes [enter] and transmits a weaponized data packet, malicious code, command etc. that is the 'bullet'. When that act is overt, it is under Title 10 and the person in charge (platoon commander or cyber officer) must be military; the worker bee (infantryman) pressing enter (pulling the trigger) must be military.

We could not deploy a platoon of contract infantry with a military commander in a Title 10 mission, same for cyber.

Mjölnir
06-22-2016, 07:35 PM
Disney's company has since been taken over by Jew-fags!

And they got rich off that swamp land.

sandsjames
06-22-2016, 07:44 PM
Let me clarify for those of you who don't actually like to read what the other person is writing.

Mjolnir is stating how things are...everyone else is stating how things should be and that all it would take is changing the law...Mjolnir, for some reason, is pretending not to understand what everyone else is saying. Because of Mjolnir's job, he's in a tough situation to actually be able to comment on certain things. So this argument is pretty much pointless.

You guys aren't actually disagreeing on anything here. You're all trying to figure out what color the number 3 smells like.

Rusty Jones
06-22-2016, 07:53 PM
Let me clarify for those of you who don't actually like to read what the other person is writing.

Mjolnir is stating how things are...everyone else is stating how things should be and that all it would take is changing the law...Mjolnir, for some reason, is pretending not to understand what everyone else is saying. Because of Mjolnir's job, he's in a tough situation to actually be able to comment on certain things. So this argument is pretty much pointless.

You guys aren't actually disagreeing on anything here. You're all trying to figure out what color the number 3 smells like.

I agree with what Mjollnir is stating here. For one thing, the DoD itself can't change the laws in the CFR. It can only operate within its constraints. So any discussion about changing those laws is basically living in a world of "the way it should be," instead of the world of "the way it is."

Bringing someone in as an E7 or O6 is operating within those constraints. However, I think that there are better ways to operate within them myself. Like all the suggestions I mentioned earlier.

USN-Retired fully understands what Mjollnir is saying but, as usual, he's not here to contribute anything of value to MTF. He's simply here to troll.

Rainmaker
06-22-2016, 08:01 PM
Let me clarify for those of you who don't actually like to read what the other person is writing.

Mjolnir is stating how things are...everyone else is stating how things should be and that all it would take is changing the law...Mjolnir, for some reason, is pretending not to understand what everyone else is saying. Because of Mjolnir's job, he's in a tough situation to actually be able to comment on certain things. So this argument is pretty much pointless.

You guys aren't actually disagreeing on anything here. You're all trying to figure out what color the number 3 smells like.

Gee professor, thanks for explaining it to us rubes. But, There's plenty of us here with our own skill sets and decades of experiences. But, If we need someone to weigh in on the procedure for checking the oil on a generator you'll be the first person we call.

sandsjames
06-22-2016, 08:05 PM
Gee professor, thanks for explaining it to us rubes. But, There's plenty of us here with our own skill sets and decades of experiences. But, If we need someone to weigh in on the procedure for checking the oil on a generator you'll be the first person we call.

If you get it then act like you get it...quit being the little kid who keeps disagreeing just to garner attention. Don't confuse your "skill sets" with intelligence.

Rainmaker
06-22-2016, 08:06 PM
And they got rich off that swamp land.

That part was already done.

The profiteers got rich off Disney's reputation and perverted his company's values & wholesome family friendly products in the process

Rainmaker
06-22-2016, 08:12 PM
If you get it then act like you get it...quit being the little kid who keeps disagreeing just to garner attention.

Some one brings up the possibility that there could be an ulterior motive behind all these efforts fundamentally transforming the demographic makeup of the military & you immediately default to shitting all over yourself to discount it. Why?

And yeah I get it. & I also get that you're completely out of your depth and talking out of your ass (like usual)

Mjölnir
06-22-2016, 08:15 PM
Mjolnir is stating how things are...everyone else is stating how things should be and that all it would take is changing the law...Mjolnir, for some reason, is pretending not to understand what everyone else is saying. Because of Mjolnir's job, he's in a tough situation to actually be able to comment on certain things. So this argument is pretty much pointless.

"All it would take is changing the law" ... changing both Title 10 and Title 50 to solve this specific problem is akin to using a sledgehammer to kill a mosquito. Instead the proposal is to make a change to entry level accession programs for particular skill sets; something I think is much more "the way it should be" than changing two huge sections of the U.S. Code.

I understand what folks are saying, but what some folks are saying shows a lack of understanding of Title 10 and Title 50 (what is overt & what is covert) and how Cyber Operations are conducted ... ironically, somethings I have experience in and know about. So, no ... I am not pretending to not understand and this is not a tough situation ... I am speaking on something I know about firsthand.

sandsjames
06-22-2016, 08:20 PM
Yeah I get it. & I also get that you're completely out of your depth and talking out of your ass (like usual)

Yep, I'm out of my depth. Can't hope to converse with you highfalutin types when I'm jus' a poor working class fella.

sandsjames
06-22-2016, 08:24 PM
"All it would take is changing the law" ... changing both Title 10 and Title 50 to solve this specific problem is akin to using a sledgehammer to kill a mosquito. Instead the proposal is to make a change to entry level accession programs for particular skill sets; something I think is much more "the way it should be" than changing two huge sections of the U.S. Code. But you know that these codes are being bypassed all the time, even though you're not going to admit it in a public forum. Everyone knows these codes are being skirted. It's like the parents who know their kids are breaking the rules by drinking with their friends but everyone pretends it's not happening as long as nobody gets in trouble.


I understand what folks are saying, but what some folks are saying shows a lack of understanding of Title 10 and Title 50 (what is overt & what is covert) and how Cyber Operations are conducted ... ironically, somethings I have experience in and know about. So, no ... I am not pretending to not understand and this is not a tough situation ... I am speaking on something I know about firsthand.Again, you are wrong. People are understanding the Titles just fine. The discussion isn't about what the Titles say.

Rainmaker
06-22-2016, 08:25 PM
"All it would take is changing the law" ... changing both Title 10 and Title 50 to solve this specific problem is akin to using a sledgehammer to kill a mosquito. Instead the proposal is to make a change to entry level accession programs for particular skill sets; something I think is much more "the way it should be" than changing two huge sections of the U.S. Code.

I understand what folks are saying, but what some folks are saying shows a lack of understanding of Title 10 and Title 50 (what is overt & what is covert) and how Cyber Operations are conducted ... ironically, somethings I have experience in and know about. So, no ... I am not pretending to not understand and this is not a tough situation ... I am speaking on something I know about firsthand.

When there's no effective opposition, They don't have to change law. They just have to enact a policy that ignores or contridicts it.

& exactly how many Mark zuckerburgs do you think we're gonna need to sign up to be an O- 6 and authorize a drone strike?

Mjölnir
06-22-2016, 08:28 PM
I agree with what Mjollnir is stating here. For one thing, the DoD itself can't change the laws in the CFR. It can only operate within its constraints. So any discussion about changing those laws is basically living in a world of "the way it should be," instead of the world of "the way it is."

Pretty much, changing the USC / CFR is not needed to solve the problem. Frankly, I wouldn't want contractors or GS's doing Title 10 missions, cyber (non-kinetic) or otherwise (kinetic).


Bringing someone in as an E7 or O6 is operating within those constraints. However, I think that there are better ways to operate within them myself. Like all the suggestions I mentioned earlier.

There are few ways, I really don't see too many being brought in as E7's or O6's, but the DoD wants the flexibility to do so (just like medical, dental & legal) ... to be able to attract talent. The most senior I have seen was a dentist brought into the Navy as an O5, he was our dental officer on the USS SAIPAN in 2000. As remote of a chance as it may be, if (the) Mark Zuckerburg of the hacking community wanted to sign up to be in the military to do hacking for the military ... bringing him in as an E3, 4, 5, O1, 2, 3 or even 4 would be a waste of what he brings to the table.

Mjölnir
06-22-2016, 08:30 PM
But you know that these codes are being bypassed all the time, even though you're not going to admit it in a public forum. Everyone knows these codes are being skirted. It's like the parents who know their kids are breaking the rules by drinking with their friends but everyone pretends it's not happening as long as nobody gets in trouble.

Having done targeting for cyber, I can confidently say that a lot of discussion with JAG's goes into the process to keep it under the right authorities.


Again, you are wrong. People are understanding the Titles just fine. The discussion isn't about what the Titles say.

Right, because someone saying the guy on the keyboard for overt OCO can be a civilian understands Title 10. My mistake.

Rainmaker
06-22-2016, 08:33 PM
As remote of a chance as it may be, if (the) Mark Zuckerburg of the hacking community wanted to sign up to be in the military to do hacking for the military ... bringing him in as an E3, 4, 5, O1, 2, 3 or even 4 would be a waste of what he brings to the table.

Zuckerburg would only work for the Israelis.

Rainmaker
06-22-2016, 09:21 PM
. Some things need to be done by actual military troops or they violate the Geneva Convention.

Oh, you mean like contractors conducting interrogation of enemy combatants?

Certainly the lawyers would never allow something like that!

USN - Retired
06-22-2016, 09:23 PM
I am not dodging it, I don't think you understand the situation.

Think of the cyber operator on the keyboard as the non-kinetic infantryman. When he/she pushes [enter] and transmits a weaponized data packet, malicious code, command etc. that is the 'bullet'. When that act is overt, it is under Title 10 and the person in charge (platoon commander or cyber officer) must be military; the worker bee (infantryman) pressing enter (pulling the trigger) must be military.

We could not deploy a platoon of contract infantry with a military commander in a Title 10 mission, same for cyber.

These two articles prove that civilian cyber warriors already exist...
Note the phrase " Elite cadre of civilian cyber warriors" in the second article.

http://www.nextgov.com/cybersecurity/2015/03/pentagon-has-until-2016-extend-3000-jobs-offers-civilian-cyber-whizzes/106842/
http://federalnewsradio.com/defense/2013/03/air-force-looks-to-reboot-civilian-cyber-workforce/

Mjölnir
06-22-2016, 09:24 PM
Oh you mean like contractors conducting interrogation of enemy combatants?

Certainly the lawyers would never allow something like that!

Actually, that wouldn't (most of the time) be a Title 10 operation / function and would be legit to be done by a contractor (or GS). The methods they use when doing it however could be illegal ...

Rainmaker
06-22-2016, 09:27 PM
These two articles prove that civilian cyber warriors already exist...
Note the phrase " Elite cadre of civilian cyber warriors" in the second article.

http://www.nextgov.com/cybersecurity/2015/03/pentagon-has-until-2016-extend-3000-jobs-offers-civilian-cyber-whizzes/106842/
http://federalnewsradio.com/defense/2013/03/air-force-looks-to-reboot-civilian-cyber-workforce/

Cyber command is another self licking ice cream cone Charlie Foxtrot that should be immediately disbanded.

Mjölnir
06-22-2016, 09:35 PM
These two articles prove that civilian cyber warriors already exist...
Note the phrase " Elite cadre of civilian cyber warriors" in the second article.

http://www.nextgov.com/cybersecurity/2015/03/pentagon-has-until-2016-extend-3000-jobs-offers-civilian-cyber-whizzes/106842/
http://federalnewsradio.com/defense/2013/03/air-force-looks-to-reboot-civilian-cyber-workforce/

Yes, they do ... however ... what types of missions they do is limited by the law. The first article is talking about IT specialists and policy people, the second article is very specific to the USAF and makes the following statement:


“The analogy I like to use is our special operations community. We want to have that same kind of specialized expertise in cyber,” he said. “How do you manage those people?”

He said the Air Force is at the very beginning of an effort to find legal ways to award higher pay to certain highly-skilled individuals in high-demand occupations.

That article is from 2013, the proposal now is a response to that effort.

You should take an hour and read this article, you may find it professionally or personally edifying. It explains the Title 10 & Title 50 debate pretty well, why the authorities and missions are different etc. It is 58 pages long about half of that is footnotes ... but it is a well written essay

http://www.soc.mil/528th/PDFs/Title10Title50.pdf


Beyond that, you seem to want to disagree for the sake of disagreement and I really don't know why ... I can lead you to water, I can show you the water, I could throw you in or hold your face into the water but if you don't want to drink because you want to be ignorant or a stubborn ass ... that is on you.

sandsjames
06-22-2016, 09:47 PM
Yes, they do ... however ... what types of missions they do is limited by the law. .Only when held accountable to, and by, those laws. Giving the operators different titles to change the mission from "overt" to "covert" is just a slick way of getting around regs. It's the same people doing different shit with less oversight.

Again, you can argue the point but that's simply because your NDA doesn't allow you to agree with it.

Mjölnir
06-22-2016, 09:59 PM
Only when held accountable to, and by, those laws. Giving the operators different titles to change the mission from "overt" to "covert" is just a slick way of getting around regs. It's the same people doing different shit with less oversight.

Again, you can argue the point but that's simply because your NDA doesn't allow you to agree with it.

Again, I have done the job ... it is not as loosey goosey and you want to make it out. I am not so stubborn to argue the point simply to disagree ...

Mjölnir
06-22-2016, 10:06 PM
Cyber command is another self licking ice cream cone Charlie Foxtrot that should be immediately disbanded.

I finished two years there last year, there are definitely issues ... some on policy, some on how it is administerd; over all it functions well as a sub-unified command (focused on a particular mission) with only about 1/2 the authorized manning ... but there is always room for improvement ... especially in a mission area as new as cyber.

Rusty Jones
06-22-2016, 10:18 PM
Here's the other thing to consider: I'm not sure about the Marine Corps, but I know that the Army and Air Force specify a minimum time in service for promotion to each pay grade. And the Navy does not. In the Navy, it's three years time in rate to make E8 and E9. What that means that, in the Navy, one could potentially become an E9 in six years.

That's at least 14 more years of service with no incentive to perform beyond the minimum standards. As a Master Chief, no less.

sandsjames
06-22-2016, 10:25 PM
Again, I have done the job ... it is not as loosey goosey and you want to make it out. I am not so stubborn to argue the point simply to disagree ...

Of course that's what someone with an SCI and an NDA would say.

Rainmaker
06-22-2016, 10:42 PM
Actually, that wouldn't (most of the time) be a Title 10 operation / function and would be legit to be done by a contractor (or GS) ...

Of course it would....Forced rectal feeding is an Act of Love!

Mjölnir
06-22-2016, 10:58 PM
Here's the other thing to consider: I'm not sure about the Marine Corps, but I know that the Army and Air Force specify a minimum time in service for promotion to each pay grade. And the Navy does not. In the Navy, it's three years time in rate to make E8 and E9. What that means that, in the Navy, one could potentially become an E9 in six years.

That's at least 14 more years of service with no incentive to perform beyond the minimum standards. As a Master Chief, no less.

True, on paper in the Navy a Sailor could make E9 in six or so years ... in reality I don't think it would happen. The fastest I have seen was an 12 year MCPO, made Chief in under 7, SCPO between 9 & 10. Persian Farsi linguist who excelled at the job but admittedly lacked experience and it showed a bit.

I don't know about the Army or AF, in the USMC, the zones for E6, E7, E8 and E9 varied so while there was a defined minimum TIG to be eligible for promotion, you almost always waited longer than the minimum to be in zone. 1stSgt and MSgt (and SgtMaj and MGySgt) are the same paygrade, but two distinct ranks with different jobs. As a rule, in the Marines, if you are a combat arms type and promote to 1stSgt you are first sent to a non-combat arms unit to round out your experience (vice versa if you were a support type and for some that was a rude awakening). Usually promotion to 1stSgt was about a year faster than promotion to MSgt, in the early 90's a GySgt could opt to compete for 1stSgt, promote quicker than promoting to MSgt, do one tour as a 1stSgt and convert to MSgt and go back to his original occupational field. Too many people were doing that leaving a shortage of 1stSgt's and that policy was revoked -- now if you go 1stSgt it is permanent and you will be on the track to be a SgtMaj ... if you make SgtMaj you will be an E9 two or three years before someone who makes MGySgt in most fields.

Officers have the same thing sorta. You are eligible for promotion as defined by minimum TIG requirements in Title 10. The individual service determines the exact promotion flow points and if you are eligible but not at the flow point you are 'Below Zone', at the flow point that year for the board you are 'In Zone' and if you fail to select at the flow point you are 'Above Zone'. If an officer commissioned as an O1 and promoted at the minimum eligibility instead of service defined flow points, they could be an O6 in about 10 years (a bit faster for the Army who promotes to O2 and O3 six months faster.

Mjölnir
06-22-2016, 10:58 PM
Of course it would....Forced rectal feeding is an Act of Love!

You have to at least buy dinner first.

Rusty Jones
06-23-2016, 01:21 AM
True, on paper in the Navy a Sailor could make E9 in six or so years ... in reality I don't think it would happen. The fastest I have seen was an 12 year MCPO, made Chief in under 7, SCPO between 9 & 10. Persian Farsi linguist who excelled at the job but admittedly lacked experience and it showed a bit.

The reason that's the fastest you've seen is because none of them came in at E7.


I don't know about the Army or AF, in the USMC, the zones for E6, E7, E8 and E9 varied so while there was a defined minimum TIG to be eligible for promotion, you almost always waited longer than the minimum to be in zone. 1stSgt and MSgt (and SgtMaj and MGySgt) are the same paygrade, but two distinct ranks with different jobs. As a rule, in the Marines, if you are a combat arms type and promote to 1stSgt you are first sent to a non-combat arms unit to round out your experience (vice versa if you were a support type and for some that was a rude awakening). Usually promotion to 1stSgt was about a year faster than promotion to MSgt, in the early 90's a GySgt could opt to compete for 1stSgt, promote quicker than promoting to MSgt, do one tour as a 1stSgt and convert to MSgt and go back to his original occupational field. Too many people were doing that leaving a shortage of 1stSgt's and that policy was revoked -- now if you go 1stSgt it is permanent and you will be on the track to be a SgtMaj ... if you make SgtMaj you will be an E9 two or three years before someone who makes MGySgt in most fields.

I initially thought this was a bit off topic when I read it at first, but giving it more thought... everything you mentioned explains why this program might be a bit more difficult for the Army and Marine Corps.

First Sergeants: the Navy doesn't have a real equivalent to this. Command Senior Chiefs are for commands too small to rate a Command Master Chief, not commands that are subordinate to those that rate CMDCSs.

A First Sergeant in the Air Force is not the same thing as one in the Army and Marine Corps. First, any E7-E9 can get a lozenge in the AF; second, each squadron (equal to a battalion) only rates one.

A 1SG in the Army and Marine Corps is the senior enlisted in a company (equal to a flight in the AF).

My squadron has two flights, so I was surprised when I checked in with the first shirt and learned that difference, and see that there was only one. Basically... the first shirt in the AF exists solely to unfuck people with personal problems. That was new to me.

Not sure about the USMC, but in the Army, the company is normally the lowest echelon to have its own UIC. Whereas, it's Air Force squadrons and Navy ships (both equal to battalions, if we're only counting ships commanded by O5's). In theory, this means that an Army 1SG has far more responsibility than an Air Force Flight Sergeant (typically a SMSgt) or a Navy Departmental LCPO (LCPO on a small boy).

Also, AF Command Chiefs start at the Wing level.

Would these cyber guys even be allowed to be First Sergeants or Command E9's in any service? That would be an even bigger issue.

Seems like won't be as big an issue in the Navy and Air Force, because the vast majority of E8s retain their original rating/AFSC.

Mjölnir
06-23-2016, 02:06 AM
The reason that's the fastest you've seen is because none of them came in at E7.

True fact.


I initially thought this was a bit off topic when I read it at first, but giving it more thought... everything you mentioned explains why this program might be a bit more difficult for the Army and Marine Corps.


Not sure about the USMC, but in the Army, the company is normally the lowest echelon to have its own UIC. Whereas, it's Air Force squadrons and Navy ships (both equal to battalions, if we're only counting ships commanded by O5's). In theory, this means that an Army 1SG has far more responsibility than an Air Force Flight Sergeant (typically a SMSgt) or a Navy Departmental LCPO (LCPO on a small boy).

Mostly. There are small places here and there where a platoon or detachment may have a UIC because they are dislocated from their command. When I was at Camp David, we were a platoon ... we had our own UIC. In reality, we had people (numbers) that made us more like a company ... but we were 'officially' a platoon, detached from Marine Barracks Washington DC. My USN command in Georgia had 13 UICs. We had one for Submarine DIRSUP, one for Air DIRSUP, Surface DIRSUP, various other divisions and then one for folks on Shore Duty (yes, there is sea duty 200 miles from the ocean). Having different UICs made it easy for PERS to make sure an Aircrewman going to the command had all the right schools in their orders with one click vice manually entering it on the PCS orders, same for subs, surf, NECC Supports etc. All the C Schools are different so tracking readiness per division was done via separate UICs. Pain for the manpower folks, easy for OPS and Training to work with.


Would these cyber guys even be allowed to be First Sergeants or Command E9's in any service? That would be an even bigger issue.

Don't know. Right now it is a proposal from SecDef. I don't think you would see any of them go the 1stSgt route (at least in the Marines and Army) even if they came in as an E7, I don't think they would have the experience to compete ... as a MSgt (technical track vice leadership) they would likely be more competitive. Likewise, I don't think you would see an instant E7 make SCPO and be competitive for a CMDCM selection, but they could still function as a technical expert MCPO. For the officers, an instant O6 will (under current rules) not really ever be eligible for a star unless they either crank out the required JPME and Joint Qualification Requirements in record time (required for Flag per the Goldwater-Nichols Act -- even for lawyers, doctors & dentists) etc. or the law for Flag eligibility is changed.

From what I am reading, the proposal is to allow the DoD the authority to establish a technical skills program on par with the one for medical and law. After that, it would be up to the services to establish their own programs & rules (USAF may not care if someone is an instant E6, the USMC might etc.). In the USN, making them Warrants won't work, a Warrant is an Unrestricted Line Officer, this program would only be for Restricted Line Officers (unless you change that too) -- no instant O4 SWOs etc. As I said before, I imagine whatever criteria they come up with would mean the absolute most technical savvy people are the ones that come in with the highest instant rank. From what I gather, the requirement for a degree might still be a requirement to go the Officer route vice the enlisted route.


Seems like won't be as big an issue in the Navy and Air Force, because the vast majority of E8s retain their original rating/AFSC.

Yeah, only issue in the Navy would be the CMDCM program ... I don't see how any of these guys would compete for it unless they came in more like an E5 or 6 with time to develop the experience to compete for selection.