# Army launches direct commissioning program for civilian cybersecurity experts



## RackMaster (Dec 6, 2017)

Not sure this will work out how they think it will. 



> Army launches direct commissioning program for civilian cybersecurity experts
> 
> By COREY DICKSTEIN | STARS AND STRIPES Published: December 5, 2017
> 
> ...



Army launches direct commissioning program for civilian cybersecurity experts


----------



## Devildoc (Dec 6, 2017)

I am having a deja vu moment.  Didn't we talk about this before?  Can't remember....

Curious to see how it pans out.  The Navy direct commissions many SMEs in technical fields and it works out.


----------



## RackMaster (Dec 6, 2017)

Even with a commission, I doubt they can compete with the salaries in the private sector to attract the people they need.


----------



## Devildoc (Dec 6, 2017)

RackMaster said:


> Even with a commission, I doubt they can compete with the salaries in the private sector to attract the people they need.



In the Navy they attach big $ bonuses, prime duty stations, other perks that don't necessarily translate.  I will be curious to see how it goes.


----------



## DocIllinois (Dec 6, 2017)

As long as it has a positive effect on life for servicemembers who are experts in this type of duty, I'm all for it.


----------



## Gunz (Dec 6, 2017)

RackMaster said:


> Even with a commission, I doubt they can compete with the salaries in the private sector to attract the people they need.



Agree. The military won't get the top guys. It'll get the 2nd and 3rd teamers.


----------



## Red Flag 1 (Dec 6, 2017)

[Q-


----------



## Devildoc (Dec 6, 2017)

Ocoka said:


> Agree. The military won't get the top guys. It'll get the 2nd and 3rd teamers.
> 
> View attachment 20488



It depends.  Some guys want money, and that's all they want, and those guys won't go.  If you buy the "higher purpose" or "national security" line or the "patriotism" bit, those guys will bite.  And if you tell people, "we can't offer you top-dollar, but we can pay for you to live in fill-in-the-blank," or "we'll pay for grad school," those guys will bite.

My wife has a good friend, lives near Ft. Mead, Maryland.  Her husband is an O5 in the AF (stationed at the Pentagon), a cyber-something-or-other geek.  Civilian headhunters are after him, offer him twice, three times what he makes, but he loves the Air Force.  Same reason doctors and nurses retire from the military.


----------



## Il Duce (Dec 6, 2017)

They're commissioning as 2LTs.  The only 'advantage' they're getting over ROTC cadets is skipping all those PMS courses.  I don't think this is exactly a game changer - just a way for Cyber to fill their quotas without competing with other branches.  Being a 2LT in a cyber unit seems like it would suck but, I would think the same thing about finance so rock on if that's what you want to do.


----------



## Frank S. (Dec 6, 2017)

I wonder whether the author of the article ever considered changing his name. Or thinking further on it, maybe he did change it, if he was born with a name like, say, Hitler.


----------



## Teufel (Dec 6, 2017)

It’s a good idea. Keep in mind that cyber is not synonymous with hacking.  Sure some guys definitely do that but not everybody does.  It’s like the Army and the Special Forces. Every Green Beret is in the Army but not everyone in the Army is a Green Beret.

There are lots of cyber jobs and officers, in most specialties honestly, are manager-leaders and not executors. The most hireable guys are going to be programers and software developers. I don’t see these officers doing a ton of that, if at all.

Additionally Google can drown you in cash to defend their networks but you can’t conduct offensive cyber there. You can only do that with the government.


----------



## x SF med (Dec 7, 2017)

Teufel said:


> It’s a good idea. Keep in mind that cyber is not synonymous with hacking.  Sure some guys definitely do that but not everybody does.  It’s like the Army and the Special Forces. Every Green Beret is in the Army but not everyone in the Army is a Green Beret.
> 
> There are lots of cyber jobs and officers, in most specialties honestly, are manager-leaders and not executors. The most hireable guys are going to be programers and software developers. I don’t see these officers doing a ton of that, if at all.
> 
> Additionally Google can drown you in cash to defend their networks but you can’t conduct offensive cyber there. You can only do that with the government.




Hi, I'm from the Government and I'm here to hack, um, help...


----------



## RustyShackleford (Dec 14, 2017)

One would be surprised at the folks who chose to work for the gov in various capacities when they could shop their talents elsewhere, for a lot more cash.


----------



## DA SWO (Dec 14, 2017)

RustyShackleford said:


> One would be surprised at the folks who chose to work for the gov in various capacities when they could shop their talents elsewhere, for a lot more cash.


Stability/security over cash.


----------



## Devildoc (Dec 14, 2017)

DA SWO said:


> Stability/security over cash.



It's why I became a RN.  I will always have a job, anywhere I want.


----------



## Florida173 (Dec 14, 2017)

People that can't make it when they're held accountable


----------



## SpitfireV (Dec 14, 2017)

I was speaking to an IT security guy the other day who was over for the white hat conference. One interesting aspect that I think is overlooked is that, working for the government in that capacity is the scrutiny  on your life in getting the clearance and the restrictions once you're working. I'm not saying the restrictions aren't reasonable- usually they are- but it does put off a lot of people since it's a small community and people generally know each other and talk about work opportunities.


----------



## Marauder06 (Jul 27, 2018)

In the wake of the ongoing Facebook stock price debacle, I'm reminded of this article about allowing more people to directly commission into the highest ranks of the military (because Zuckerberg is often used as the "expert" example).  I thought it was a bad idea when it was proposed, I think it's a bad idea now.

"There is only one way to learn military culture, start at the bottom and work your way up. Direct enlistment or commissioning to senior grades denies the individual that processes of development while at the same time expects them to handle leadership duties. This is not a recipe for success. If all the Sec Def wants to do is attract talent by having a larger starting salary, the specialist and warrant system is the way to go without screwing up the system."


----------



## Devildoc (Jul 27, 2018)

@Marauder06 , you think it's feasible to being them in at W3 or W4?  Because anything less than that isn't going to be competitive.  I do not disagree with anything in the article.  Some of the most effed up organizations in the military are MTFs, run by "I'm really a doctor and not really a major" (quote from MASH), but there needs to be some balance between having competitive money and not screwing over the military.  I also think a non-com specialist program is a non-starter for this particular group.


----------



## Marauder06 (Jul 27, 2018)

Why put them in uniform at all?  We have thousands of DA civilians and contractors who work for the Army every day.  They can grow their hair out, do their jobs, and not supervise anything.  It works just fine as it is.


----------



## Devildoc (Jul 27, 2018)

Marauder06 said:


> Why put them in uniform at all?  We have thousands of DA civilians and contractors who work for the Army every day.  They can grow their hair out, do their jobs, and not supervise anything.  It works just fine as it is.



A GS positions works with the medical community as well (not sure if JAG does it).  I would be down with that.


----------



## Gunz (Jul 27, 2018)

Marauder06 said:


> _*Why put them in uniform at all?*_  We have thousands of DA civilians and contractors who work for the Army every day.  They can grow their hair out, do their jobs, and not supervise anything.  It works just fine as it is.




There it is, sir.

Who needs a bunch of maggoty civilians wearing a uniform they didn't earn? Using military uniform/bling as a hiring incentive cheapens the service it represents. Offer them money, lots of vacation, free food in the mess hall, a company car, hookers, dope, whatever...but they didn't work for the respect that the uniform and the rank deserves.


----------



## Diamondback 2/2 (Jul 27, 2018)

I saw enough senior medical officers at Fort Sam Houston, so ate the fuck up to say without a doubt, direct commissioning is way stupid. Walking around on cell phones while saluting the young troops. "No salute areas" whining and bitching about stupid shit like internet and coffee, in front of Joe's who just got blown the fuck up. Or the COL who was bitching to MSG, about how a CPT was on maternity leave, causing her to have to pick up the extra slack, in front of the whole waiting room...

I've seen it with legal officers too. Full birds getting their asses chewed off by juniors at the range for being fucked up, in front of their whole unit, etc, etc. 

I agree with @Marauder06 keep them out of uniform, make them some kinda GS position, with a small military command for oversight, etc. They don't need cybernerds in leadership (command) positions, just the geek in his cubical doing his/her 1's and 0's stuff...


----------



## Neal (Jul 27, 2018)

I'm definitely not familiar with how the Navy treats their lieutenants but it would be a shame to see these young officers forced out of ops and into management positions too quickly.  I hope their progression matches the few pilots I've known where they're doing "the job" until O-5.  The AF has been pushing back against the "Up or Out" policy recently and I hope to see it continue.


----------



## AWP (Jul 27, 2018)

Neal said:


> I'm definitely not familiar with how the Navy treats their lieutenants but it would be a shame to see these young officers forced out of ops and into management positions too quickly.  I hope their progression matches the few pilots I've known where they're doing "the job" until O-5.  The AF has been pushing back against the "Up or Out" policy recently and I hope to see it continue.



I won't apologize for the upcoming long post. 

"Up or out" is the traditional model that has worked for the last 100 years or so in the US. Combat arms is a different story, but comparing pilots to other specialties is apples and broccoli. Their job demands they remain on flight status, others do not require that day-to-day, career-long, "hands on" experience.

Even some enlisted jobs do this. I've contracted with AF Comm since '04 and can speak to two career fields: IT folks and RF Trans. Both have bright, young airmen who joined to do technical stuff. The schoolhouse is a joke, but they believe it will be different at their first duty station. Unless you draw a unique assignment, something that isn't base comm, you won't truly do your job. The AF has consolidated the cool IT functiona at regional or command level NOSCs, but a young airmen will work the night shift answering phones; they don't do anything until they're about to pin on Staff. The IT-releated airmen grow disillusioned and punch for the civilian sector.

RF Trans...unless they pick up Combat Comm, an ACS, units like that, they are stuck in base comm working on LMR's and Giant Voice. Yawn.

In both career fields, Tech is about the last time you do any real tech work. By Master they are away from the workbench and in admin mode, doing tech stuff when they can. They start directing traffic instead of driving.

The military is structured to move guys and gals away ffrom hands on. It can only change its culture so much, or not at all, and still function.


----------



## ThunderHorse (Jul 27, 2018)

Devildoc said:


> A GS positions works with the medical community as well (not sure if JAG does it).  I would be down with that.



There were some GS civilians in the JAG office at Bliss.


----------



## Marauder06 (Jul 27, 2018)

Now that I think about it, we had civilian lawyers at West Point too.


----------



## BloodStripe (Jul 28, 2018)

Devildoc said:


> A GS positions works with the medical community as well (not sure if JAG does it).  I would be down with that.



In the 1102 career field we only work with civilian, GS or equivalent, lawyers. I believe they receive a higher pay incentive as a hiring and retention mechanism.


----------



## Teufel (Jul 28, 2018)

Neal said:


> I'm definitely not familiar with how the Navy treats their lieutenants but it would be a shame to see these young officers forced out of ops and into management positions too quickly.  I hope their progression matches the few pilots I've known where they're doing "the job" until O-5.  The AF has been pushing back against the "Up or Out" policy recently and I hope to see it continue.


Progression? You mean moving directly from commissioning to management unless they are NSW or EOD?


----------



## Neal (Jul 28, 2018)

Teufel said:


> Progression? You mean moving directly from commissioning to management unless they are NSW or EOD?


    Again, citing my ignorance up front, I'm very unfamiliar with how the Navy does things.  If I were to put it in AF terms I would say that I hope they remain in a *"functional"* role unless they choose to do otherwise.  I've known CV-22 pilots who progress from co-pilot, to pilot, to aircraft commander(?) where they take responsibility for 2 or more birds.  They can take on more responsibility commensurate with their rank ending up at O-4.
    This practice is directly opposite of what I've seen in intel where the officers fill a more *"institutional"* role as soon as they hit O-2/3.  My experience isn't vast by any means and I'm sure there are exceptions.  I could see making these guy's leave the keyboard behind if the Navy is hurting for leadership which understands cyber (which I hope isn't true due to my understanding that they were the first service in the game).


----------



## Teufel (Jul 29, 2018)

Neal said:


> Again, citing my ignorance up front, I'm very unfamiliar with how the Navy does things.  If I were to put it in AF terms I would say that I hope they remain in a *"functional"* role unless they choose to do otherwise.  I've known CV-22 pilots who progress from co-pilot, to pilot, to aircraft commander(?) where they take responsibility for 2 or more birds.  They can take on more responsibility commensurate with their rank ending up at O-4.
> This practice is directly opposite of what I've seen in intel where the officers fill a more *"institutional"* role as soon as they hit O-2/3.  My experience isn't vast by any means and I'm sure there are exceptions.  I could see making these guy's leave the keyboard behind if the Navy is hurting for leadership which understands cyber (which I hope isn't true due to my understanding that they were the first service in the game).


I was making a dig at the leadership in most of the Navy’s career fields. I think they are hurting for leadership in general. There seem to be more managers than anything in the officer ranks.


----------



## AWP (Jul 29, 2018)

Teufel said:


> I was making a dig at the leadership in most of the Navy’s career fields. I think they are hurting for leadership in general. There seem to be more managers than anything in the officer ranks.



They need to find a few who know how to steer a ship....


----------



## Teufel (Jul 29, 2018)

AWP said:


> They need to find a few who know how to steer a ship....


 Leadership failures, a zero defect mentality, and a cannibalistic surface warfare culture all contributed to those incidents.


----------



## Gunz (Jul 29, 2018)

Teufel said:


> Leadership failures, a zero defect mentality, and a cannibalistic surface warfare culture all contributed to those incidents.



Yes sir...plus a lack of basic seamanship skills, an over-dependence upon technology and complacency.


----------



## Teufel (Jul 29, 2018)

Ocoka said:


> Yes sir...plus a lack of basic seamanship skills, an over-dependence upon technology and complacency.


Maybe. I think the Surface Warfare culture is more to blame. Commanders watched operational requirements rise while training and readiness numbers dropped. Sailors tried to make up the difference by working themselves to the bone and giving up sleep. It didn’t work.


----------



## Braz (Aug 31, 2018)

Love the push for cyber experts, yet Army is getting rid of one cyber MOS already...


----------



## AWP (Aug 31, 2018)

Braz said:


> Love the push for cyber experts, yet Army is getting rid of one cyber MOS already...



Having worked with one Army Cyber Protection Team, it needs to teach its soldiers the difference between TCP and UDP before it starts cutting MOS'...


----------



## compforce (Sep 1, 2018)

AWP said:


> Having worked with one Army Cyber Protection Team, it needs to teach its soldiers the difference between TCP and UDP before it starts cutting MOS'...



Actually, I kind of agree with what they are doing.  I can't tell you how many O-5 (and above IT "leaders" knew nothing except how to do a budget.  On the NCO side the focus was on base Common Task Training skills and PT.  In my entire time in Signal I met exactly three soldiers who knew what they were talking about (at the level you'd expect if you were looking in) when it came to IT and two of them were Reserve or Guard with civilian IT jobs.  Only one was an officer.  The problem the military faces is that the people that know what they are doing NEVER get to a senior leadership position with the skills to actually do the job.  It's an unsolvable problem to try to fix it from within.  The right answer is to go outside, bring in some superstars to fill the top level positions.  That will clear the internal roadblocks allowing the current crop of juniors to learn their trade and make it up the ladder.  10 to 15 years from now the chain will have broken and the normal promote from within will have recovered.  If you don't do it, it's a permanent problem.

I cite the case of the CW4 that I worked with in Afghanistan who returned CONUS to a job answering phones on a help desk (but not allowed to do anything except schedule the work for a contractor to perform).  He should be a technical expert, instead he's just getting an entry level job, not even trusted to reset a password.


----------



## Teufel (Sep 1, 2018)

compforce said:


> Actually, I kind of agree with what they are doing.  I can't tell you how many O-5 (and above IT "leaders" knew nothing except how to do a budget.  On the NCO side the focus was on base Common Task Training skills and PT.  In my entire time in Signal I met exactly three soldiers who knew what they were talking about (at the level you'd expect if you were looking in) when it came to IT and two of them were Reserve or Guard with civilian IT jobs.  Only one was an officer.  The problem the military faces is that the people that know what they are doing NEVER get to a senior leadership position with the skills to actually do the job.  It's an unsolvable problem to try to fix it from within.  The right answer is to go outside, bring in some superstars to fill the top level positions.  That will clear the internal roadblocks allowing the current crop of juniors to learn their trade and make it up the ladder.  10 to 15 years from now the chain will have broken and the normal promote from within will have recovered.  If you don't do it, it's a permanent problem.
> 
> I cite the case of the CW4 that I worked with in Afghanistan who returned CONUS to a job answering phones on a help desk (but not allowed to do anything except schedule the work for a contractor to perform).  He should be a technical expert, instead he's just getting an entry level job, not even trusted to reset a password.


Cyber Command actually has a lot of technically inclined mid and senior level officers. In my opinion, the Cyberspace Warfare field needs more planners, leaders, and commanders, not technicians. A baby O5 or O6 who doesn’t understand a five paragraph order, never mind JOPP, isn’t going to push the ball forward very far. We already have senior NSA transplants that are more miss than hit. 

Cyberspace Warfare isn’t hard. Listen to your enlisted, resource your people, make timely decisions, and do whatever it takes to accomplish your mission. Our most successful field grade officers show up as seasoned and experienced leaders. They pick up the technical knowledge on the job. It’s certainly not ideal but it’s better than a technical expert trying to learn leadership and how to manage large military organizations on the fly. I can tell you it doesn’t work.

I think we need to take a hard look at fast tracking promising young officers who are good leaders and understand the technical side of the job. Right now they trudge along at the same slow pace the rest of the DOD suffers through. Aside from the Air Force anyway, I think their “high performance officers” pick up O5 before their first military ID expires.


----------



## Gunz (Sep 1, 2018)

compforce said:


> ... The problem the military faces is that the people that know what they are doing NEVER get to a senior leadership position with the skills to actually do the job...




Common not only in the military but private sector and federal govt, too.


----------



## ThunderHorse (Sep 1, 2018)

compforce said:


> Actually, I kind of agree with what they are doing.  I can't tell you how many O-5 (and above IT "leaders" knew nothing except how to do a budget.  On the NCO side the focus was on base Common Task Training skills and PT.  In my entire time in Signal I met exactly three soldiers who knew what they were talking about (at the level you'd expect if you were looking in) when it came to IT and two of them were Reserve or Guard with civilian IT jobs.  Only one was an officer.  The problem the military faces is that the people that know what they are doing NEVER get to a senior leadership position with the skills to actually do the job.  It's an unsolvable problem to try to fix it from within.  The right answer is to go outside, bring in some superstars to fill the top level positions.  That will clear the internal roadblocks allowing the current crop of juniors to learn their trade and make it up the ladder.  10 to 15 years from now the chain will have broken and the normal promote from within will have recovered.  If you don't do it, it's a permanent problem.
> 
> I cite the case of the CW4 that I worked with in Afghanistan who returned CONUS to a job answering phones on a help desk (but not allowed to do anything except schedule the work for a contractor to perform).  He should be a technical expert, instead he's just getting an entry level job, not even trusted to reset a password.


Sounds like every MOS in the Army...


----------



## AWP (Sep 1, 2018)

How can you hack women and children?
Easy! You just don't nmap them as much.


----------



## compforce (Sep 2, 2018)

AWP said:


> How can you hack women and children?
> Easy! You just don't nmap them as much.



*sigh*


----------



## compforce (Sep 2, 2018)

Teufel said:


> Cyber Command actually has a lot of technically inclined mid and senior level officers. In my opinion, the Cyberspace Warfare field needs more planners, leaders, and commanders, not technicians. A baby O5 or O6 who doesn’t understand a five paragraph order, never mind JOPP, isn’t going to push the ball forward very far. We already have senior NSA transplants that are more miss than hit.
> 
> Cyberspace Warfare isn’t hard. Listen to your enlisted, resource your people, make timely decisions, and do whatever it takes to accomplish your mission. Our most successful field grade officers show up as seasoned and experienced leaders. They pick up the technical knowledge on the job. It’s certainly not ideal but it’s better than a technical expert trying to learn leadership and how to manage large military organizations on the fly. I can tell you it doesn’t work.
> 
> I think we need to take a hard look at fast tracking promising young officers who are good leaders and understand the technical side of the job. Right now they trudge along at the same slow pace the rest of the DOD suffers through. Aside from the Air Force anyway, I think their “high performance officers” pick up O5 before their first military ID expires.



I agree with your statements about leadership.  My issue is that the military doesn't know how to recognize someone that understands IT.  In every case, on every deployment, on every red or green team there was always that one guy that the leadership thought was an IT God.  The reality of it was that most of them wouldn't have been able to hold down anything but an entry level position in the civilian world.  The military in general, and I'm including the AFSOC IT guys on this, is focused more on knowing the regs than on knowing the systems.  They are focused on knowing the tools, not knowing what the tools do.  The only exception to this is networking where they actually go through some parts that 99% of them will never use, like performing bitwise operations such as AND, XAND, XOR, and OR.

When a soldier pulls off a minor IT miracle, there's not enough knowledge to understand what just happened.  Case in point, while in Afghanistan I did a 23 TB (yes, terabyte) storage move, including permissions, between two SANs on unrelated networks with zero downtime and a defect rate of less than 1 in 1,000,000 files. After that I moved active directory and the server network completely from the first network to the second without any users even noticing it had happened, during combat operations.  @AWP can tell you how much planning goes into an execution like that.  No one even recognized the work or complexity that went into it.  We had a CW3 there from SOCOM that was supposed to be not just an IT God, but _THE_ IT God, I think he came over from nukes.  He thought I cut and pasted some files.  The point isn't the move, it's that the military, even among the people that are supposed to be the best, doesn't know what it doesn't know.  

One of the things that it doesn't know is just how bad it is at technology.  It needs that outside experience to rebuild the institutional knowledge that it had at one point, but lost when it shifted to using contractors.  Leadership is certainly a consideration, but without the technical knowledge from outside the military, all you will end up with is script kiddies, not true IT warriors and the competency level will continue to be borderline disastrous.

To be clear, I'm not talking about enlisted being proficient, well, OK, somewhat.  I'm talking about strategic level as well.  How do you lead someone that is doing a job you don't understand?  How do you recognize their accomplishments if you don't know which one is really an accomplishment?  In the example above, there wasn't even a thank you, but at the same time a CW2 was awarded a BSM for setting up an IPSEC tunnel on the router.  Three router commands, literally three commands, and he got a BSM.  What does that do for morale?  How do you know when the tech people are stalling you?  As an IT/Cyber Leader, you have to set the vision.  If you don't know the capabilities of the technology, how can you envision ways to put them together into a long term strategy?  I'm not talking about implementing them, that's the enlisted folks' job.  I'm talking about how you are going to leverage technology for a desired result.  When you as a leader have a good idea fairy moment and ask your troops "hey, how can we do _this_?", how do you know they are giving you a good answer?  When they tell you it can't or shouldn't be done, how do you know they are right?  You have to trust them to know, but most of the time they don't.  That causes projects to go long when they hit unexpected obstacles.  It causes you to go over budget when they hit a speedbump and use hardware to overcome it rather than solving the underlying issue.  It causes outages when something doesn't scale because the limitations of the given technology weren't understood.  Second and third order effects in IT are a bitch!  

How do you manage the vendors when you ask them to build a feature or requirement into a product?  Vendors will run rings around most of the military's IT people.  How do you deal with usability issues in the software?  The list goes on and on.  Trust but verify... how do you verify if you don't know enough about the tech?  

My contention is that an experienced CIO from a mid-sized or larger business will know all these answers and enough about technology to hold people accountable for results and see through all the BS that goes on.  Leadership doesn't just happen in the military, it happens in the civilian world at that level too.  You aren't going to attract that type of person without big incentives.  They certainly won't come over if it's going to take years to be able to actually effect the types of change that they are used to having the authority to pursue on their own.  

I still agree with the decision to commission COMPETENT IT Leaders and break the current cycle of sending institutional knowledge to contractors.  It's all going to be in the implementation.  If it just becomes a checklist of leadership skills, it will be an costly failure.  If there is a screening process that includes a history of measurable results, it could just solve the biggest problem there is in military Cyber Warfare and IT in general.


----------



## Teufel (Sep 2, 2018)

Cyber warfare is a lot more than IT. I think that there are far more IT minded folks in cyber right now than people who understand how to wage war in this domain and take the fight into grey and red space.


----------

