Strength in Knowledge The Warrant Officer Journal; April-June Volume 1, Issue 2

Strength in Knowledge:

The Warrant Officer Journal

April–June 2023, Volume 1, Issue 2

Commander, U.S. Army Combined Arms Center; Deputy Commanding General,

Commandant, Command and General Staff College U.S. Army Combined Arms Center,

Lt. Gen. Milford H. Beagle Jr., U.S. Army Provost, The Army University

Brig. Gen. David C. Foley, U.S. Army

Editor-in-Chief; Commandant,

United States Army Warrant Officer Career College

COL Kevin E. McHugh, U.S. Army

Editorial Board Members

Deputy Commandant Deputy Commandant, National Guard

United States Army Warrant Officer Career College United States Army Warrant Officer Career College

CW5 Julian Evans, U.S. Army CW5 Jeffery Caniglia, U.S. Army

Chief of Academic Operations Division Director of Education and Training

United States Army Warrant Officer Career College United States Army Warrant Officer Career College

Dr. Brian Davis Dr. Jennifer Gray

Associate Editors

CW5 Leonard S. Momeny, EdD, U.S. Army – Department Head of Applied Military History, United States Army Warrant Officer Career College

CW5 Jennifer Wolf, EdD, U.S. Army – Department Head of Leadership and Management, United States Army Warrant Officer Career College

CW5 Stephen Napoli, U.S. Army – Department Head of Strategy and Doctrine, United States Army Warrant Officer Career College

CW5 Nate Dowling, U.S. Army – Research Chair of the Department of Strategy and Doctrine, United States Army Warrant Officer Career College

Dr. George Wade, Dept. of Army Civilian – Department of Applied Military History, United States Army Warrant Officer Career College

Mr. James Steddum, Dept. of Army Civilian – Department of Leadership and Management, United States Army Warrant Officer Career College

Production

Director and Editor in Chief: COL Kevin E. McHugh, U.S. Army

Managing Editor: CW5 Leonard S. Momeny, EdD, U.S. Army

Senior Editor: CW5 Jennifer Wolf, EdD, U.S. Army

Layout and Design: CW5 Leonard S. Momeny, EdD, U.S. Army

Disclaimer

The Warrant Officer Career College, Fort Rucker, AL 36362 produces Strength in Knowledge: The Warrant Officer Journal quarterly for the

professional exchange of information related to all issues pertaining to Army Warrant Officers. The articles presented here contain the opinion

and experiences of the authors and should not be construed as approved Army position, policy, or doctrine.

April-June 2023 – Strength in Knowledge

3 | USAWOCC

Table of Contents

Commandant’s Corner

4 Embracing Change and Identity

COL Kevin E. McHugh

Deputy Commandant’s Corner

5 Precision or Utility

CW5 Julian Evans

Senior Leader Corner

7 Road Map to Success

CW5 Yolondria Dixon-Carter – Senior Warrant Officer Advisor to the Chief of Staff, Army

Articles of Interest

9 I, Warrant: Looking Through a New Lens Toward the Future of the Cohort

CW5 (Dr) Russell Houser

16 Learning Requirements for Multi-Domain Operations

Dr. Brian Davis and James Baker

21 Irregular Warfare: The Application of Military Capability Across the Competition Continuum

CW4 Jason P. Gambill

27 No Integration Without Acculturation

CW5 Julian Evans and WO1 Dylan Beedy

31 The Evolution of Russian Information Warfare

CW4 Charles Davis

Technical Areas of Interest and Student Papers

41 Documenting Vietnam War Experience: The 1st Infantry Division Band at Thunder Road

CW3 Jonathan L. Crane

46 US Army Warrant Officers in the Joint Force

CW3 Michael Lima

Book Reviews and Spotlights

51 The Attributes – 25 Hidden Drivers of Optimal Performance by Rich Diviney

53 Ukraine: What Everyone Needs to Know by Serhy Yekelchyk

55 Warrant Officers in History – CW4 (ret.) Woody Williams

56 Faculty Spotlight – James Steddum, MBA, PMP

Announcements and Administrative Notes

57 Call for Papers, Resources of Interest (Podcasts), and Upcoming Events

Commandant’s Corner

COL Kevin E. McHugh

Thank you for the tremendous feedback we received on

the inaugural release of “your” Journal, a great first step towards

increased communication across the Cohort. A lot has happened

since we published back in January – Completion of the

modernized WOCS (V.20) Operational Tryout #1; Release of the

Warrant Officer Direct Appointment / Commissioning Army

Directive; and the renaming of Ft. Rucker, home of the USAWOCC,

to Ft. Novosel (officially on 10 April), named for CW4 (ret.) Michael

J. Novosel cited in our Warrant Officer in History highlight last

issue.

Here at the College, the faculty, staff, and companies

remain focused on developing the Army’s technical experts that

understand and embrace the essential Warrant Officer core

competencies highlighted through the acronym ICOLA (See Issue

1). As we finalize our work to codify an improved foundational

experience to educate, develop, and appoint WO1’s, we are shifting focus to the modernization of

educational requirements for our CW2 and CW3 populations. We will achieve this through extensive

collaboration, discussion, and analysis with our partners across the Centers of Excellence over the next

couple of months, thereby creating a truly progressive and sequential educational continuum that delivers

tailored and relevant common core education that effectively augments Warrant Officer technical

proficiency.

This volume continues to pull great work from within the Cohort (and USAWOCC students)

bringing real-world technical challenges and topics to the forefront for thought, discussion, and in some

cases, solutions. Additionally, I have solicited assistance from CW5 (Dr.) Russel Houser. He highlights the

history, analysis, and current challenges surrounding the identity of the Cohort - a topic I think deserves

additional review and emphasis as opportunities exist to recognize the Cohort or “Corps” for what it is

doing today and what it will certainly be asked to do for the Army of 2030. Interested in knowing more,

see page 9 and let’s talk

Strength in Knowledge!

April-June 2023 – Strength in Knowledge

5 | USAWOCC

Deputy Commandant’s Corner

CW5 Julian Evans

USAWOCC is elated to publish the second edition of the

Warrant Officer Journal. This medium allows for some critical

thoughts and ideas to be exchanged across the WO Cohort. Please

continue to send us your insights, observations, and critical

information. The Warrant Officer perspective is invaluable to our

Army.

Precision or Utility: What is the Prescription for Success

Today’s Warrant Officer must adapt to the emerging global

technological landscape to meet the future challenges of Army

2030. With an increased talent demand for technical experts, and

the complexity of the operational environment; what do Warrant

Officers require to sustain technical proficiency and relevancy?

Each year, Soldiers are required to have a medical examination to determine their health to

perform to standard and maintain their physical readiness. During this examination, the certified medical

examiner may use a manual, semi-automatic, or automatic blood pressure reading device to gain the most

accurate blood pressure reading and to determine the patient’s risk for heart disease and stroke. If this

precision device or tool is not properly calibrated, then the expected results may not be accurate.

Inaccurate results due to misutilization may lead to a misdiagnosis and degradation to readiness.

A thought: Using tools to illustrate the Warrant Officer utilization, how do you perceive yourself,

as a “Precision Tool” or a “Utility” Tool? A precision tool is highly calibrated to offer a specialized technical

edge, quality output, long-lasting durability, accuracy, and may become diminished or lose value if not

utilized for its designed purpose or specialization. Utility tools are highly useful, multi-functional,

expedient, and can accomplish multiple tasks, but over time quality is compromise. Precision tools are

often viewed as special and require periodic recalibration to maintain their edge and continual high

performance. On the other hand, because of their plug and play capacity to handle multiple things, utility

tools tend to be expedient and convenient.

Some Warrant Officers may consider themselves being utilized as a precision tool; while most,

may believe they are being utilized as a utility tool because of their innovativeness, flexibility, and

resourcefulness. An investment in a precision tool ensures performance, value, accuracy and when

utilized properly comes with some enduring benefits. Just like precision tools, the investment put into

Warrant Officers is paramount and can be costly if they are not utilized for their specialization and

intended purpose. If misutilization occurs, instead of developing into technical experts Warrant Officer

can easily evolve into a “jack of all trades, master of none”, a multipurpose utility tool. Further, prolonged

misutilization without diagnosis and recalibration has the potential to create a Warrant Officer “identity

crisis” within the cohort. If the symptoms continue to go misdiagnosed, it could spread and adversely

impact accessions, recruitment, and retention efforts of these highly specialized Warrant Officers.

To mitigate the symptoms associated with misutilization, the Warrant Officer Cohort must apply

the necessary recalibration tools to maintain technical expertise. Warrant Officers must have the “Time,

Opportunities, Options, and Leader Support” to maintain precision and to produce the expected results.

Time: Warrant Officers need adequate time to attend institutional education and training to

develop and improve their foundational and technical knowledge. Education and training must

occur at the right time and at the point of need to ensure they are prepared to execute mission

requirements.

Opportunities: Warrant Officers must be afforded opportunities outside of the institutional

domain to gain additional knowledge and skills in order to maintain relevancy and contribute to

the organizational mission and goals. The acquisition of this knowledge and education (academia,

industry, inter-service etc.) exceeds the capacity of the traditional Warrant Officer Education

System Model.

Options: Expanded options builds ownership and allows Warrant Officers to seek out and develop

a career map with experiential, broadening, operational and successive assignments that prevent

burn-out, recalibrate skills, and contribute to retention through prolonged job satisfaction.

Leader Support: Most Warrant Officers may be “one-of-one” within their organizational setting

and must be strategic when planning professional development. Leader support is a critical tool

for recalibration. Leaders must place an emphasis on empowering and employment of their

Warrant Officers by providing them the opportunity to “Be All That They Can Be” while achieving

the highest levels of precision.

The Army of 2030 ongoing modernizing have placed the Army’s system integrators utilization on

the doorsteps of change with the expectation of precise and accurate execution to fight and win the

nation’s war. No matter the tool, both serve a purpose in ensuring commanders and staffs achieve

organizational readiness and mission success. To continue to provide commanders with the specialized

support they need to effectively integrate systems, Warrant Officers need the necessary “TOOLS” to

maintain precision and retain value within their commands.

The calculus to determine the right education and TOOLS requires comprehensive collaboration.

Please share your thoughts and ideas on how we can continue to give the right attention to developing

and preparing the best Warrant Officer for the Army of 2030 and beyond.

Strength in Knowledge!

April-June 2023 – Strength in Knowledge

7 | USAWOCC

Senior Leader Corner

CW5 Yolondria Dixon-Carter – Senior Warrant Officer Advisor to the Chief of Staff, Army

USAWOCC Straight truth. No chaser. The Warrant

Officer roadmap to success is Professional Military Education

(PME) and talent management. The Army of 2030 will require

better trained, educated, and equipped Warrant Officers. As

the Army modernizes, we must revolutionize how we fight,

learn, and manage talent. We must invest in our most

important asset for mission success and as the 40

Chief of

Staff of the Army, General James McConville has mentioned,

“the centerpiece of the Army” — people. This investment

must include our Warrant Officers.

The Army’s purpose remains constant: To fight and

win our nation’s wars. As we have come out of conflicts with

Iraq and Afghanistan and are focused on our near-peer

adversaries, it is important to modernize our professional

military education to meet the demands of 2030. In 2030 and

beyond, Warrant Officers will require knowledge, skills, and

behaviors that provide commanders a holistic picture of the environment. This will include rapid decisions

on an ever-changing battlefield in large scale combat operations, and across multi-domains. No matter

the branch, MOS or compo, Warrant Officers will need to explain what happened, how it happened, and

provide analyses and critical thinking for an optimal outcome. Furthermore, Warrant Officers must remain

technically and tactfully proficient, as well as mentally resilient whether operating an aircraft or

processing legal documents.

So how do we get there? PME modernization from Warrant Officer Candidate School (WOCS) to

Warrant Officer Senior Staff Education (WOSSE). We must advance to a more efficient and effective

education that focuses on officer development, technical depth, tactical expertise, and employing MOS-

specific and core functions that meet the requirements of all compos. Additionally, PME must meet

personal and career developmental needs of the Warrant Officer to best equip organizations with the

right Warrant Officer at the right time. The end-state is a better trained, educated, and equipped cohort

ready to meet the demands of 2030 while retaining talent within our Army.

The Combined Armed Center (CAC) is leading efforts in modernizing Warrant Officer PME for all

common core and branch specific curriculum. Common core education to include WOCS, Warrant Officer

Intermediate Level Education (WOILE), and WOSSE at the Warrant Officer Career College will develop

Warrant Officers based on knowledge, skills, and attributes (behaviors) required at the appropriate

Warrant Officer grade and echelon. WOCS will focus on transitioning Warrant Officer candidates to

officers. WOILE will focus on the fundamentals of how the Army runs, and WOSSE will model a capstone

exercise where some students are assigned a Headquarters Department of the Army role and others will

incorporate warfighting functions based on the assigned mission.

In 2019, the Army stood-up the Talent Management Task Force to determine the characteristics

of a future talent-based system. The Chief of Staff immediately recognized the need to include talent

management for Warrant Officers and directed the addition of a warrant officer to help improve talent

management across the cohort. In early 2020, nine initiatives were proposed, and today seven of nine are

approved and fully implemented.

Army Talent Management Task Force Warrant Officers, senior Warrant Officers and working

groups worked diligently to ensure promotion criteria was aligned with talent. Special Forces led the way

in phasing direct commission to CW2. Select Non-commissioned officers meeting SF requirements and

successful completion of WOCS and WOBC may direct commission to CW2. To retain talent within the

ranks of the cohort, Warrant Officers competing for CW3 and CW4 are now eligible for below-the-zone

promotions. In addition, Warrant Officers selected for promotion, regardless of promotion zone, are

eligible for merit-based promotions. Merit-based selectees will promote on the 1

month of promotions

from the start of the promotion list.

Broadening assignments, to include fellowships are unique opportunities for Warrant Officers.

For the first time, Warrant Officers are eligible for the White House Fellowship Program (CW3-CW5) and

are currently in the second year of the Congressional Fellowship (CW3). There are currently two Warrant

Officers (AG and CY) serving at the Congressional level. The Association of the United States Army recently

added Warrant Officers to their Leader Solarium and is proposing a Warrant Officer Symposium in 2023.

Each talent management-based program, fellowship, or leader development forum prepares Warrant

Officers for 2030 and beyond.

The world is changing. The Army is changing with it and within the Army so must the Warrant

Officer Cohort. I encourage those in positions to lead change and drive results to participate in the

modernization of PME and management of warrant officer talent. Every warrant officer should be

afforded the opportunity to “Be All You Can Be,” which includes developing and strengthening their

technical intellect, thinking strategically, and building cohesive teams that are highly trained, disciplined,

diverse, and ready to fight and win our nation’s wars.

Strength in Knowledge!

April-June 2023 – Strength in Knowledge

9 | USAWOCC

I, Warrant: Looking Through a New Lens Toward

the Future of the Cohort

CW5 Russell J. Houser, DMA

“The Army warrant officer is a technical expert, combat leader, trainer, and

advisor…Warrant officers are innovative integrators…dynamic teachers, confident

warfighters, and developers of specialized teams of Soldiers.”

AR 600-3 Officer Professional Development and Career Management, 2019, para. 3-19

Rationale

The Commandant, United States Army Warrant Officer Career College wanted to understand

Warrant Officer identity better to know if Warrant Officers will be the "technologically agile, adaptive,

and innovative leaders" envisioned by General Milley and Acting Secretary of the Army Murphy in The

Army Warrant Officer 2025 Strategy published in 2016. This 2016 definition varies from the DA Pam 600-

3 Officer Professional Development and Career Management Warrant Officer definition as a "technical

expert, combat leader, trainer, and advisor" (2019, para 3-9). These definitions differ significantly in

construction and focus. The 2016 definition equates Warrant Officer identity to leaders with fluidic

qualities, while the 2019 definition equates Warrant Officer identity with four static roles. The DA Pam

definition is the doctrinally correct definition; however, can both definitions be embodied by an individual

Warrant Officer?

These Warrant Officer identities in both publications are occupational identities. "Occupational

identity refers to the conscious awareness of oneself as a worker" (Skorikov & Vondracek, 2011), and we

know "…strength and clarity of occupational identity are major determinants of career decision-making…"

(Skorikov & Vondracek, 2011) such as retention. Knowing and understanding Warrant Officer identity as

defined by regulations and other publications is important, but after more than 100 years of service by

Warrant Officers, why has no one studied Warrant Officer identity to see if the definition is right?

Additionally, the current DA Pam 600-3 definition of a warrant officer is a litany, e.g.,

“expert…leader...trainer…advisor …integrator…teacher…warfighter…developer…” (HQDA, para 3-9,

2019); however, in the previous chapter “…the goal of warrant officer training and education is to

produce…expert officers…leaders…trainers…problem solvers…operators…maintainers… administrators…

and managers…” (2019, para 2-5b(1)). The internal variation of DA Pam 600-3 arises after the third static

term and, perhaps, truncating at three terms is sufficient.

Given a point common to all Warrant Officers to "…well and faithfully discharge the duties of the

office…" (DA Form 71, August 1, 1959) and the definition from DA Pam 600-3, it is fair to ask Warrant

Officers who specifically discharges duties - dynamic leaders, static experts, or someone else?

Editor’s Article

of Interest

Statement of the Problem

Very little research exists about Army Warrant Officer occupational identity, and the available

literature does not include essentialist or social constructionism perspectives that "…provide a reasonably

discreet way of sorting much of the conceptual and practical work surrounding identity…" (Houser, 2021).

Historical references that follow include definitions of Warrant Officers that have shaped our

contemporary understanding of the cohort; however, as the Army and the cohort struggle with recruiting

and retention, discerning the factors contributing to WO occupational identity could reveal potential

means for strengthening recruiting and retention. Additionally, understanding how those factors

influence the perspective of Warrant Officers in their occupational identity can offer clues to leaders to

tailor messages for their current and future aviators and technician WOs in the institutional and

operational domains.

First Interlude

As part of this study, a literature review about Army Warrant Officer identity is needed. I searched

standard online resources for formal studies, military publications, and other government products.

Subsequently, I found multiple publications. Then I extracted implicit and explicit definitions from those

sources and listed them to consider, historically, what Warrant Officers are and are not. The definitions

from these publications are arranged chronologically to show how Warrant Officer identity has evolved.

1. 1941: “A warrant ofﬁcer is between the highest noncommissioned role and the lowest

commissioned grade.” (Committee on Military Affairs, 1941)

2. 1965: “The warrant officer in the Army’s personnel structure…used the rank (and the

corps) as a “dumping ground" for former commissioned officers and as a carrot to

hold out before enlisted personnel with long service” (Bourjaily, 1965)

3. 1965: “…for budgetary purposes, warrant officers were counted as Commissioned

officers.” (Bourjaily, 1965)

4. 1965: “…is a highly skilled technician who is provided to fill those positions above the

enlisted level which are too specialized in scope to permit the effective development

and continued utilization of broadly trained, branch-qualified commissioned

officers...” (Bourjaily, 1965)

5. 1973: “neither fish nor fowl"—the exact term which was used by the legislators in

their grasping to understand the warrant officer’s status” (Coroneos, 1973)

6. 1973: “…not enough to "vaguely define the warrant officer as a technician who is

neither commissioned nor enlisted…” (Coroneos, 1973)

7. 1973: “…warrant officers are the "third" distinctive personnel…” (Coroneos, 1973)

April-June 2023 – Strength in Knowledge

11 | USAWOCC

8. 1973: “…they are not officers, and they are not enlisted personnel…” (Coroneos,

1973)

9. 1976: “…warrant is defined as a highly skilled technician and not a high-level

manager…” (Brown, 1976)

10. 1976: “…The technician in the United States Army is basically defined as a highly

skilled person who is neither enlisted nor commissioned, He holds the rank and status

of warrant officer…” (Brown, 1976)

11. 1976: “…The Army warrant officer is a highly specialized technician, who like his

civilian counterpart, is not completely understood…” (Brown, 1976)

12. 1976: “…The warrant officer in the United States Army has historically and

traditionally been a highly specialized technician…” (Brown, 1976)

13. 1976: “…Definitions. a. A warrant officer is an officer appointed, by warrant, by the

Secretary of the Army and vested with limited powers. His rank and precedence are

below those of a second lieutenant but above those of a cadet. He is a highly skilled

technician who is provided to fill those positions above the enlisted level which are

too specialized in scope to permit the effective development and continued

utilization of a broadly trained, branch-qualified commissioned officer.” (Brown,

1976)

14. 1976: “…The Warrant Officer, under the Army’s present concept is a highly skilled

technician who is provided to fill positions above the enlisted level that are too

specialized in scope to permit the effective development and continued utilization of

broadly trained, branch qualified commissioned officers…” (Brown, 1976)

15. 1976: “…The warrant officer, prior to the Korean Conflict, was considered a "super

enlisted man." Even though he was given officer status, he was not thought of as an

integral part of the Army structure…” (Brown, 1976)

16. 1977: “…Each warrant officer is a technical manager in varying scope and magnitude

as determined by each assignment…” (Department of the Army, 1977)

17. 1977: “…An aviation warrant officer is a highly skilled technician in the field of

aviation…” (Department of the Army, 1977)

18. 1984: “…(a) reward enlisted men of long service and also to reward former

commissioned officers of World War I who lacked either the educational or other

eligibility requirements necessary for continuance in the commissioned status…”

(Government Printing Office, 1984).

19. 1984: “…It was to be a capstone rank…” (Government Printing Office, 1984)

20. 1984: “… an incentive in connection with the Enlisted Career Guidance Program…”

(Government Printing Office, 1984)

21. 1984: “…a completely new warrant officer concept…stipulated that the warrant

officer category would not be considered as a reward or incentive for enlisted men or

former commissioned officers… "The warrant officer is a highly skilled technician who

is provided to fill those positions above the enlisted level which are too specialized in

scope to permit the effective development and continued utilization of broadly

trained branch-qualified commissioned officers". (Government Printing Office, 1984)

22. 1985: “…the warrant force is a highly motivated service-oriented segment of the Total

Army…” (Study Group for CoS Army, 1985)

23. 1985: “…In aviation, the warrant officer is both a combat arms warrior and a

technician…” (Study Group for CoS Army, 1985)

24. 1985: “…In engineer, the warrant officer is a technical expert (engineer equipment

repair technician), a manager (construction technician), or a commander (utilities

detachment commander) …” (Study Group for CoS Army, 1985)

25. 1985: “…technical expert …a manager and/or, in some cases, a staff officer…” (Study

Group for CoS Army, 1985)

26. 1985: “…He is the expert who provides for correct operation and maintenance of the

Army’s systems, either as an operator, technician, or both…” (Study Group for CoS

Army, 1985)

27. 1985: “…the warrant officer is the highly specialized expert and trainer who, by

gaining progressive levels of expertise and leadership, operates, maintains,

administers, and manages the army’s equipment, support activities, or technical

systems for an entire career…" (Study Group for CoS Army, 1985)

28. 1985: “…the warrant officer is a distinct category of officer, but not separate from the

Officer Corps…” (Study Group for CoS Army, 1985)

29. 1985: “…The typical Reserve Component warrant officer is fundamentally a citizen

soldier…” (Study Group for CoS Army, 1985)

A Foundation

These definitions reveal a lack of organizational clarity about where in the Army’s vertical rank

structure Warrant Officers should be; however, descriptions of Warrant Officers caring for technical

equipment are found in the earliest extant document currently cited (Committee on Military Affairs,

April-June 2023 – Strength in Knowledge

13 | USAWOCC

1941). Subsequent definitions of Warrant Officers as technicians and clarification about why the Army

required technicians was a significant turning point. The requirement for 2-3% of the Army to fulfill a

technical mission was an implicit recognition of a third "social” warfighting function: the leadership,

combat, and technical support functions.

From March 8-10 and 19-22, I conducted two informal one-question surveys about Warrant

Officer Identity on LinkedIn. The first question asked about influences on Warrant Officer Identity and the

second question asked about how Warrant Officers view their experience. Most of the participants were

U.S. Army Warrant Officers who currently serve or are retired. The participants were nearly evenly divided

on the most influential component – the work or the people - on WO identity, as seen in Table 1. The

majority (53%) of participants in the second question believed being a WO was a career, while a significant

minority (40%) responded that being a Warrant Officer was a calling (See Table 2). Skorikov and Vondracek

(2011) described career and calling as both being intrinsically motivated; however, the career outlook

focused on the rewards of the occupation and growth (p. 697) while the calling outlook focused on the

“work that they actually do” (p. 697) and stability in that work. In total these two outlooks accounted for

more than 90% of the responses. Approximately 7% of participants believed that being a Warrant Officer

was either a job or a social ladder. The results of these informal surveys suggest that static factors, e.g.,

the career, and dynamic factors, e.g., the people and a calling, influence how Warrant Officers view

themselves.

Table 1 Warrant Officer identity is most influenced by:

Answer

% of Response

WO practical work

49 %

People in the Cohort

51 %

*(n=136)

Table 2 What is your outlook on your role as a Warrant Officer

Table 2 (n=93) Answer

% of Response

Social ladder

2 %

Job

5 %

Calling

40 %

Career

53 %

*(n=93)

Making sense of these dynamic and static factors and their influence on Warrant Officer identity may be

leveraged for recruiting and retention. For instance, in a March 8, 2023, interview with CBS, General

McConville shared that the slogan "Be All You Can Be" was being reused to inspire "…kids to have an

opportunity to do great things in life, to have an impact, be part of something bigger than themselves, to

have a purpose…" (McConville, 2023). General McConville's words may appeal, especially, to technician

warrant officers are usually accessed after several years of service. Because my surveys were exploratory

and informal, I did not seek participant’s MOS and could not identify technician or aviator career dynamic

trends.

There is vast territory explore in the domain of Warrant Officer identity. These basic

understandings of how Warrant Officers view themselves may eventually influence Warrant Officer IMT

and PME curricula in common core and technical tracks. Further, these understandings can possibly

facilitate more linkages among retired, currently serving, and future Warrant Officers. Ultimately, I believe

a more methodical exploration with Colonel McHugh will generate greater cohort self-awareness while

providing understanding about who those leaders are to improve the cohort and improve the Army.

April-June 2023 – Strength in Knowledge

15 | USAWOCC

References

Bourjaily, M. (1965). A brief history of the warrant officer in the military services of the United States.

Warrant Officer Association of the United States of America. https://www.google.com/books/

edition/A_Brief_History_of_the_Warrant_Officer_i/upqrGwAACAAJ?hl=en

Brown, B. (1976). The army warrant officer career: Toward manager or technician? U.S. Army Command

and General Staff College. https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/citations/ADA027646

Committee on Military Affairs. (1941). A bill to strengthen the national defense by creating the grade of

chief warrant officer in the army, and for other purposes (United States Government Printing Office

292965). United States Senate. https://www.google.com/books/edition/Grade_of_Chief_Warrant_

Officer_in_the_Ar/MEUTAAAAIAAJ?hl=en

Coroneos, P. (1973). The warrant officer in the volunteer force. United States Army War College.

https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/citations/AD0761429

Department of the Army. (1977). Warrant officer professional development. US Army AG Publications

Center. https://www.google.com/books/edition/Warrant_Officer_Professional_ Development/

giYuAAAAYAAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=%22warrant+officer+professional+development%22+1977&pg=

PP1&printsec=frontcover

Department of the Army. (1984). Warrant officer corps. US Government Printing Office.

https://www.google.com/books/edition/United_States_Army_Warrant_Officer_Corps/RR1XTkP5C

WgC?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=warrant+officer+corps&printsec=frontcover

Department of the Army. (2019) DA Pam 600-3. Officer Professional Development and Career

Management. https://armypubs.army.mil/epubs/DR_pubs/DR_a/ARN31964-PAM_600-3-001-WEB-

3.pdf

Houser, R. (2021). Staged lives: identity construction of lesbian, bisexual, and gay wind band conductors

in the Midwest (Doctoral dissertation, Boston University).

https://www.proquest.com/openview/f115d7945c1ab7a97a3fae3f26c4b087/1?cbl=18750&diss=y&

pq-origsite=gscholar

King, M. (2023). 'Be All You Can Be': Army brings back old ad slogan. CBSnews.com. Retrieved March 22,

2023 from https://www.cbsnews.com/atlanta/news/be-all-you-can-be-army-brings-back-old-ad-

slogan/

Skorikov, V.B., Vondracek, F.W. (2011). Occupational Identity. In: Schwartz, S., Luyckx, K., Vignoles, V.

(eds) Handbook of Identity Theory and Research. Springer, New York, NY.

https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4419-7988-9_29

Study group for the Chief of Staff, Army. (1985). Total warrant officer study, vol. 1. US Government

Printing Office. https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/citations/ADA172309

Learning Requirements for Multi-Domain

Operations (MDO)

CW3 Artimus Incognito

Introduction

The U.S. Army is continuously evolving its operations to be more efficient, effective and lethal on

the battlefield. To achieve this objective, the Army is focused on Multi-Domain Operations, which is a

concept that aims to integrate land, sea, air, space, and cyber capabilities into a cohesive operational

force. The need for Multi-Domain Operations has been driven by the ever-changing nature of modern

warfare, characterized by the proliferation of advanced technologies, hybrid threats, and the rise of near-

peer adversaries.

Learning requirements for Army Multi-Domain Operations

To ensure success in Multi-Domain Operations, the Army must invest in learning and development

to equip its Soldiers with the necessary knowledge, skills, and abilities. The following are the learning

requirements for Army Multi-Domain Operations:

1. Understanding Multi-Domain Operations (MDO)

Soldiers must have a thorough understanding of the MDO concept, which involves the integration

of all domains of warfare, including air, land, sea, space, and cyber. This understanding will enable

the soldier to think critically and creatively about how to use different domains to achieve their

mission objectives.

2. Developing strategic thinking

The Army requires Soldiers who can think strategically and develop plans that encompass all

domains of warfare. This includes understanding the enemy's strengths and weaknesses,

assessing the operational environment, and developing courses of action that consider all

domains.

3. Cyber operations

Cybersecurity is a critical aspect of modern warfare. Soldiers should be trained on cybersecurity

protocols to protect sensitive information and systems from cyber-attacks, which could

compromise the effectiveness of the operation.

4. Joint warfare

WOILE Student

Paper

April-June 2023 – Strength in Knowledge

17 | USAWOCC

Army Soldiers must operate within joint warfare environments and need to understand how the

Army interacts with other services and agencies such as the Navy, Air Force, and intelligence

community.

5. Battlefield coordination and communication

Effective coordination and communication across domains and services are essential for

successful Multi-Domain Operations. Soldiers must be trained to communicate effectively with

their fellow soldiers and other services to ensure a coordinated effort.

6. Emerging technologies

As technology continues to evolve at a rapid pace, Soldiers must be trained on emerging

technologies such as Artificial Intelligence (AI), autonomous systems, and robotics. Soldiers should

be able to operate these systems and apply them to the mission.

Conclusion

Multi-Domain Operations is the future of warfare, and for the Army to succeed on the battlefield,

Soldiers must be trained to operate in a Multi-Domain environment. The Army must focus on developing

the necessary learning requirements to equip its soldiers with the necessary knowledge, skills, and abilities

to operate effectively and efficiently in a constantly evolving battlefield. By investing in learning and

development, the Army can ensure that its Soldiers are better prepared to meet the challenges of modern

warfare. (*Note – Please continue to read after the Bibliography)

Bibliography:

1. "Multi-Domain Operations: The Evolution of Warfare in the 21st Century." U.S. Army.

https://www.army.mil/mdo/

2. "Army Doctrine Publication (ADP) 3-0, Unified Land Operations." U.S. Army.

https://armypubs.army.mil/Doctrine/index.html

3. "The Role of Multi-Domain Operations in Combating Future Threats." Defense News.

https://www.defensenews.com/sponsored_content/the-role-of-multi-domain-operations-in-combating-

future-threats/

4. "Multi-Domain Operations Concept Implementation Plan." U.S. Army.

https://www.army.mil/e2/downloads/rv7/mdo-implementation-plan.pdf

5. "Multi-Domain Battle: A Strategy for Winning in the 21st Century." Modern War Institute.

https://mwi.usma.edu/multi-domain-battle-strategy-winning-21st-century/

-Break-

*Note - If you have made it this far, you deserve an explanation. The previous author is fictitious, and the

above article was produced by utilizing OpenAI’s ChatGPT-3 [Generative Pre-trained Transformer] natural

language model interface. For context, the following prompt was delivered to the chatbot system:

“Provide a comprehensive explanation of learning requirements for Army Multi-domain

Operations in a professionally written format suitable for presentation to college

students.”

The only other parameters established were that the results should be 2-3 pages in length and

include sources. For those unfamiliar with these systems, the amazing part of this experiment is that the

results were produced (with sources) in under 60 seconds from prompt submission to output received.

While nothing revolutionary is discussed in the product and it surely lacks depth, how many of us (or

anyone we know) could produce this level of “thought”, organization, and sourcing in less than a minute.

Also, for those already familiar with the system, you understand that giving minimal additional “back-and-

forth” with the bot, the above article could easily be turned into a much more comprehensive work to

include depth in each sub-category and APA style citations.

The purpose of this experiment is not to encourage the nefarious use of artificial intelligence (AI)

in Professional Military Education (PME). Fortunately, as AI evolves there is a growing parallel effort to

develop digital forensic tools to detect its use in undesired ways (Keith, 2023). Such capabilities will

provide a means for educators to mitigate the undesired effects of AI on learning, while being able to

deliberately leverage it within the learning context itself to improve each student’s experience. Our

purposes here are to introduce the systems to some of our readers, let them know that we are aware of

them, and that we are working through how they can be properly used to enhance your learning.

Plagiarism still matters. Intellectual integrity is still a cornerstone of actual learning.

While the initial response to AI, from many educators, was that of fear, it turns out that there are

many potential benefits for both students and educators. Fear was driven by the idea that education

institutions (and therefore educators) would no longer be needed. Seasoned professors saw themselves

being replaced by machines. While that has not happened, AI has the potential to change the way

students learn and instructors teach.

If the real goal is knowledge gained, does the path towards that end state have to be a human

instructor doing it all? Can AI help support the desired end state by streamlining, right-sizing, and or right-

timing the education process? According to David Karandish (2021) of The Journal, students can benefit

from AI in the following areas:

1. Personalization: Personalization is one of the biggest trends in education. With the use of AI,

students now have a personalized approach to learning programs based on their own unique

experiences and preferences. AI can adapt to each student’s level of knowledge, speed of

learning and desired goals so they’re getting the most out of their education. Plus, AI-powered

solutions can analyze students’ previous learning histories, identify weaknesses and offer

courses best suited for improvement, providing many opportunities for a personalized

learning experience.

2. Tutoring: While it’s not uncommon for students to require extra help outside of the

classroom, many teachers don’t have free time for students after hours. AI tutors and

chatbots are a perfect solution in these scenarios. While no chatbot can truly replace an

educator, AI tools can help students sharpen their skills and improve weak spots outside of

the classroom. They provide a one-on-one learning experience without having the teacher

April-June 2023 – Strength in Knowledge

19 | USAWOCC

there to answer questions at all hours of the day. In fact, an AI-powered chatbot can answer

student questions at a response rate of 2.7 seconds.

3. Quick Responses: There is nothing more frustrating than asking a question only to have it

answered three days later. Teachers and faculty are often bombarded with repetitive

questions on a daily basis. AI can help students find answers to their most commonly asked

questions in seconds through support automation and conversational intelligence. Not only

does this free up a lot of time for educators, but it also helps students spend less time tracking

down answers or waiting for a response to their questions.

4. Universal 24/7 access to learning: AI-powered tools make learning accessible for all students,

anytime and anywhere. Each student learns at their own pace, and 24/7 access makes it easier

for students to explore what works for them without waiting on an educator. Additionally,

students from all over the world can gain access to high-quality education without incurring

traveling and living expenses. (paras. 3-5)

Potential AI benefits to educators include the following:

1. Personalization: Just as AI can personalize students’ learning courses, it can do the same for

educators. By analyzing the students’ learning abilities and history, AI can give teachers a clear

picture of which subjects and lessons need to be reevaluated. This analysis allows teachers to

create the best learning program for all students. By analyzing each student's specific needs,

teachers and professors can adjust their courses to address the most common knowledge

gaps or challenge areas before a student falls too far behind.

2. Answering questions: With access to a school’s entire knowledge base, AI-powered chatbots

can answer a variety of generic and repetitive questions students typically ask without

involving a faculty member. In bypassing the educator, AI leaves more time for them to focus

on lesson planning, curriculum research or improving student engagement.

3. Task automation: The power of AI can automate the most mundane of tasks, including

administrative work, grading papers, assessing learning patterns, replying to general

questions and more. According to a Telegraph survey, teachers spend 31% of their time

planning lessons, grading tests and doing administrative work. However, with support

automation tools, teachers can automate manual processes, leaving more time to focus on

teaching core competencies. (paras. 3-5)

These systems will play a very important and ever increasing role in the Army (research Project

Linchpin or the Army’s AI Integration Center for a deeper dive) and in PME. Universities around the globe

are already using AI to support student-centered learning and teacher efficiency and effectiveness. We

plan to do the same here at the U.S. Army Warrant Officer Career College. Hopefully, CW3 Artimus

Incognito’s article made you think and helps generate discussion about learning. He did highlight a need

for understanding “Artificial Intelligence (AI), autonomous systems, and robotics” as learning develops for

MDO. We see new technologies, like AI, as exciting opportunities and look forward to the future and

modernization of Warrant Officer education.

About the Authors

Dr. Brian Davis currently serves as the Chief, Academic Operations Division at the U.S. Army Warrant

Officer Career College. He is a retired Marine and current U.S. Army Master Instructor. He is a graduate

of Air Command and Staff College, Joint Forces Staff College, and was the first civilian to earn a Graduate

Certificate in National Security Studies from the Army War College. His civilian academic background

includes a BA (History) from Auburn University, an MA (Human Resources Development) from Webster

University, and an EdD from The University of the Cumberlands.

Mr. James Baker currently serves as the Academic Lead & Subject Matter Expert in Strategic Studies in

the Department of Strategy and Doctrine at the U.S. Army Warrant Officer Career College. He is a retired

Army All-Source Intelligence Warrant Officer [CW4] and a U.S. Army Master Instructor. He holds a BA in

Mass Communication from Freed-Hardeman University and an MS in Strategic Intelligence from the Joint

Military Intelligence College.

References

Karandish, D. (2021, June 23). 7 Benefits of AI in Education. The Journal https://thejournal.com/articles

/2021/06/23/7-benefits-of-ai-in-education.aspx

Keith, T. (2023, January 23). Combating Academic Dishonesty, Part 6: ChatGPT, AI, and Academic

Integrity https://academictech.uchicago.edu/2023/01/23/combating-academic-dishonesty-part-

6-chatgpt-ai-and-academic-integrity/

April-June 2023 – Strength in Knowledge

21 | USAWOCC

Irregular Warfare: The Application of Military

Capability Across the Competition Continuum

CW4 Jason P. Gambill

Military Capability Untapped in Preparation of an Uncertain Future.

The U.S. is transitioning from a nation that approached conflicts as event-based with clear

beginnings and endings to a strategy that continuously applies pressure on its adversaries (Gambill, 2021).

The Biden Administration’s National Security Strategy states, “Amid intensifying competition, the

military’s role is to maintain and gain warfighting advantages while limiting those of our competitors”

(Biden, 2022, p. 20). Furthermore, the U.S. intends to defend itself “across the spectrum of conflict to

prevent competitors from altering the status quo in ways that harm our vital interests while hovering

below the threshold of armed conflict” (Biden, 2022, p. 22). In order to secure the homeland, the

administration clearly intends that the military will maintain continuous pressure on its adversaries. This

essay proposes irregular warfare as the military’s means to achieve results during competition. As a

service, the U.S. Army must increase investment and institutionalize its approach towards irregular

warfare to shape the environment, enable integrated deterrence, and counter adversaries across the

competition continuum.

The Army must increase its understanding and expand the employment of irregular warfare (IW)

in competition and preparation of large-scale combat operations (LSCO). To best convey this argument,

the author will first provide an expanded description and definition of IW. Second, the author will argue

that the Army must employ IW continuously across competition continuum to fulfill its strategic roles and

achieve national policy objectives. Finally, the capstone will provide three DOTMLPF-P Change

Recommendations (DCR) (U.S. Army, 2021, p. 1).

Irregular Warfare

The Department of Defense’s (DoD) current definition of IW is too narrow and does not consider

all possible military activities across the entire competition continuum. Though JP 1-02 currently describes

IW as “a violent struggle among state and non-state actors for legitimacy and influence over the relevant

population(s),” the DoD is currently redefining the term (Joint Chiefs of Staff, 2019, p. 119; Ucko & Marks,

2022). The current definition is biased towards the spectrum of armed conflict and hinders the idea of

employing IW in competition and shaping.

Many IW experts define the term more broadly than JP 1-02 in both scopes of conflict and the

application of its effects. Seth Jones describes IW as “activities short of conventional and nuclear warfare

that are designed to expand a country’s influence and legitimacy as well as weaken its adversaries” (Jones,

2021). Kevin Blims describes IW as “one way the military can apply its power complementary with the

diplomatic, economic, financial and other elements of government power to secure strategic outcomes”

Editor’s Article

of Interest

(Blims, 2021). Jones and Blims’ descriptions of IW relate to what was defined over 75 years ago as political

warfare. In 1948, George Kennan defined Political Warfare as the “employment of all means at a nation’s

command, short of war, to achieve its national objectives” (Kennan, 1948, p. 1). Similar to the Central

Intelligence Agency’s covert action and the Department of State’s diplomacy and statecraft, the DoD

conducts irregular warfare as its contribution to political warfare. This Army capstone will define IW as

“military capability, excluding conventional and nuclear warfare, employed throughout the competition

continuum to shape the environment, prevent conflict, prevail in LSCO, and consolidate gains.”

IW as a full-time tool of statecraft. The U.S. government’s approach to leveraging military

capability tends towards events based on a particular conflict or crisis with a clear beginning and

termination. However, several Army leaders are working to change that. LTG Jonathon Braga explains,

concerning China and Russia, “We have to rethink everything we do, how we live in a contact layer and

look to seek to provide options” (Hearing to Receive Testimony on United States Special Operations

Command’s Efforts to Sustain the Readiness of Special Operations Forces And Transform The Force For

Future Security Challenges, 2022, p. 27). Braga also states that “There is no sanctuary at home or abroad.

We must change how we think about protecting and projecting our forces” (Braga, 2022, p. 4). LTG Maria

Barrett stated, “we are in constant contact with the adversary every single day, who seeks to weaken our

strengths as a nation and undercut our strategic advantages” (Cutshaw, 2022). Much like the Army’s

strategic goals of shaping, preventing (or deterring), prevailing, and consolidating, IW is best leveraged

throughout the competition continuum to attain the desired effects. The U.S. is not alone in its efforts to

leverage IW in a nearly continuous manner.

Russia and the People’s Republic of China leverage IW to set the conditions for LSCO and achieve

other national policy objectives. One example is Russia’s use of Private Military Companies (PMC), like

Vagner Group, to expand its influence and achieve national policy objectives while offering the Putin

regime plausible deniability. PMCs are private industry with ties to the Russian government through its

intelligence agencies and military (Asymmetric Warfare Group & John Hopkins Applied Physics Laboratory,

2020, p. X). As depicted by Figure 1, PMCs conduct a wide range of activities that include counter-

terrorism, security force assistance, counter-insurgency, and direct participation in hostilities (Asymmetric

Warfare Group & John Hopkins Applied Physics Laboratory, 2020, p. 4). Russia employs PMCs across

Africa, Syria, and Ukraine to extend its influence, secure income that circumvents the U.S. imposed

sanctions, and directly support its military (Putin’s Proxies: Examining Russia’s Use of Private Military

Companies, 2022, p. 4). More alarmingly, Russia has used PMCs as a deniable combatant in LSCO against

the U.S. and its partners in Syria (Gibbons-Neff, 2018). Currently, Russian PMCs are fighting the Ukraine

military somewhat successfully for control of the city of Bakhmut (Yuhas et al., 2023).

Though Russia’s use of IW is malign by U.S. standards, the Army should recognize from this

example that IW is a versatile tool that could contribute to multiple strategic goals. The U.S. should employ

IW across the same spectrum, but more consistent with its values and laws. Subsequently, PMCs primarily

operate outside of combatant command authority and circumvent other U.S. agencies’ efforts to disrupt

those activities. IW offers the military a secure method to disrupt PMC activities.

April-June 2023 – Strength in Knowledge

23 | USAWOCC

Figure 1: Russian PMC Activities by U.S. Army Strategic Roles

Note: The image was accessed from Asymmetric Warfare Group & John Hopkins Applied Physics Laboratory, 2020, p. 13;

U.S. Army, 2019, pp. 1–5.

DOTMLPF-P Recommendations

1) Doctrine, Leadership and Education: Immediately redefine IW in Army doctrine to represent the full

scope of available military capability required to shape the environment and achieve national policy

objectives across the competition continuum. Use professional military education to indoctrinate leaders

in the application of IW. The Army should strive to ensure its leaders as comfortable with conducting IW

as they are of LSCO.

2) Organization and Personnel: Identify or create an Army unit of action for IW that not only represents

special operations, cyber, and space but also includes conventional military elements like the Security

Forces Assistance Command. This unit would advise the Headquarters Department of the Army on the

application of IW in support of the Joint Force and interagency.

3) Policy: Create policy that operationalizes Army capability and personnel at rest that assists the Joint

Force and interagency with developing and implementing IW strategies. Furthermore, assist both with

campaigning against identified adversarial systems and capabilities that could be held at risk before LSCO

or to enable integrated deterrence.

Conclusion

This capstone argued that the Army must increase investment and institutionalize its approach

towards irregular warfare to shape the environment, enable integrated deterrence, and counter

adversaries across the competition continuum. It provided an expanded description and definition of IW.

The capstone explained that IW is a useful tool to accomplish all Army strategic goals and contribute to

the success of national policy objectives. Finally, it recommended three DOTMLPF-P Change Requests

(DCR).

Historically, the U.S. has disproportionally prioritized large scale combat operations (LSCO) over

irregular warfare (IW). In his memoir, Robert Gates explained that the military services are preoccupied,

“with planning, equipping, and training for future major wars with other nation-states, while assigning

lesser priority to current conflicts and all other forms of conflict, such as irregular or asymmetric war”

(Gates, Robert M., 2014, p. 142). This preoccupation with LSCO is unlikely to change with the ongoing

Russian PMC Activities Aligned to U.S. Army Strategic Roles

Shape

Prevent

Prevail

Consolidate

Deception

Provide Regime Security

Mechanized Infantry

Security Force Assistance

Blackmail

Targeted Assassination

Combat Advisors

Personnel Protection

RUS GOV Influence/ Support

Kidnapping

Coordinate Fires and

De-mining

Maintain Zones of Stability

Sabotage

Forward Air Controllers

Counterinsurgency

Subversion

Reconnaissance

Counterterrorism

Deception

Artillery

Information Operations

Russia-Ukraine war and the growing tensions between the People’s Republic of China (China) and the U.S.

regarding Taiwan. The Department of Defense (DoD) cannot predict the future and whether LSCO with

China or Russia is forthcoming, but it is evident that both adversaries are currently conducting activities

globally below the threshold of armed conflict against the U.S. and its allies. By not committing military

capability now, the U.S. is abandoning the current battlefield to malign actors and nations without a fight.

References

Asymmetric Warfare Group, & John Hopkins Applied Physics Laboratory. (2020). Russian Private Military

Companies: Their Use and How to Consider Them in Operations, Competition, and Conflict.

Training and Doctrine Command. https://publicintelligence.net/awg-russian-private-military-

companies/

Biden, Joseph. (2022). National Security Stategy (p. 48). The White House. https://www.whitehouse

.gov/wp-content/uploads/2022/10/Biden-Harris-Administrations-National-Security-Strategy-

10.2022.pdf

Blims, K. (2021). Better understanding irregular warfare in competition. Military Times.

https://www.militarytimes.com/opinion/commentary/2021/01/01/better-understanding-

irregular-warfare-in-competition/

Braga, J. (2022). Statement of Lieutenant General Jonathan Braga Commanding General (p. 7). United

States Army Special Operations Command.

Cutshaw, J. (2022, August 10). Triad “Influence Panel” integrates capabilitites for future of Army

operations. Army.Mil.

https://www.army.mil/article/259229/triad_influence_panel_integrates_capabilties_

for_future_of_army_operations

Gambill, J. (2021). China and Russia Are Waging Irregular Warfare Against the United States: It is Time

for a U.S. Global Response, Led by Special Operations Command. U.S. Naval Institute

Proceedings. https://www.usni.org/magazines/proceedings/2021/november/china-and-russia-

are-waging-irregular-warfare-against-united

Gates, Robert M. (2014). Duty: Memoirts of a Secretary at War (1st ed.). Alfred A. Knopf.

Gibbons-Neff, T. (2018, May 24). How a 4-Hour Battle Between Russian Mercenaries and U.S.

Commandos Unfolded in Syria. The New York Times. https://www.nytimes.com/2018/05/24/

world/middleeast/american-commandos-russian-mercenaries-syria.html

Hearing To Receive Testimony On United States Special Operations Command’s Efforts To Sustain The

Readiness Of Special Operations Forces And Transform The Force For Future Security Challenges

(p. 66). (2022). U.S. Senate.

Joint Chiefs of Staff. (2019). Joint Doctrine Note 1-19: Competition Continuum. Joint Staff.

Jones. (2021). The Future of Competition: U.S. Adversaries and the Growth of Irregular Warfare. Center

for Strategic and International Studies, 1.

April-June 2023 – Strength in Knowledge

25 | USAWOCC

Kennan, G. F. (1948). The Inaguuration of Organzed Political Warfare (No. 208714). National Archives

and Records Adminstration. https://digitalarchive.wilsoncenter.org/document/george-f-kennan-

inauguration-organized-political-warfare

Putin’s Proxies: Examining Russia’s Use of Private Military Companies (p. 10). (2022). Center for Strategic

and International Studies. https://www.csis.org/analysis/putins-proxies-examining-russias-use-

private-military-companies

Ucko, D. H., & Marks, T. A. (2022). Redefining Irregular Warfare: Legitimacy, Coercion, and Power.

Modern War Institute, 11.

U.S. Army. (2019). ADP 3-0 Operations. Department of Army.

U.S. Army. (2021). Army Regulation 71-9: Warfighting Capabilities Determination. Headquarters U.S.

Army. https://armypubs.army.mil/epubs/DR_pubs/DR_a/ARN31331-AR_71-9-000-WEB-1.pdf

Yuhas, A., Specia, M., & Nechepurenko, I. (2023, January 13). Russia’s Claim to Seize a Ukrainian Town

Exposes Rifts Among Forces. The New York Times. https://www.nytimes.com/2023/01/13/

world/europe/russia-ukraine-wagner-soledar.html

No Integration Without Acculturation

CW5 Julian Evans

W01 Beedy

The Culture

The Army Culture reflects the common mission, purpose, and sacrifice of each member of the

Profession. It is the glue that forms unit trust and cohesion, instills discipline within the ranks, and gives

the Army its identity. The Army Culture is an outward representation of its values and an inward reflection

of our operations. New members who join the Army team undergo an intentional acculturation

onboarding process. Army onboarding is receiving and integrating new individuals into an organization,

team, group, or squad, ensuring they have the foundational knowledge to be effective members.

Onboarding is not unique to the Army; several corporate organizations agree that good onboarding

enables employees to perform and provide value to the organization. In fact, an expert onboarding analyst

explains that a good onboarding framework should focus on culture, rules, networks, collaboration,

competencies, and performance (Harpelund, 2019). Onboarding is important to new members of any

organization, but more critical for individuals transitioning to different roles with increased leadership

responsibilities. Transitioning requires a systematic approach that provides deliberate acculturation for

new members. This is no different for the new members of the Warrant Officer Cohort and acculturation

is the pivotal transition method of choice that is deliberately woven into the fabric of the Warrant Officer

Candidate School (WOCS).

The Warrant Officer Community of Practice

Warrant Officer Candidate School (WOCS) is a branch immaterial, initial military training course

that educates and trains enlisted Soldiers, from junior enlisted to senior Noncommissioned Officers

(NCOs), with diverse backgrounds who possess varying degrees of knowledge, skills, and behaviors

(competencies). The candidates going through the course start in the Warrant Officer Acculturation Phase

(WOAP). WOAP provides candidates with foundational leadership development concepts and

assessments to build upon and improve their leadership competencies and attributes in accordance with

Field Manual (FM) 6-22, Leadership Development. During, the WOAP portion of the course, Training,

Advising, and Coaching (TAC) Officers gain a clearer perspective on the candidates’ leadership

development strengths and weaknesses and develop individual coaching strategies to meet the individual

candidate needs. Through the WOAP, candidates are exposed to continuous refinements related to their

roles and responsibilities as an Army Warrant Officer. The path along this transformation carries

individuals into a professional cohort through continuous assimilation. WOCS gives each Warrant Officer

a foundational blueprint that prepares them for their technical training and their first unit of assignment.

Assimilation is at the forefront of a professional transformation into becoming a Warrant Officer.

The act of creating a Warrant Officer is no small feat, and the task becomes increasingly more complex as

the candidate’s military experience rises due to the concrete NCO operational mindset. Although

extremely capable, senior NCOs are not typically focused on the same aspects of the organization's

Editor’s Article of

Interest

April-June 2023 – Strength in Knowledge

27 | USAWOCC

mission as their commissioned counterparts. Senior NCOs are trusted leaders and fill a niche that takes

years of experience to master and typically have autonomy in task completion.

NCOs selected to become Warrant Officers transition from being the face of small units to

becoming the “Quiet Professional,” a term coined by the Cohort. That transition of growth would be

impossible without change. The eventual change from NCO to Warrant Officer is only possible through

progressive levels of structured education, starting with WOCS, and once that proverbial seed is planted,

something new, something different, and something great will grow. No longer will this future company-

grade Warrant Officer only concern themselves with a mission end state. They now instead are educated

and developed to thoughtfully consider every facet of military operations, accounting for impacts up and

down a formation, and at times across a branch.

In the article “The Truth About Transitions,” from Psychology Today, Schnelderman (2012) writes

of a theory of change in the professional setting. The theory invokes that every change follows a

framework, starting with an ending and finishing with a beginning. This neutral zone falls in between

ending what once was and the start of what is to come, and many prefer foregoing this stage. However,

those individuals would “miss important insights and gifts, putting them at risk of poor decision-making

in the future” (Schnelderman, 2012). Direct appointment or commission without an integration plan or

acculturation places these selected high performers directly in the middle of the “neutral zone” between

enlisted and warrant officers, potentially risking their future maturation and placing their identity at risk.

Though it may seem like an easy transition from the outside looking in, it will be anything but easy.

Transition From NCO to Warrant Officer

Officers in the military must bear unwavering traits, though these traits are not exclusive to

Officers, they are important. For this article, the primary roles of Army Warrant Officers are categorized

into five competencies: Integrator, Communicator, Operator, Leader, and Advisor (Momeny, Dowling, &

Wolf, 2023, p. 11-14). Understanding the roles and functions is critical for a Warrant Officer’s success and

overall organizational readiness. Through this lens, former NCOs now turned junior Warrant Officers are

prepared for duty by converging experience with the depth of what is expected of them.

Being an integrator is at the tip of the spear for innovative technical acumen. Commanders have

an expectation of their Warrant Officers to be the technical expert and lead system integrators.

Integration is a skillset that expands outside of the system employment. It is the ability to combine

knowledge, skills, assets, and people from across the organizations to support organizational readiness

and mission accomplishment.

All Officers in the military must be well-versed and talented communicators, the Warrant Officer

is no exception. As subject matter experts on systems and system integration, Warrant Officers must

communicate critical information to commanders and staff clearly and concisely.

No system can function without a skilled Operator. Army Warrant Officers are educated to be

technical experts in their field, skilled at efficiently and effectively operating the systems they integrate.

However, this competency requires knowledge of application with context to the operational

environment. Success as an operator means that Warrant Officers must also possess and apply doctrinal

competency of Army and Joint operations (Momeny, Dowling, & Wolf, 2023, p. 12).

Every Officer is a leader, and the transformation from NCO to Warrant Officer does not absolve

one from their leadership responsibilities. On the contrary, their leadership responsibilities and technical

purview significantly increase over the span of their career.

Finally, the Army Warrant Officer is an advisor through and through. The expertise held by

Warrant Officers through years of experience would be unexploited without the proper employment of

their advisory role. Commanders and staff expect Warrant Officers to advise them on their system

integration in planning and decision-making.

To accomplish these competencies, leaders must remain unyielding in their efforts to provide

Commanders, organizations, and Soldiers with the best-educated Warrant Officer. The transition to

becoming a junior officer requires a realization that is undenounced to the mentality of NCOs and the

generational shift ongoing in the Army. A successful leader in today’s Army must find a way to get to the

“yes” for their commanders. FM 3-0 discusses the art of command and states that “Command is more art

than science because it requires commanders to exercise their judgment, leverage their experience, and

use their intuition when leading their units” (HQDA, 2022). This is a prevalent notion, as intuition is

shunned due to the fear of failure as humans grow into adulthood. Leadership requires it, failure is not an

end-state, but a state of mind. The Warrant Officer does not accept failure, they mold it into an

opportunity to achieve success and find the yes.

A Change in the Warrant Officer Accessions Landscape

To counter talent gaps, specifically regarding inadequate Warrant Officer inventories amongst

certain technical specialties, and accessions shortfalls, the Army implemented an accelerated pathway for

high-performing Soldiers to become Warrant Officers. Army Directive 2023-02 (Direct Appointment and

Commission of Certain Warrant Officers) expands opportunities for Soldiers to apply for direct

appointment to Warrant Officer One (WO1) or direct commission to Chief Warrant Officer Two (CW2).

High-performing enlisted Soldiers and NCOs will receive constructive credit for prior education, forego

WOCS, and be directly appointed to WO1 following accession. After successfully completing their

respective Warrant Officer Basic Course (WOBC), some will be afforded the opportunity to commission to

CW2. This process may cause long-term effects due to the absence of an effective warrant officer

acculturation.

Acculturation is far too important to grant constructive credit for mastery-based upon experience

and complementary education from an NCO with a different scope of duties and responsibilities. Senior

NCOs may have mastered their craft; however, there is potentially a higher margin for error among

Warrant Officers who forego the formal transition of the Warrant Officer acculturation. Continuing to

operate as an NCO may chip away at the foundational principles of the Warrant Officer Cohort. The Army

must assess viable candidates from a talent pool to retain exemplary leaders without compromise. There

are no cliff notes, how-to videos, or pretests to alleviate anyone from the acculturation process. Highly

qualified Soldiers or NCOs deserve the same formative professional military educational baseline as their

peer group. Without Warrant Officer acculturation and a clear understanding of their new roles and

responsibilities, a void in collaborative efforts would begin to develop and proliferate throughout the

Cohort.

April-June 2023 – Strength in Knowledge

29 | USAWOCC

A Path Forward

Army Directive 2023-02 has provided a guide path to transition from an enlisted Soldier to a

Warrant Officer; however, Senior Army Officers and Leaders have a fundamental responsibility to ensure

the Army, its organizations, Commanders, staffs, and Soldiers have the best educated and trained Warrant

Officer integrator, communicator, operator, leader, and advisor to fight and win our Nations wars!

Acculturation and integration into the Warrant Officer Cohort is non-negotiable and requires a course

median consistent with the Army Direct Commission Course. The course must focus on the acculturation

and education of newly appointed WO1s or commissioned CW2s with the knowledge, skills, and behaviors

to perform their Warrant Officer functions and responsibilities across various operational assignments.

Through Senior Warrant Officer coaching and instructions, these Warrant Officers will be taught the

necessary competencies to enhance their critical thinking skills, tenants of problem-solving, doctrinal

concepts of Multi-Domain Operations and Large-Scale Combat Operations, organizational and advanced

communications, research methods, teamwork, and planning needed to support their first unit of

assignment’s mission. This course should include three fundamental phases: transition, acculturation, and

integration, which will prepare them for successful assimilation into the Warrant Officer Cohort. Each

phase is progressive and sequential and will provide outcome-based education focused on preparing new

Warrant Officers to adjust and internalize a new set of norms, heritage, traditions, and lineage that would

otherwise be forgone with the direct integration without acculturation.

Technically and tactically competent Warrant Officer Leaders are critical to Army system

integration and operational success. To develop and prepare these exceptional merit-based individuals to

meet future challenges an effective acculturation learning experience is paramount for the integration

into the Officer Corps!

References

Harpelund, C. (2019). Is Onboarding the New HR Secret for Company Success? Forbes Magazine.

Retrieved March 16, 2023, from https://www.forbes.com/sites/brucerogers/2019/01/25/is-

onboarding-the-new-hr-secret-for-company-success/?sh=41cc96fb1484

Momeny, L., Dowling, N., & Wolf, J. (2023). Identifying Common Core Competencies of the Army

Warrant Officer. Strength in Knowledge: The Warrant Officer Journal 1(1), p. 11-14).

https://www.armyupress.army.mil/Portals/7/WOCC-Journal/2023-Journals/Strength-in-

Knowledge-Volume-1-Issue-1.pdf

Schneiderman, K. (2012). The truth about transitions. Psychology Today. Retrieved March 18, 2023, from

https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/the-novel-perspective/201203/the-truth-about-

transitions

The Evolution of Russian Information Warfare

CW4 Charles Davis

Author’s Note: Thoughts and assessments in this work are those of the author and are not meant to reflect organizational

opinions of the Warrant Officer Career College or the Army.

Editor’s Note: The Author has requested that footnotes remain to assist readers.

“Information technology has significantly enhanced human interaction around the globe and

elevated the importance of information as an instrument of power wielded by individuals and societies in

politics, economics, and warfare. Advances in information technology have significantly changed the

generation of, transmission of, reception of, and reaction to information.”

-Joint Concept for Operations in the

Information Environment July 2018

The Russian concept of Information Warfare (IW) began to develop in the post WWII Soviet Union.

However military theory on the concept gained traction with the USSR’s Military Research Institute (MRI),

through the writings of Dr. Vladimir Lefebvre (Murphy, 2018)

. Lefebvre is credited with developing

Reflexive Control (RC) Theory in the 1960s, while working for the MRI. His book, “The Algebra of

Consciousness”, was the foundation for classifying the theory and establishing a Soviet research institute

to assess its applications (Murphy, 2018)

Reflexive Control Theory requires a foundational understanding of the psychology of the target.

Developing a targeted operation requires deep cultural understanding and occurs through modeling the

target’s logical reasoning, character traits, and socio-cultural traditions, habits, and beliefs (Murphy,

2018)

. As a result, Russian military theorists study US military processes such as the Military Decision-

making process (MDMP) and OODA (observe, orient, decide, and act) Loop. They have also committed a

great deal of study to American society, what divides us, and more importantly how emotions elicit

responses.

Lefebvre’s philosophy was reaffirmed in a 1976 paper by V Druzhinin and D Kontorov, titled

“Problems with Military systems Engineering.” The work firmly asserts; control of the target’s decision

process derives from a profound knowledge of the state of his forces, military doctrine, objectives, and

personal qualities of his executive personnel. Additionally, an adversary’s politics, ideology, emotional

state, and mutual relations can also be leveraged to influence decision-making (Chotikul, 1986)

. Putin’s

approach to conducting Information Warfare through RC is firmly intrenched in these concepts, with

global implications.

Russia does not distinguish Information Operations (IO) as a peacetime or conflict tool and there

are no restrictions between leveraging RC against military or civilian targets. Therefore, adversaries such

as the United States can expect IW to be a constant in competition, crisis, and conflict. As such, IW is

https://sofrep.com/news/russian-reflexive-control-is-subverting-the-american-political-landscape/

ibid

https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/pdfs/ADA170613.pdf

Editor’s Article

of Interest

April-June 2023 – Strength in Knowledge

31 | USAWOCC

conducted globally and indiscriminately. Putin affirmed this position in his 2006 address to the Federal

Assembly of the Russian Federation. “We must take into account the plans and directions of development

of the armed forces of other countries…. Our responses must be based on intellectual superiority, they

will be asymmetric, and less expensive” (Putin, 2006)

An early example of Soviet forces applying Lefebver’s Reflexive Control is evident in interviews

with Vladimir Ryzhkov (Russian State Duma Deputy 1993-2007). Ryzhkov recalls conversations with KGB

propaganda officers regarding their efforts in Afghanistan in the 1980s and several points can be taken.

The Afghan population had to be convinced the government was acting in their interests and the enemy

provoked the crisis. Operations also focused on fabricating incidents of persecution of Russian speaking

populations, using just enough truth to draw social attention and outrage. Using these incidents, IOs

focused on demonizing the adversary and masking Soviet aggression as humanitarian aid to those

persecuted. Controlling the narrative was most important and crackdowns on all accessible media outlets

secured their ability to direct the message (Ryzhklov, 2014)

Later examples provided by Ryzhkov present RC in a new light. For example, in 1999 Russia used

reports of Chechen attacks into Dagestan as a mechanism for driving public opinion in support of a second

military incursion into Chechnya. None of the jihadist groups ever took responsibility for the August and

September apartment bombings and there is broad speculation that Moscow conducted false flag

reporting to justify a military presence.

Additionally, Russian press suggested as many as 100 foreign instructors participated in training

Chechen terrorists. Other Russian press reporting indicated Usama Bin Laden was sending mercenaries

from Afghanistan and Yemen (Oliker, 2001)

. Narrative control here provided popular support for

elevated military operations in the region. Media influence during the second Chechen war was

highlighted in a Newsline piece by Paul Goble: “Indeed, the Russian government's own newspaper

‘Izvestiya’ noted rather critically that "the introduction of centralized military censorship regarding the

war in the North Caucasus is the only new idea in the much-vaunted national security doctrine” (Goble,

1999)

. These examples along with press observations suggesting a shift in tactic, reinforce the presence

of RC as a recognized component of Russian political and military strategy.

Also in the 1990s, the Russian government started to see the value in state-sponsored think tanks.

While Russia leveraged academia for research and analysis, it did not apply the concept of state sponsored

institutes, like RAND in the United States. The Russian Institute for Strategic Studies (RISI) is one such

organization, which was established by presidential decree in February of 1992. Atlantic Council Research

indicates; by 2007 there were roughly seventy researchers, working on international security, the near

abroad, military-strategic questions, international economic security, and market economic issues (Graef,

2019)

RISI provides a unique view of how Lefebvre’s concepts for RC are studied and applied. A 2019

product by Atlantic Council’s Eurasia Center provides an in-depth study of several think tanks in today’s

Russia. According to Barbashin and Graef, in April of 2009 RISI was identified as a Federal Scientific

Institution. Categorizing it in this manner solidified funding through the Presidential Administration. The

http://www.en.kremlin.ru/events/president/transcripts/23577

http://www.themoscowtimes.com/opinion/article/thekremlins-war-propaganda/496779.html

https://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/monograph_reports/MR1289/RAND_MR1289.pdf

http://www.hri.org/news/balkans/rferl/1999/99-10-12.rferl.html#28

https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/in-depth-research-reports/report/thinking-foreign-policy-in-russia-think-tanks-and-grand-narratives/

increased funding allowed RISI to broaden its scope and add new departments. Putin also installed

Lieutenant General (ret) Leonid Reshetnikov, formerly the Director of Foreign Intelligence Services, as

administrator (Graef, 2019)

Between 2011 and 2014 Reshetnikov was able to expand RISI research and analysis capabilities.

In 2011, RISI established a Center for Regional and Ethno-Religious Studies. Then in March 2014

Reshetnikov hired representatives from Helsinki, Belgrade, and Warsaw to support his newly established

Information Center in Tiraspol Transnistria. At the opening ceremony, he spoke of the importance of the

Crimean vote for reunification with Russia (Minisrty of Foreign Affairs Moldovian Republic , 2014)

10F

. RISI

remained supportive of the creation of Novorossiya (New Russia) and endorsed escalation of military

operations in eastern Ukraine (staff, 2015)

11F

RISI remained vocally supportive of Russian operations in Ukraine throughout 2014 and drafted a

report in October framing the events as a western plot. In the October 2014 report, titled “The Ukrainian

Crisis: Instrument of Geopolitics of the West”, RISI analysts asserted the United States was waging an

information, economic, and political operation against Russia. Russia was portrayed as foiling US plots to

establish a new world order of US “business and political elites” (Reshetnikov, 2014)

12F

. The October report

also alluded to US intentions for American military bases on the Black Sea. The report and narratives to

insight fear of the US and incompetence in Ukrainian governance all align with the primary concepts of

RC.

Also in 2011, Russian Chief of General Staff Nikolai Makarov began to voice his reservations that

Russia’s military had not successfully adopted to the requirements of modern warfare. Specifically, he did

not believe the military would be successful in non-contact warfare such as Information Operations.

Makarov’s concerns fueled General Valery Gerasimov’s efforts to address the question of how to

describe/define modern war and frame operational concepts for Russian success in 2013. One key

distinction in Gerasimov’s framing of Information Warfare (IW), and that of western generals is that Russia

does not distinguish cyber warfare from other types of IO: it’s simply another tool in the box (Vogler,

2016)

13F

By 2014 there were two primary templates for IO. The first, “Red Web”, written by former KGB

officers Andrei Soldatov and Irina Borogan centered on media control. But an article in the Journal of the

Academy of Military Science, written by several Belarusian nationals approached the concept in much

broader terms. The concept focused on 13 goals and more closely aligns with Reflexive Control Theory.

They are described in an article by MITRE as:

∙Changing the citizen’s moral values ∙Creating a lack of spirituality ∙Destroying traditions

and cultivating a negative attitude toward cultural legacy ∙Manipulating the social

consciousness ∙Disorganizing systems and creating obstacles ∙Destabilizing political

relations ∙Exacerbating political struggles and provoking repression ∙Reducing information

support ∙Misinforming, undermining, and discrediting administrative organs ∙Provoking

ibid

https://mid.gospmr.org/en/DPj

https://lithuaniatribune.com/russian-think-tank-that-pushed-for-invasion-of-ukraine-wants-moscow-to-overthrow-belarus-lukashenko

https://riss.ru/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/AO_2014_ves-tekst.pdf

https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/pdfs/AD1019062.pdf

April-June 2023 – Strength in Knowledge

33 | USAWOCC

social, political, national, and religious conflicts ∙Mobilizing protests and strikes

∙Undermining authority -Damaging interests of a state (Thomas, 2019)

14F

Where Soldatov and Borogan focused on a single platform, the Belarusian theorists addressed

measurable objectives. Their approach has garnered more attention, and practical application of their

concepts has appeared more recently in Russian IW efforts.

In 2014, Vladislav Surkov left his position of Deputy Prime Minister of the Russian Federation for

an appointment as Presidential Aide to Putin. Surkov assumed responsibilities for the Presidential

Directorate for Social and Economic Cooperation with the CIS Member Countries. In this capacity, Surkov

assumed the responsibility for developing policy towards Ukraine and began to receive daily updates

focused on social, economic, and political issues in specific regions of the country. The data allowed Russia

to frame a narrative and develop supporting disinformation that would manipulate Ukrainian public

sentiment and political decision-making.

Hacked emails, associated with Surkov’s position during the annexation of Crimea, also provide

supporting evidence Surkov relied on several Russian think tanks to assist with developing RC concepts to

use in IW against Ukraine and NATO countries. This data provides a connection back to Reshetnikov and

the Russian Institute for Strategic Studies, supporting direct involvement in privately funded efforts to

recruit and finance the separatist insurgency in eastern Ukraine (Grozev, 2017)

15F

In 2019, The Royal United Service Institute was able to establish a chronology of Surkov- led

activities during the Russian annexation of Crimea in 2014. The final paper was a direct result of hacked

emails from Vladislav Surkov during this period (Shandra, 2020)

16F

. Authors, Alya Shandra and Robert

Seely, assert Russia accomplished the seizure of Crimea through overt and covert activities, along with

local ideologs and paid collaborators.

At the covert level, Russia interfered in Ukrainian elections, organized, and funded a

pan-Ukrainian campaign for a ‘soft federalization’ of the country, attempted to change

Ukraine’s constitution and establish an alternative center of power, and created an

illusion of widespread support for these activities…. The Kremlin conducted painstaking

research into the intricacies of Ukrainian daily life to understand the Ukrainian world view

and identify vulnerabilities that could be exploited. Then, using media, front groups,

provocateurs, and paid rallies, it created a virtual reality designed to compel Ukraine into

making decisions serving Russian objectives (Seely, 2019)17F

Stark similarities can be drawn between Russian actions in the second Chechen war and that of

the annexation of Ukraine. Pro-Russian proxies in the Donbas were inundated with fake news targeting

Ukrainian government and military atrocities; while the Russian population was provided similar media

coverage focused on stimulating their emotional support of the ethnic Russian people trapped in Ukraine.

In the international community, Russia continued to distract, and deceive, creating information overload

paralysis and indecision among the NATO partners.

The May 2nd, 2014, street fighting and fire in Odesa is an excellent example of Russian IO. Russian

President Vladimir Putin claimed, “Ukrainian nationalists drove defenseless people into the Trade Union

https://www.mitre.org/sites/default/files/2021-11/prs-19-1004-russian-military-thought-concepts-elements.pdf

https://www.bellingcat.com/news/uk-and-europe/2017/03/04/kremlins-balkan-gambit-part/

https://euromaidanpress.com/2020/03/26/a-guide-to-russian-propaganda-part-5-reflexive-control/

https://static.rusi.org/201907_op_surkov_leaks_web_final.pdf

building and burned them alive.” Reporting goes on to reassert the pro-nazi position of the western

backed Ukrainian government (Head, 2014)18F

. The Russian Federation continues to use the incident for

propaganda purposes, through heavily financed exhibitions and select witness testimony in European

countries.

Learning from IW activities in numerous other countries, Putin enhanced and refined Russia’s IO

capabilities and turned his sights on the United States. Russia’s primary platforms to manipulate social

consciousness, destabilize political relations; exacerbate political struggles; provoke repression; reduce

information support and misinform, undermined and discredit administrative organs were Facebook and

Twitter. The weapons he intended to use were Russian Troll Farms.

In Late 2014, Russia experienced a great deal of internal social unrest. Citizen protests regarding

corruption and abuse of power seemed to appear without warning, fueled by social media. To manage

domestic social unrest, he turned to the Internet Research Agency (IRA), financed and developed by

Yevgeny Prigozhin in 2013 (Chernova, 2023)19F

. Christian Science Monitor correspondent Fred Weir states:

The IRA is a well-funded “internet marketing” operation that may perform commercial

functions but has become notorious for its political activities. These include loading

Russian social media with pro-Kremlin commentary, blogs, postings, and graphic content.

Experts believe there are several such operations around Russia, some aimed at regional

audiences (Weir, 2018)20F

Russian expatriate and investigative reporter, Lyudmila Savchuk, describes IRA troll operations as

mental bullying, explaining how lies are mixed with the truth to discredit and repress dissenting political

opinions in Russia. In her Oslo Freedom Forum interview, Savchuk discusses her infiltration of IRA and the

operational effectiveness of the Troll Farms, fake accounts, and fictitious activist groups (Savchuk,

2020)21F

. Other interviews indicate she had daily quotas of 5 political posts, 10 non-political and 150-200

troll comments (Chen, 2015)22F

Applying this very successful media exploitation weapon against the 2016 US presidential elections,

Russia’s IRA was able to establish 3,184 Twitter accounts responsible for posting 175,993 election related

tweets (Guynn, 2018)

23F

. Additionally, Facebook assesses 126 million Americans received posts from

roughly 470 IRA accounts and 3,000 IRA adds (Guynn, USA Today, 2017)

24F

. Investigations, by both the

Justice and Treasury Departments, determined:

[IRA] tampered with, altered, or caused a misappropriation of information with the

purpose or effect of interfering with or undermining election processes and institutions.

Specifically, the IRA tampered with or altered information in order to interfere with the

2016 U.S. election. The IRA created and managed a vast number of fake online personas

that posed as legitimate U.S. persons to include grassroots organizations, interest groups,

and a state political party on social media. Through this activity, the IRA posted thousands

of ads that reached millions of people online. The IRA also organized and coordinated

https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2014/05/03/ukra-m03.html

https://edition.cnn.com/2023/02/14/europe/russia-yevgeny-prigozhin-internet-research-agency-intl/index.html

https://www.csmonitor.com/World/Europe/2018/0221/Before-Russia-s-troll-farm-turned-to-US-it-had-a-more-domestic-focus

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z4OAQfoMyC8

https://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/07/magazine/the-agency.html

https://www.usatoday.com/story/tech/news/2018/01/19/twitter-there-were-more-russian-trolls-than-we-thought/1050091001/

https://www.usatoday.com/story/tech/news/2017/11/01/russians-used-facebook-way-other-advertisers-do-tapping-into-its-data-mining-

machine/817826001/

April-June 2023 – Strength in Knowledge

35 | USAWOCC

political rallies during the run-up to the 2016 election, all while hiding its Russian identity.

Further, the IRA unlawfully utilized personally identifiable information from U.S. persons

to open financial accounts to help fund IRA operations (Treasury Sanctions Russian Cyber

Actors for Interference with the 2016 U.S. Elections and Malicious Cyber-Attacks, 2018)

25F

Additional details from federal investigations into the IRA operation known as “Project Lakhta”

indicate a multimillion-dollar budget, financed by Prigozhin, and supervised by GRU officers assigned to

Russia’s Unit 26165 and 74455 (Treasury Targets Russian Operatives over Election Interference, World

Anti-Doping Agency Hacking, and Other Malign Activities, 2018)

26F

. In total four entities, seven individuals,

three aircraft and a yacht were determined to be directly involved: resulting in asset seizures and

sanctions. The Internet Research Agency was designated for directly or indirectly engaging in, sponsoring,

concealing, or otherwise being complicit in foreign interference in a U.S. election (Treasury Targets Assets

of Russian Financier who Attempted to Influence 2018 U.S. Elections, 2019)

27F

However, Russia’s attempts to apply RC measures against the American population continued,

leading up to the 2020 elections. According to researchers from MIT Technology Review “Facebook’s most

popular pages for Christian and Black American content were being run by Eastern European troll farms”

(Hao, 2021)

28F

. Furthermore, content from troll farms was viewable to 140 million US accounts each month

and these farms boasted the largest Christian American page, largest African American page, second

largest Native American page and the fifth largest women’s’ page. Lastly, as of October 2019 roughly

15,000 Facebook Pages were being operated from Kosovo and Macedonia (Hao, 2021)

29F

In March 2021, the Director of National Intelligence released assessments of malign Russian

activities targeting the 2020 US elections. In this report, the Intelligence Community assessed Putin

authorized influence operations to denigrate the Biden candidacy and the Democratic Party, through

proxies. The intent was to disseminate influence narratives and misleading allegations to media and

government officials as well as influential private citizens. Some activities intended to undermine public

confidence, sow division, and exacerbate social tension were directly linked to Iran.

More recently, a June 2022 Chatham House report indicates Russia’s IO efforts are targeting South

Africa, India, Brazil, and Mexico; attempting to garner support and sympathy for Russia’s position on

Ukraine. (Kowalski, 2022)

30F

Chatham House concerns, along with July 2022 reporting from the Center for

Strategic and International Studies, paint a stark picture for US relations with the Latin American

Countries. Russian IW in Venezuela, Nicaragua, Cuba, Mexico, Brazil and Argentina, will require significant

counter-efforts from the US Department of State and with malign leadership in a number of these

countries, it is likely to be a hard-fought war on perception. (Ellis, 2022)

31F

As stated in the Department of State report, Pillars of Russia’s disinformation and Propaganda

Ecosystem: “The perpetual conflict that Russia sees in the information environment also means that

officials and state media may take one side of an issue, while outlets with a measure of independence will

adopt their own variations on similar overarching false narratives. The ecosystem approach is fitting for

https://home.treasury.gov/news/press-releases/sm0312

https://home.treasury.gov/news/press-releases/sm577

https://home.treasury.gov/news/press-releases/sm787

https://www.technologyreview.com/2021/09/16/1035851/facebook-troll-farms-report-us-2020-election/

ibid

https://www.chathamhouse.org/2022/06/disinformation-fight-goes-beyond-ukraine-and-its-allies

https://www.csis.org/analysis/russia-western-hemisphere-assessing-putins-malign-influence-latin-america-and-caribbean

this dynamic because it does not require harmonization among the different pillars. By simultaneously

furthering multiple versions of a given story, these actors muddy the waters of the information

environment in order to confuse those trying to discern the truth” (GEC, 2020)

32F

ABOUT THE AUTHOR: CW4 Charles Davis serves as a Master Instructor, on the faculty of the Warrant

Officer Career College. He currently instructs International Strategic Studies at all levels of Warrant Officer

Education. CW4 Davis is a graduate of the U.S. Army War College Strategic Broadening Program and holds

a master’s degree with Honors in Intelligence Studies from American Military University. CW4 Davis is

also a recipient of the Military Intelligence Corp Knowlton Award.

https://www.state.gov/wp-content/uploads/2020/08/Pillars-of-Russia%E2%80%99s-Disinformation-and-Propaganda-Ecosystem_08-04-

20.pdf

April-June 2023 – Strength in Knowledge

37 | USAWOCC

References

(2014, March 11). Retrieved from Minisrty of Foreign Affairs Moldovian Republic :

https://mid.gospmr.org/en/DPj

Bartles, c. (2016, February 28). Getting Gerasimov Right. Retrieved from Army University Press:

https://www.armyupress.army.mil/Portals/7/military-

review/Archives/English/MilitaryReview_20160228_art009.pdf

Chen, A. (2015, June 7). The Agency. Retrieved from Newyork Times:

https://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/07/magazine/the-agency.html

Chernova, M. K. (2023, February 14). Wagner chief admits to founding Russian troll farm sanctioned for

meddling in US elections. Retrieved from CNN:

https://edition.cnn.com/2023/02/14/europe/russia-yevgeny-prigozhin-internet-research-

agency-intl/index.html

Chotikul, D. (1986, July). The Soviet Theory of Reflexive Control In Historical and Psychocultural

Perspective. Retrieved from Defense Technology Information Center:

https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/pdfs/ADA170613.pdf

Ellis, E. (2022, July 20). Russia in the Western Hemisphere: Assessing Putin's Malign Influence in Latin

America and the Caribbean. Retrieved from Center for Strategic & International Studies:

https://www.csis.org/analysis/russia-western-hemisphere-assessing-putins-malign-influence-

latin-america-and-caribbean

GEC. (2020, August). GEC Special Report: Pillars of Russia's Difinformation and Propaganda Ecosystem.

Retrieved from State.gov: https://www.state.gov/wp-content/uploads/2020/08/Pillars-of-

Russia%E2%80%99s-Disinformation-and-Propaganda-Ecosystem_08-04-20.pdf

Goble, P. (1999, December 10). [28] A Real Battle on the Virtual Front. Retrieved from hri.org:

http://www.hri.org/news/balkans/rferl/1999/99-10-12.rferl.html#28

Graef, A. B. (2019, November 12). Thnking foreign policy in Russia. Retrieved from Atlantic Council:

https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/in-depth-research-reports/report/thinking-foreign-policy-in-

russia-think-tanks-and-grand-narratives/

Grozev, C. (2017, March 4). The Kremlin's Balkan Gambit: Part I. Retrieved from bellingcat:

https://www.bellingcat.com/news/uk-and-europe/2017/03/04/kremlins-balkan-gambit-part/

Guynn, J. (2017, November 1). Retrieved from USA Today:

https://www.usatoday.com/story/tech/news/2017/11/01/russians-used-facebook-way-other-

advertisers-do-tapping-into-its-data-mining-machine/817826001

Guynn, J. (2017, November 1). Russians Used Facebook the way other advertisers do. Retrieved from

USA Today: https://www.usatoday.com/story/tech/news/2017/11/01/russians-used-facebook-

way-other-advertisers-do-tapping-into-its-data-mining-machine/817826001/

Guynn, J. (2018, January 19). Twitter: There were more Russian trolls than we thought. Retrieved from

USA Today: https://www.usatoday.com/story/tech/news/2018/01/19/twitter-there-were-

more-russian-trolls-than-we-thought/1050091001/

Hao, K. (2021, September 16). Troll farms reached 140 million Americans a month on Facebook before

2020 election, internal report shows. Retrieved from MIT Technology Reviw:

https://www.technologyreview.com/2021/09/16/1035851/facebook-troll-farms-report-us-

2020-election/

Head, M. (2014, May 3). Washington responsible for fascist massacre in Odessa. Retrieved from World

socialist Web Site: https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2014/05/03/ukra-m03.html

Kowalski, A. (2022, June 8). Disinformation fight goes beyond Ukraine and its allies. Retrieved from

Chathamhouse: https://www.chathamhouse.org/2022/06/disinformation-fight-goes-beyond-

ukraine-and-its-allies

Murphy, J. (2018, September 26). Russian reflexive control is subverting the American political

landscape. Retrieved from sofrep.com: https://sofrep.com/news/russian-reflexive-control-is-

subverting-the-american-political-landscape/

Oliker, O. (2001). Russia's Chechen Wars 1994-2000. Retrieved from Rand.org:

https://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/monograph_reports/MR1289/RAND_MR1289.p

Putin, V. (2006). Address to the Federal Assembly of the Russian Federation. Moscow. Retrieved March

10, 2023, from http://www.en.kremlin.ru/events/president/transcripts/23577

Reshetnikov. (2014, October). "The Ukrainian Crisis: Instrument of Geopolitics of the West,” Russian

Institute for Strategic Studies: RISI Analytical Review 6. Retrieved from riss.ru: https://riss.ru/wp-

content/uploads/2015/03/AO_2014_ves-tekst.pdf

Ryzhklov, V. (2014, March 24). Kremlins war propaganda. Retrieved from The Moscow Times:

https://www.themoscowtimes.com/2014/03/24/the-kremlins-war-propaganda-a33284

Savchuk, L. (2020, September 25). Oslo Freedom Forum: The Poison of Putin’s Regime. Retrieved from

youtube: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z4OAQfoMyC8

Seely, A. S. (2019, July). Royal United Services Institute. Retrieved from The Surkov Leaks:

https://static.rusi.org/201907_op_surkov_leaks_web_final.pdf

Shandra, A. (2020, March 26). Euromaidan Press. Retrieved from A guide to Russian propaganda. Part 5:

https://euromaidanpress.com/2020/03/26/a-guide-to-russian-propaganda-part-5-reflexive-

control/

staff. (2015, January 28). Russian think tank that pushed for invasion of Ukraine wants Moscow to

overthrow Belarus’ Lukashenko. Retrieved from Lithuania Tribune:

https://lithuaniatribune.com/russian-think-tank-that-pushed-for-invasion-of-ukraine-wants-

moscow-to-overthrow-belarus-lukashenko

April-June 2023 – Strength in Knowledge

39 | USAWOCC

Thomas, T. (2019, August). Russian Military Thought: Concepts and Elements. Retrieved from MITRE:

https://www.mitre.org/sites/default/files/2021-11/prs-19-1004-russian-military-thought-

concepts-elements.pdf

Treasury Sanctions Russian Cyber Actors for Interference with the 2016 U.S. Elections and Malicious

Cyber-Attacks. (2018, March 15). Retrieved from Treasury.gov:

https://home.treasury.gov/news/press-releases/sm0312

Treasury Targets Assets of Russian Financier who Attempted to Influence 2018 U.S. Elections. (2019,

September 30). Retrieved from Treasury.gov: https://home.treasury.gov/news/press-

releases/sm787

Treasury Targets Russian Operatives over Election Interference, World Anti-Doping Agency Hacking, and

Other Malign Activities. (2018, December 19). Retrieved from Treasury.gov:

https://home.treasury.gov/news/press-releases/sm577

Vogler, M. C. (2016, September). Russia's Approach to Cyber Warfare. Retrieved from Defense

Technology Information Center: https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/pdfs/AD1019062.pdf

Weir, F. (2018, February 21). Before Russia's 'troll farm' turned to US, it had a more domestic focus.

Retrieved from Christian Science Monitor:

https://www.csmonitor.com/World/Europe/2018/0221/Before-Russia-s-troll-farm-turned-to-

US-it-had-a-more-domestic-focus

Documenting Vietnam War Experience: The 1

Infantry Division Band at Thunder Road

CW3 Jonathan L. Crane.

Introduction

Human memory is susceptible to many different factors. Dr. Daniel Schacter (2001) describes

seven influences on our ability to form and recall memories. Three of these, susceptibility, bias, and

misattribution, are particularly important when trying to accurately portray historical events during

wartime. Suggestibility means that our memory can be swayed by misinformation or leading questions

either by the individual or outside forces. Bias is something everyone must grapple with, as the sum of

our experiences and culture affect the way memories are stored. We must also be aware of misattribution.

Ursano (1984) recognized before other clinicians how the effect of trauma influenced memory recall in

Vietnam War Veterans. He identified that recall was influenced by life circumstances, group dynamics,

and time displaced from an event. Inaccurate sources or just plain believing something for so long that it

changes the memory can make it hard for that belief to be altered even when someone is presented with

facts.

As we study military history to help us understand future conflicts, we must be aware of the

factors affecting memories that often get written down as facts. The more those details are shared,

particularly in the digital age, the more they become the accepted truth. If you ask the average person in

the United States if the conflict in Vietnam was a worthwhile and just war, you would be hard-pressed to

find any agreement. How could a reasonable person have any kind of positive view of that conflict or their

experience? For some, it was their defining experience as they entered adulthood, and the memories

made (however biased) are incredibly important to their self-identity.

U.S. Army Musicians in Vietnam

U.S. Army musicians who served in the Vietnam War were a mix of draftees and career soldiers

with a wide range of musical skills. Our all-volunteer force of today only has room for the most select and

highly skilled musicians, but the need for soldiers, including musicians, during that time was massive.

Many felt a need to place meaning on their service, with some almost feeling guilty for being ‘saved’ from

front-line fighting by being in the band. Five currently active Army Bands participated in campaigns

throughout the war: the 101st Air Assault Division Band, 1st Cavalry Division Band, 4th Infantry Division

Band, 25th Infantry Division Band, and the 1st Infantry Division Band, which is the main interest of this

essay. The band's main job was to improve troop morale and inspire the will to fight, while members also

took their turns on guard patrols.

Technical Area of

Interest – Army

Band

April-June 2023 – Strength in Knowledge

41 | USAWOCC

One specific event involving the 1st Infantry Division (ID) Band has been used for decades to

bolster the prestige of the unit and describe how bands have affected battlefield outcomes in the era after

commands were no longer issued by bugle, fife, and drum. From Army Techniques Publication 1-19 (2021,

July 28):

“One notable example of the use of bands in Vietnam was the ‘Thunder Road’ incident,

which received national publicity. Major General John Hay, Commanding General of the

1st Infantry Division, ordered his band to march down Thunder Road while playing the

Colonel Bogey march. The road was critical to the division but was under control of a North

Vietnamese Army regiment. The enemy, confused by the action, withdrew from the area.

The band fulfilled a remarkable combat mission without firing a shot” (paragraph A-20).

This particular vignette can also be found on the 1

Infantry Division’s Band website and has been

shared extensively through social media. On first read, it seems to be a unique and special event that

breaks the mold of traditional reporting during the war. Looking at the account with a more critical eye

reveals some aspects needing further investigation. What does “national publicity” mean? South Vietnam

press, United States press? Although it does happen, generals typically do not give direct orders to bands.

At that time, bands were still the equivalent of a platoon, attached to a company for command and

control. Was it North Vietnamese Army or Viet Cong elements in the area? Luckily, a few official

documents from the event and one 1st ID Band veteran's account align with those documents. These

pieces of evidence paint a more accurate, but no less remarkable, picture of how bands are an emotional

influence tool in combat operations.

Thunder Road

In June 1966, then Major General (MG) John Hay was leading the 1st Infantry Division after their

arrival in country the year prior. Their main task was to defend and clear Viet Cong and North Vietnamese

Army (NVA) forces from the Highway 13 corridor northwest of Saigon. This highway would come to be

called the Thunder Road, because of the frequency of land mine explosions and the local call sign used.

While the new strategy of search and destroy had just begun, MG Hay (2002) also recognized: “While the

enemy must be destroyed or forced to surrender by a combination of firepower and maneuver, it is

pacification which must end the unrest created by the enemy, improve the lot of the people, and build a

cohesive, viable state.” He understood that his mission was not only to destroy any Viet Cong/NVA forces

but also to win the hearts and minds of the Vietnamese people. He ordered Operation Lam Son II to be

carried out. It was designed to provide morale and pacification to the locals in the form of a county fair

(hamlet festival) style event, while other units could root out Viet Cong in the area and gather intelligence.

The 1st ID Band was indeed ordered to play along Thunder Road, but only as part of Operation

Lam Son II. The Band was part of the integrated force of the Army Republic of Vietnam (ARVN) Soldiers,

U.S. psychological operations, civil affairs, civic action, medical, and food services. The festival also

included the 7th ARVN Band and cultural teams, creating a blend of U.S. and Vietnamese cultures. Music

and food are two of the strongest cultural identifiers. MG Hay (2002) put the 1st ID Band’s contribution

succinctly: “It was not just a concert but a weapon in the ‘other war’.” Further evidence of the Band’s

presence at the event comes from one of the Band’s veterans contacted through an Army Musician

Facebook Group (2023). Bandsmen John served in the 1st ID Band during their Vietnam tour in 1966-67.

He remembers marching through the town and that the event was part of a larger pacification action.

When asked about what songs were played, he remarked “…just a regular selection of marching songs;

we did find out the road hadn’t been cleared of mines before we got there…” Despite the safety of this

mission, there were still perceived risks. Further research would be needed to determine if “Colonel

Bogey” was played on that day. The actual songs probably did not matter much, just that the music

represented America ("Colonel Bogey" was written by British composer Malcolm Arnold). Bandsmen John

certainly did not have a romanticized view of the mission, he recalled it as just another performance with

unappetizing food.

Note: The picture was accessed from Tactical and Material Innovations, CMH Publication 90-21-1.

The Division’s lessons learned report (Department of the Army, 1966) cited 117 persons of

interest discovered during the festival, with an estimated 50% reduction in Viet Cong capability in the

area. The report confirms the Band’s performance on the last day and brings it to a close at the end by

marching through the town. The most notable aspect of the whole operation is that it integrated many

elements of influence into the overall combat plan. For the first time in the Vietnam War, pacification was

the goal, with combat being in a supportive role (Hay, 2002). Some aspects of this type of engagement

were continued by the 1st Cavalry Division Band in 1969, which allegedly led to the Band’s capture of a

North Vietnamese officer who just wanted to hear their music a little too closely (Crane, 2020).

Expanding this concept to the macro level, war is ultimately about exercising political will over

another group (Von Clausewitz, 1997). Nations attempt to balance diplomatic and military effects to

prevail in conflict. The interplay of kinetic and non-kinetic effects is often what leads to favorable strategic

outcomes. The U.S. has struggled to find the balance of these effects beginning with the Vietnam War.

April-June 2023 – Strength in Knowledge

43 | USAWOCC

The 1st ID Band was a critical part of Operation Lam Son II. It provided music that represented the

U.S. and allowed for positive interactions with the South Vietnamese. It may have had a slight risk of

engagement with the enemy, but nothing like the vignette from ATP 1-19 or on the Band’s website. The

Band did not march into unfamiliar territory to directly clear a village of Viet Cong without any support.

What they did achieve is probably more important: integrating music into civic action operations, which,

if more thoroughly used, may have helped to prevent the prolonged costs borne by U.S. forces in Vietnam.

Closing

Military music is a unique subculture with a history fully intertwined with their respective

branches. It is a powerful tool for instilling the will to fight in our own troops and as an emotional weapon

of influence across the conflict continuum. We must document the stories of those who participated

directly in U.S. campaigns. We also need the perspective of time and outsider context to fully understand

the contributions of service members. In this way, we learn how to be successful in the next fight and

honor the service of those who defended our way of life.

About the Author

Jonathan L. Crane, U.S. Army, is a Chief Warrant Officer 3 and a graduate of The Hartt School of music in

composition. Along with his Hartt School Artist Diploma, he has a Master's in composition from Bowling

Green State University, and a Bachelor's in Music Education from Lebanon Valley College. In 2013, Mr.

Crane was given the National Federation of Music Clubs Military Composition Award for "Open Field." He

is a contributing author to “Music Therapy with Military and Veteran Populations,” Frontiers in

Psychology, Modern War Institute, and The Journal of the AGRCA. Mr. Crane attended basic training at Ft.

Jackson in 2009. His first duty station was with the 25th Infantry Division Band, and while there he

deployed to Iraq in support of Operation New Dawn. He has also served with the Signal Corps Band from

Ft. Gordon, GA. In 2014, he graduated from Warrant Officer Candidate School and became the

commander of the United States Army Military Intelligence Corps Band until 2017. From 2017-2021 he

was a research analyst for the West Point Music Research Center, United States Military Academy, West

Point, NY. Currently, he has returned to Command the 25th Infantry Division Band.

References

Crane, J. L. (2020, July 1). Richard Saddler: Soldier, Spouse, Father, Musician. https://www.agcra.com

/richard-saddler-soldier-spouse-father-musician/

Department of the Army. (1966, August 15). 1st Infantry Division Observational Report Lessons Learned

1 May – 31 July 1966.

Department of the Army. (2021, July 28). Army Techniques Publication 1-19: Army Bands.

Hay, J.J. (2002). Vietnam Studies: Tactical and Materiel Innovations. (CMH Pub 90-21-1). Department of

the Army.

Schacter, D. (2001). The Seven Sins of Memory: How the Mind Forgets and Remembers. Houghton

Mifflin.

Ursano, R.J. (1984). The Vietnam veteran: Memory, social context, and metaphor. Psychiatry

Interpersonal & Biological Processes, 47, 103-108. https://doi.org/

10.1521/00332747.1984.11024232

U.S. Army Center for Military History. (n.d.). Army Bands Lineage Information. https://history.army.mil

/html/forcestruc/lineages/branches/bands/defaultBAND.htm

Von Clausewitz, C. (1997). On War (J. J. Graham, Trans.). Wordsworth Editions.

April-June 2023 – Strength in Knowledge

45 | USAWOCC

US Army Warrant Officers in the Joint Force

CW3 Michael Lima

Introduction

The Army’s primary mission to conduct prompt and sustained land combat to defeat enemy

ground forces is integral to military operations. The future battlefield will be far different from those in

the past; while the intent of warfare remains an act of force to compel an enemy to do our will, the means

will be drastically different. The Army will not be alone and will require all Soldiers on that landscape to

be experts in warfare. Soldiers must be able to lead at the lowest level and have intellect while skilled at

producing results. Regardless of cohort, they must also possess the skills required for military art and

science. This described competence should represent all those required for serving in the U.S. Army and

its formations, and this includes Warrant Officers. Recall that continuous learning is a concept embedded

in all professional military education, including joint. The Army’s technicians, the Warrant Officer cohort,

must champion the hallmarks of solid character and competence to win in future multidomain operations

and dedicate themselves to the reality of continuous learning in order to better solidify their role in the

greater joint force.

Multidomain Operations

Field Manual 3-0, Operations, establishes multidomain operations as the Army’s operational

concept and builds upon the operational environment’s changes over the last forty years. The manual

describes multidomain operations as the following:

“Multidomain operations are the combined arms employment of joint and Army

capabilities to create and exploit relative advantages that achieve objectives, defeat

enemy forces, and consolidate gains on behalf of joint force commanders.”

While Army forces conduct operations supporting joint campaigns, they may also be part of an

even larger coalition operation. The military leaders within Army organizations must understand the role

and capabilities of their forces, but even more so, understand the forces provided by other services to

generate meaningful and effective combat power. The joint force, which includes forces composed of

significant elements, assigned or attached, of two or more military services, will be the leading effort of

the next conflict. The contribution of the Army to this fight remains its focus on readiness to conduct and

prevail in large-scale combat operations (Department of the Army, 2017, p. 1-10). Field Manual 3-0 defines

large-scale combat operations as extensive joint combat operations in terms of scope and size of forces

committed, conducted as a campaign to achieve operational and strategic objectives. Combat will involve

operations by multiple corps, divisions, and forces from the joint and multinational forces. As the Army

adapts to the change of the world, this will also require U.S. Army Warrant Officers to expand their

knowledge, skills, and abilities further than at any other time in our cohort’s history.

Warrant Officers

Department of the Army Pamphlet 611–21, Military Occupational Classification and Structure,

defines a warrant officer as:

“An officer appointed by warrant by the Secretary of the Army based upon a sound level

of technical and tactical competence. The warrant officer is the highly specialized expert

and trainer who, by gaining progressive levels of expertise and leadership, operates,

maintains, administers and manages the Army’s equipment, support activities or technical

systems for an entire career.”

Warrant Officers are the few subject matter experts in their field that make up less than

three percent of the total Army (U.S. Army, 2022). The principles of Warrant Officer management

are used to determine whether certain officer-level positions should be designated for a Warrant

Officer. One such principle is that the position must support a highly technical field, with complex

equipment and a high density of multiple models or types of equipment with a requirement for

technical management of subsystems, e.g., occupational fields focused on electrical, mechanical,

or administrative areas of expertise (DA Pam 611-21, 2022). These technical officers are in the

motor pools, criminal investigation divisions, supply warehouses, and aircraft, applying their

unique tradecraft to support Army operations. The U.S. Army Warrant Officer must overcome the

complexity and challenges they will face in large-scale combat operations within their domain

through both focused education and leader development. This development must include

strategically ready Warrant Officers within the joint force, who can think critically and creatively

in integrating their skill set within military power to link their tactical objects to national strategy.

These Warrant Officers in the joint force will require both their unique skill set and a more

in-depth understanding of the revised physically defined portions of the operational environment,

including land, maritime, air, space, and cyberspace. The U.S. Army trains and educates its leaders

to be experts in land domain operations. However, a Warrant Officer must also develop a shared

understanding of integrating their capabilities with services that tend to focus on the other

domains external to land. And, in some cases, this must extend to the capabilities of other foreign

militaries. The further and more deliberate integration into joint teams will challenge U.S. Army

Warrant Officers, as our system may seem unique to other services and nations.

Additionally, there must be a consideration of the differences between Warrant Officers

across the greater joint force. The Warrant Officer is a rank or category of rank in many of the

world’s armed forces but can vary differently depending on the country and service. The same

Warrant Officer rank (WO1) from other countries can be classified as a company-grade

commissioned officer in one nation or the highest group of non-commissioned ranks in another

country but does not hold the leader’s commission. The condition is because the military grade

of Warrant Officer is one of the oldest in Western military systems and goes back to when Nobles

assumed command of ships as Lieutenant and Captain. The ship captains would rely on senior

sailors’ technical expertise and cooperation and subsequently be rewarded with a Royal Warrant

(Warrant Officer Historical Foundation, 2015). The rank was historically not considered a

commission in that period.

The origins of the U.S. Army Warrant Officer Corps come from an act of congress

establishing the Army Mine Planter Service as part of the Coast Artillery Corps in 1918. It was not

until the Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1986 amended Title 10 of the United States

Code to provide Warrant Officers appointed by Commission (Warrant Officer Historical

Foundation, 2015). In the U.S. Navy, the service selects its Warrant Officers from among enlisted

April-June 2023 – Strength in Knowledge

47 | USAWOCC

personnel late in their careers. Most selected are in grade E-7 (chief petty officer) and bypasses

the lowest Warrant Officer pay grade, appointing most selectees in grade W-2 (Congressional

Budget Office, 2002). In the Air Force, the service does not have warrant officers. Their technical

experts are senior non-commissioned officers (NCOs) and, depending on the field, senior

company grade officers (CGO) or junior field grade officers (Kreuzer, 2016). The vast differences

between Warrant Officers are just one aspect that U.S. Army Warrant Officers must understand

and integrate with joint, multinational allies and partners. One of many distinctions not taught in

professional military education but must be learned through experience. Still, there is a

requirement for U.S. Army Warrant Officers to learn and gain the experience they need to operate

the joint force.

Joint Integration

Department of the Army Pamphlet 600-3, Officer Professional Development and Career

Management, offers a very similar definition to the one above, except that it adds that Army

warrant officers “…integrates Army systems and equipment across unified land operations.” The

newest FM 3-0, Operations, states that Unified Land Operations emphasized the integration and

synchronization of Army, joint, and other unified action partners during operations. The DA

Pamphlet 600-3 explicitly goes into detail about which Warrant Officers should integrate and

synchronize Army systems into the Joint Force:

“CW4s [Chief Warrant Officers 4] are senior-level technical and tactical experts who

perform the duties of technical leader, manager, maintainer, sustainer, integrator, and

advisor and serve in a wide variety of branch-level positions. As they become more senior

they focus on integrating branch and Army systems into joint and national-level systems.”

Focusing on large-scale combat operations builds on integrating joint and multinational

capabilities. U.S. Army Warrant Officers have a statutory obligation to expand their capabilities in

multiple domains in support of joint-level systems. The traditional method of concentrating on

the land domain is unacceptable and must go the way of training for only the counterinsurgency

environment. Integration must be focused on two or more domains, and the Army warrant officer

must expand and create opportunities within the joint force to generate more opportunities for

integrating systems.

Recommendations

Warrant Officers do not have the career management opportunity for Joint Qualification.

For branch commissioned officers, DoDI 1300.19 (2018), DOD Joint Officer Management Program

details the Joint Qualification System (JQS), a multi-level system open to all officers and recognizes

joint experiences, regardless of where they accrue. Branch commissioned officers have a three-

path system to obtain joint qualifications. The paths are Standard-Joint Duty Assignment (S-JDA)

Traditional Path, Experience-Joint Duty Assignment (E-JDA) - Experience Path, or a combination

of S-JDA and E-JDA. These paths offer branch commissioned officers eligibility for consideration

awarded joint qualifications level II-IV. But Level IV is for General Officers/Flag Officers only.

Branch commissioned officers can gain joint expertise based on participation in joint exercises,

joint training, and education other than joint professional military education (JPME), all of which

count towards earning Joint Qualification. Earning Joint Qualification would provide senior-level

warrant officers with validation of progressive levels of expertise and leadership within the joint

environment. Furthermore, incorporating Warrant Officers into the Joint Leader Development

and aligning professional military education systems and Joint Learning Areas (JLAs) to develop

warrant officers skilled in the application systems across the joint force. Ensuring the PME

develops not only warrant officers but joint warfighters.

Conclusion

U.S. Army Warrant Officers must better understand how to conduct Joint Warfighting to

demonstrate tactical proficiency and better link their commander’s objectives to operational,

theater, and/or national strategic levels of warfare. Technicians must understand how the U.S.

joint force organizes, deploys, employs, sustains, and redeploys military capabilities to support

national interests. Warrant Officers provide commanders with options to execute military

operations in the modern operational environment. They focus on integrating their various

branches and Army systems into joint and national-level systems. While the U.S. Army is one vital

piece to the future joint team, both education and planning should include the whole of

government approaches to joint operations of armed conflict and make better use of the Army

Warrant Officer.

About the Author

Michael K. Lima. U.S. Army, is a Chief Warrant Officer 3 and currently serves as a training developer with

Ordnance Training Development Division. He is assigned to the Ordnance Corps & Ordnance School under

Combined Arms Support Command, Fort Gregg-Adams, Virginia. He was a training with industry

participant at Raytheon Missile Defense and an accountable officer for the ammunition supply point at

Kadena Air Base, in Okinawa, Japan. He holds a doctorate in business administration and a master’s degree

from Baker College Center for Graduate Studies.

April-June 2023 – Strength in Knowledge

49 | USAWOCC

References

Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff (15 May 2020). Officer Professional Military Education Policy (CJCSI

1800.01F). https://www.jcs.mil/Portals/36/Documents/Doctrine/education/cjcsi_1800

_01f.pdf?ver= 2020-05-15-102430-580

Congressional Budget Office (February 2002). The Warrant Officer Ranks: Adding Flexibility to Military

Personnel Management. https://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/107th-congress-2001-

2002/reports/warrantofficer.pdf

Department of the Army (2019). Officer Professional Development and Career Management

(Department of the Army Pamphlet 600-3). https://armypubs.army.mil/ProductMaps

/PubForm/Details.aspx?PUB_ID=1006180

Department of the Army (2022). Operations (Field Manual 3-0). https://armypubs.army.mil/epubs

/DR_pubs/DR_a/ARN18010-ADP_3-0-000-WEB-2.pdf

Department of Defense (2019). DOD Joint Officer Management (JOM) PROGRAM (DOD INSTRUCTION

1300.19). https://www.esd.whs.mil/Portals/54/Documents/DD/issuances/dodi/130019p.pdf

Kreuzer, Michael P. (4 Aug 2016). Maintaining An Innovative Edge: The (Abbreviated) Case For U.S. Air

Force Warrant Officers. https://thestrategybridge.org/the-bridge/2016/8/4/the-abbreviated-

case-for-us-air-force-warrant-officers

U.S. Army (12 Jul 2022). Warrant Officers. Go Army Careers. https://www.goarmy.com/careers-and-

jobs/find-your-path/warrant-officers.html

U.S. Army WOHF (May 31, 2015). Army Warrant Officer History. Warrant Officer Historical Foundation.

https://warrantofficerhistory.org/Hist_of_Army_WO.htm

U.S. Army WOHF (May 31, 2015). Warrant Officer Programs of the Other U. S. Uniformed Services.

Warrant Officer Historical Foundation. https://warrantofficerhistory.org/WO_Prog_

Other_Svc.htm

The Attributes – 25 Hidden Drivers of Optimal

Performance

Written by Rich Diviney, Published by Random House

New York, NY 2021. 304 pages.

A book review by Dr. Brian Davis.

Rich Diviney wrote The Attributes – 25 Hidden Drivers of Optimal Performance in which he argues

that beneath obvious skill sets, there are hidden drivers of performance known as attributes that truly

determine a person’s effectiveness. The author is a retired U.S. Navy SEAL Commander who completed

multiple overseas deployments during his military career, including Iraq and Afghanistan. He also served

as the Officer in Charge of a training command where he led the creation of the “Mind Gym” which

supported special operators’ ability to train their brains in decision-making in high-stress environments.

Since retirement, Rich Diviney serves as a speaker, facilitator, and consultant to the DoD, civilian

corporations, and sports teams. I was introduced to this book as it was being used at the U.S. Army

Aviation Center of Excellence, Fort Novosel, AL to drive discussions during professional development

sessions. Several members of the U.S. Army Warrant Officer Career College began reading it in

preparation for these sessions and the discussions it instigated were immediate. The author’s

methodology is to define core attributes (mostly through storytelling which makes it very readable) and

then to teach how understanding your own attributes, and those of people around you, can lead to

optimal performance for the reader. The remainder of this book review will briefly describe the book’s

organization, a summary, and my assessment.

After a brief introduction that defines the term attribute and differentiates them from skills, the

author foreshadows the future of the book and then dives right into the attributes. He organizes the

attributes as follows:

• The Grit Attributes: Courage; Perseverance; Adaptability; and Resilience

• The Mental Acuity Attributes: Situational Awareness; Compartmentalization; Task Switching; and

Learnability

• The Drive Attributes: Self-efficacy; Discipline; Open-mindedness; Cunning; and Narcissism

• The Leadership Attributes: Empathy; Selflessness; Authenticity; Decisiveness; and Accountability

• The Teamability Attributes: Integrity; Conscientiousness; Humility; and Humor

After discussing the attributes in great detail, the author does a solid job of “operationalizing” the new

knowledge. Every learning experience should have a “so what?”. In the case of this book, the “so what?”

answers the question, how can this new information help me optimize my own performance and that of

my team? The author provides a series of online assessments (theattributes.com) that allow the reader

to decode and understand their own attributes. These assessments allow for an honest self-appraisal

which ultimately allow for a deeper understanding of an individual’s strengths and weakness when it

Book Review

April-June 2023 – Strength in Knowledge

51 | USAWOCC

comes to attributes. The book continually reminds the reader that as humans, we have all of the attributes

but in sometimes extremely varying degrees. Once the reader appreciates their own attributes, they are

offered real-world examples of how to operationalize the newly gained knowledge.

My assessment of this book is very positive. Helping the reader understand what attributes are

(and what they are not), how their presence is hard-wired into every human, and how understanding

them can help optimize individual and team performance are all extremely beneficial. Appreciating the

difference between skills (no matter how amazing) and attributes is a big part of this research. Attributes,

according to Diviney (2021), are “the innate traits that determine how an individual will absorb, process,

and respond to the world around them” (p. 23). Learning that we are born with attributes but, that they

can be developed throughout life is another important aspect of this research. As an example, while each

of us is born with a certain level of adaptability (or what may seem like a lack thereof), we can work on

this attribute if we recognize it as an area requiring growth. Also, important to remember is that the

attributes are neutral (one is not better or more important than another unless viewed through a specific

lens in a specific environment). For example, the level of an individual’s courage could be an asset or a

liability depending on the situation and how that attribute is used. Knowing more about yourself, how

you are wired, and why you respond to situations the way you do can only benefit someone trying to get

better. This book will help most people learn and grow in this area.

In conclusion, I recommend this book to everyone that is attempting to grow. If you are a lifelong

learner, this book will support your journey. The book’s organization, style, and cognitive level make it

extremely consumable for anyone who would be investing time into Strength in Knowledge. It is

applicable to leaders and followers at all levels and offers the potential to make each of us stronger

performers and better team members. If this topic interests you and you would like to dive deeper into

it, I recommend researching Mindset – The New Psychology of Success by Dr. Carol Dweck and Grit – The

Power of Passion and Perseverance by Angela Duckworth.

About the Reviewer

Dr. Brian Davis currently serves as the Chief of Academic Operations Division at the U.S. Army Warrant

Officer Career College. He is a retired Marine and current U.S. Army Master Instructor. He is a graduate

of the Air Command and Staff College, the Joint Forces Staff College, and was the first civilian to earn a

Graduate Certificate in National Security Studies from the Army War College. His civilian academic

background includes a BA (History) from Auburn University, an MA (Human Resources Development) from

Webster University, and an EdD from The University of the Cumberlands.

Ukraine: What Everyone Needs to Know

Written by Serhy Yekelchyk, Published by Oxford University Press

Oxford, England, 2020. 230 pages.

A book review by LTC Nate Colvin (Ph.D. Student).

In 2000, I was signed up to travel to Ukraine for a short exchange with the military academy in

Kyiv. The day before I stepped on the plane, the trip was canceled. But I never forgot about Ukraine. I

finally traveled there in 2017 and interviewed many of the pilots from the 2014 Russian invasion. I learned

a lot from that trip – especially how much I did not know. Of course, Ukraine kicked off a whole series of

events including NATO’s Wales Summit, the creation of the enhanced Forward Presence, the U.S. Army’s

Atlantic Resolve, the reshuffling of US forces in Europe, and huge defense security cooperation programs.

But how much do you really know about Ukraine?

Whether you have a historical interest in Ukraine or not, it is probably time for a primer or a

review. To this end, I highly recommend Ukraine: What Everyone Needs to Know by Serhy Yekelchyk. Yes,

the title is a bit on the nose, but for good reason. In around 200 paperback pages, the author takes the

reader back to the time when Viking settlers mixed with Slavic people, creating Kyivan Rus all the way to

contemporary international relations. This provides a clear understanding of the major cultural, political,

and social aspects of the Ukrainian people in a very readable form.

Yekelchyk employs a mostly chronological and sometimes thematic review of an assortment of

topics. His simple “question-and-answer” format creates an indexed approach for easy reference. Because

of this, you can either read straight through or pick an area to review for better understanding. The Q&A

style also makes it an enduring reference. The book actually starts with the question “Why Ukraine?,”

addressing the most pressing issues likely to be on the mind of English-speaking readers. Further sections

include the following, The Land and the People, The Making of Modern Ukraine, Ukraine after

Communism, The Orange Revolution and EuroMaidan, Russia’s Annexation of the Crimea and the War in

the Donbas, and The War in Ukraine as an International Issue.

Although not the point of the book, Yekelchyk’s factual approach skillfully exposes Russian

cultural intrusions without resorting to nationalism. This ultimately creates a more supportable case for

the Ukrainian narrative. He succinctly lays out the long history of Kyivan Rus before the emergence of

Russia, alongside the distinctive cultural components of Ukraine. He is even-handed in his treatment of

controversial groups without condoning their behavior. At the high level of understanding, this is

especially helpful in understanding complex topics like Maidan or how miners and other eastern workers

were funded to become political protest groups in the Donbas. Relations with both east and west are

better understood. You learn how Crimea went from being a Tartar stronghold to being dominated by

ethnic Russians. On the smaller issues you will learn why it’s Kyiv and not Kiev, Ukraine, not “the Ukraine,”

Book Review

April-June 2023 – Strength in Knowledge

53 | USAWOCC

and that Maidan is a Turkic-derived word meaning square, and not an alternate spelling of maiden like a

reader might be thinking.

Even those who remember the Cold War firsthand would do well to read this book, as so much of

our understanding is often tied to Ukraine as a member of the USSR. As a signatory to the Budapest

Memorandum, it is also critical that we understand why Ukrainians justifiably seek security from the

United States and other countries. Amongst the many topics, I enjoyed learning more about the

Poroshenko presidency. To help your visualization, consider watching a few episodes of Zelensky’s

“Servant of the People” on Netflix then plunge into this book. Highly recommended for professional

reading lists and your next course on Ukraine, Russia, or Eastern Europe.

About the Reviewer

LTC Nate Colvin

is an Army War College Fellow at the College of William and Mary. He holds a Graduate

Certificate in Modeling and Simulations from Old Dominion University, where he is also completing

his last semester of coursework toward a Ph.D. in International Studies as an I/ITSEC Leonard P.

Gollobin Scholar. He earned master’s degrees in Aeronautics and Space Studies (Embry-Riddle

University), Administration (Central Michigan University), and Military Theater Operations (School of

Advanced Military Studies). He has deployed to Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Latvia as an aviator,

operational planner, and strategist. He is currently participating in the HillVets LEAD program.

Warrant Officers in History

Hershel “Woody” Williams

The greater Warrant Officer community of the United

States Military lost a giant in 2022, CW4 (ret.) Hershel

“Woody” Williams. This legendary Warrant Officer was

not in the United States Army but instead served in the

United States Marine Corps. Until his passing at age 98,

Mr. Williams was the last surviving World War II Medal

of Honor recipient from the Battle of Iwo Jima. His

service record is extensive and goes beyond the

uniform, as he worked as a veteran service

representative in the Department of Veterans Affairs He

honorably retired from the United States Marine Corps

after 17 years and retired once more from the

Department of Veterans Affairs after 33 years of service.

His Medal of Honor citation is recalled below:

For conspicuous gallantry and intrepidity at the risk of

his life above and beyond the call of duty as Demolition

Sergeant serving with the First Battalion, Twenty-First Marines, Third Marine Division, in action against

enemy Japanese forces on Iwo Jima, Volcano Island, 23 February 1945. Quick to volunteer his services

when our tanks were maneuvering vainly to open a lane for the infantry through the network of reinforced

concrete pillboxes, buried mines and black, volcanic sands, Corporal Williams daringly went forward alone

to attempt the reduction of devastating machine-gun fire from the unyielding positions. Covered only by

four riflemen, he fought desperately for four hours under terrific enemy small-arms fire and repeatedly

returned to his own lines to prepare demolition charges and obtain serviced flame throwers, struggling

back, frequently to the rear of hostile emplacements, to wipe out one position after another. On one

occasion he daringly mounted a pillbox to insert the nozzle of his flame thrower through the air vent, kill

the occupants and silence the gun; on another he grimly charged enemy riflemen who attempted to stop

him with bayonets and destroyed them with a burst of flame from his weapon. His unyielding

determination and extraordinary heroism in the face of ruthless enemy resistance were directly

instrumental in neutralizing one of the most fanatically defended Japanese strong points encountered by

his regiment and aided in enabling his company to reach its objective. Corporal Williams' aggressive

fighting spirit and valiant devotion to duty throughout this fiercely contested action sustain and enhance

the highest traditions of the United States Naval Service.

April-June 2023 – Strength in Knowledge

55 | USAWOCC

Faculty Spotlight

James (Jim) Steddum, MBA.

Jim Steddum serves as the Communication and

Management Systems Subject Matter Expert, at the United

States Army Warrant Officer Career College. Jim retired from the

Army after 30 years of service which culminated in the role of

Chief Warrant Officer of the Judge Advocate General’s Corps and

Chief Knowledge Officer, Headquarters, Department of the

Army.

Jim holds a Master of Business Administration with a

specialization in Human Resource Management and a Bachelor

of Arts in Criminal Justice with a minor in corrections

management. He recently earned a graduate certificate in

National Security Studies from the U.S. Army War College. He

holds the Certified Knowledge Manager certification and ASI 1E

from the Army KM Qualification Course. Additionally, he holds

ASI 3R, Force Management from the Army Force Management

School. In addition to his academic duties, Jim serves as the Community Manager for the Warrant Officer

Network (WONet) om milBook, the Volunteer Coordinator for the College, and is an associate editor for

the Warrant Officer Journal: Strength in Knowledge.

Strength in Knowledge!

Announcements and Administrative Notes

Call for Papers

The organizational journal Strength in Knowledge is maintained by current faculty and staff working at the

United States Army Warrant Officer Career College (USAWOCC). The journal aims to be a quarterly publication that

supports efforts to improve education and training for the U.S. Army and all areas of the Warrant Officer’s education,

whether common core or technical in nature. This publication represents an enduring effort to provide a professional

forum for sharing of information focused on current and emerging topics within the Warrant Officer Proponent.

Finally, the journal seeks to inform and shape the continued growth of the greater profession of arms through the

sharing of key insights and lessons learned.

We continuously accept manuscripts for subsequent editions with editorial board evaluations held once a

quarter. The journal invites practitioners, researchers, academics, PME students, and military professionals to submit

manuscripts that address the issues and challenges of military education and training, training development,

doctrine (whether specific data from manuals or discussion of concepts), systems warfare, Army modernization and

other subjects relevant to the profession of arms. Submissions related to technical areas of various Warrant Officers’

specialties will be considered on a case-by-case basis. Book reviews of published relevant works are also encouraged.

Submission Guidelines

Submissions should be between 1,500 and 5,000 words and supported by research, evident through the

citation of sources. Scholarship must conform to commonly accepted research standards such as described in The

Publication Manual of the American Psychological Association, 7th edition. For resources on writing in approved APA

format simply reach out to USAWOCC. Book reviews should be between 500 to 800 words and provide a concise

evaluation of the book and its relevance to the professional Warrant Officer or current fight.

Manuscripts should be submitted by either 15 November (Jan – Mar Publication), 15 February (Apr – June

Publication), 15 May (July – Sep Publication), or 15 August (Oct–Dec Publication). For additional information, call

334-255-3142 or send an email to wo_journal@army.mil.

Resources of Interest – Podcasts

Breaking Doctrine is the podcast of the US Combined Arms Doctrine Directorate (CADD) at

Fort Leavenworth, KS. The podcast explores timely topics of interest, regarding current and

emerging Army and joint doctrine. Our guests will include a broad range of Army and other Service

professionals with the vast knowledge and years of experience required to facilitate discussion on a

variety of military doctrine-related topics. Most recently, during Episode 36, the host, Lieutenant

Colonel (R) Nikki Dean sits down to discuss the implementation of FM 3-0: Operations.

Upcoming Events – Warrant Officer IMT and PME

Conferences

USAWOCC is hosting Center of Excellence representatives from 17-21 April and key members of the

USAWOCC faculty and staff are set to visit Fort McClellan from 28-30 April. During these events, the College will

present Warrant Officer Common Core topics to continue collecting relevant feedback from the field regarding the

value and applicability of military education. These Conferences mark opportunities to provide crucial insight and

feedback to the USAWOCC faculty and staff responsible for driving the change that ensures the modernization of

common core Warrant Officer education.

April-June 2023 – Strength in Knowledge

57 | USAWOCC