"
Why don't we use civilians or contractors?
Why don't we make them Staff Corps (instead of Restricted Line), like doctors and lawyers who perform specialized functions but need "rank for pay"?
The answer to the first one is easy: we do use civilians and contractors, extensively. The reason this is a problem is that we also need the expertise in uniform, for the same legal and authorities reasons we don't use civilians or contractors to drive ships, fly planes, or conduct raids.
As far as making them Staff officers, we have been talking about going the other direction: making information warfare more like its warfare counterparts. This horse has been beaten to death, but the fact is some activities — like OCO and EA — are already considered Title 10 forms of fires. Both create military effects for the commander, and can degrade/disrupt/destroy targets alongside or independent of any kinetic action.
Under the Navy's Information Warfare Commander Afloat Concept, for the first time the IWC can be a 18XX Officer instead of a URL officer. If anything, we're going more toward URL or "URL-like", and the reality of the information realm as a "warfighting domain" is only becoming more true as time goes on.
So what about Warrants? Well, we use those, too. What about Enlisted? They're doing the work. Right now. Some might say we don't utilize either to the extent we should, but for reasons of authorities, we still need Commissioned Officers. Related reading:
https://www.usni.org/magazines/proceedings/2017-10/know-what-officer-commission-means
None of this is to say that direct commissioning of individuals with no prior service as Officers up to O-6 is a "good" (or bad) idea or the only solution, or that it would not create new problems as it solves others — but those are the answers to the questions on civilians, contractors, and Warrants.
My own question is, why don't we better utilize our cyber reservists?
Many of them have multiple graduate degrees and 10-15+ years of experience, usually in management/leadership roles, in IT/cyber. We have people in GS/GG-14/15 or equivalent contractor and other positions, who are doing the work, every day, across the DOD, the IC, academia, and industry.
Yet reservists need to spend 3-5 years before they are even qualified to mobilize, or for their service to use in virtually any operational active duty capacity. And that's after doing usually a year or more of non-mobilization active duty, for which nearly all employers don't give differential pay.
We have virtually no way to even put reservists on active duty at NSA or CYBERCOM, where we claim we need people the most. And the times we do put people on some type of active duty in a cyber role, it won't be a mobilization — which means a person is now an O-2/O-3, getting O-2/O-3 pay, with that "level" of authority.
And they just left their civilian job where they make $200K a year.
I think people understand that you can't just roll in as an O-6, and have the same depth and breadth of experience and knowledge as an O-6 with 20-25 years in uniform. Yet O-6s retire all the time and assume senior leadership positions in all manner of public and private civilian organizations where "they don't know the culture" — because they're leaders.
So while someone off the street doesn't have the same level of understanding of the culture, it's questionable to say they can't lead on cyber matters — to include in uniform. Honestly, we're not that special to imply that you can't lead people and do important work, in uniform, unless you've "put in your time" in a rigid career path. Maybe it's time to change our thinking.
The bottom line is we need people in uniform, as Commissioned Officers, with Title 10 Authority, and with rank and pay commensurate with their experience and expertise. Civilians, contractors, enlisted, and warrants don't meet these requirements, nor do staff officers like doctors, JAGs, and Chaplains. That's the truth, and people can't seem to accept it. "