Introduction
Earlier this year, while casually scrolling LinkedIn, I came across a post recommending the U.S. Naval War College's Naval Command and Staff (NC&S) Online Program. It reminded me of a coworker who completed it a few years ago and had nothing but good things to say about it. He described it as challenging but valuable and told me it really comes down to what you put into it. That stuck with me. I had been looking for a way to grow professionally, deepen my understanding of joint and maritime operations, and engage in something intellectually meaningful outside my day-to-day work. The timing felt right, so I decided to apply.
A few weeks later, I received the news that I had been selected for the upcoming cohort. I was thrilled. The NC&S Online Program is part of the broader Joint Professional Military Education (JPME) Phase I curriculum, which awards JPME Phase I credit upon successful completion. It is designed for Navy, Marine Corps, and Coast Guard officers at O3 and above, officers in other services at O4 and above, and defense-related civilians at the GS11 level or higher. All applicants must have a bachelor's degree. As a federal government civilian working in the defense sector, the program was a natural fit for both my background and my future goals.
The NC&S program itself is a 40-week graduate-level course delivered entirely online through Blackboard, the Naval War College's Learning Management System. Coursework includes discussion boards, group projects, individual essays, and other assignments, all structured to foster critical thinking and collaboration. But before jumping into the full curriculum, every student starts with a six-week prerequisite course called the Foundational Knowledge Course (FKC), which serves as a proving ground for what's ahead.
I began the FKC on March 14, 2025, and it runs through April 24. This blog post is the first in a series that will document my experience progressing through the NC&S Online Program. Let's start with the foundation.
Joint Professional Military Education (JPME) Phase I
oint Professional Military Education (JPME) Phase I is designed to develop a deeper understanding of how to operate effectively within joint, interagency, and multinational environments. For civilians like me and for officers across the services, it builds a critical foundation for understanding how military strategy is formulated, how joint operations are planned, and how to think through today's complex security challenges. The Naval Command and Staff Online Program is one of the accredited tracks that awards JPME Phase I credit upon successful completion.
The program is broken into five academic modules. Each one builds on the last, starting with strategic theory and ending with applied joint planning. Below is a brief preview of each.
Module 1: Fundamentals of Strategy
This module introduces the intellectual tools needed to think critically about military strategy. It blends military theory with history, political science, and international relations to help students understand how national goals are translated into strategic action. It sets the stage for approaching complex military problems with a structured, analytical mindset.
Module 2: The Security Environment
Here, the focus shifts to the world we live in today. This module explores the evolving global security landscape and what it means to serve as a defense professional in it. Topics include international conflict, great power competition, and the ethical responsibilities that come with operating in the national security space.
Module 3: Operational Art
Operational Art is where theory starts to become practice. This module teaches how to plan and structure military operations in ways that align with strategic goals. It emphasizes critical thinking and the deliberate orchestration of forces to create the conditions necessary for mission success.
Module 4: Joint Capabilities
This module covers what each service brings to the table. It introduces the capabilities, structures, and doctrines of the U.S. military's joint and combined forces, including special operations. The emphasis is on how to effectively employ and integrate these capabilities at the operational level of war.
Module 5: Joint Planning Process
The final module ties it all together. It walks through the Joint Planning Process and shows how to apply what you've learned to real-world scenarios. From framing problems to developing and analyzing courses of action, this is where students synthesize strategic understanding, operational thinking, and joint integration into actionable plans.
Foundational Knowledge Course (FKC)
The Foundational Knowledge Course (FKC) is a six-week prerequisite for anyone accepted into the Naval Command and Staff (NC&S) Online Program. More than just an onboarding experience, it serves as a filter—designed to ensure students have the writing, reading, and time management skills needed to succeed in the full 40-week program. It's also the first test of your ability to think critically about naval theory, strategic thought, and professional military education.
You're introduced to the structure of the course, the Blackboard platform, and the expectations for participation and performance. There's no coasting here. From the very first week, you're writing essays, analyzing readings, and participating in discussion boards with your peers. Professors assess your work not with grades, but with a simple measure: Meets Expectations or Not Yet. And when you're juggling a full-time federal job and everything else life throws at you, that simplicity is deceptively sharp.
The course is faculty-led and cohort-based, and each week moves fast. But it's also well-structured, thought-provoking, and surprisingly personal. If you're ready to commit, the FKC makes sure you're ready to thrive.
Course Design and Expectations
The FKC runs at a fast clip. Six sessions, six weeks, with new content dropping every Friday and deadlines hitting every Thursday night. You get into a rhythm quickly or you fall behind. Blackboard Ultra is where everything happens, and each session is packed with readings, videos, and assignments that build week to week.
You won't get traditional grades here. It's either Meets Expectations or Not Yet. That might sound simple, but it sharpens your focus. Miss the mark? You revise and resubmit quickly. It's a system that values effort and growth, which I really appreciated.
Expect to spend 8 to 10 hours a week on readings, writing, and discussion boards. And yes, the discussion boards matter. You're not just dropping posts. You're having real conversations with other students, which makes the course feel a lot more personal.
Bottom line: the expectations are clear, the pace is steady, and the course wastes no time showing you what the year ahead is going to demand from you.
Session 1: Introductions and First Essay
The course opens fast. One minute you're figuring out your Blackboard login, and the next you're writing your first essay. Session 1 is all about getting oriented, meeting your cohort, and proving that you can hang with the tempo and expectations of the program.
After watching the Dean's welcome video and clicking through the Blackboard tutorial, the first real task was to introduce yourself in the discussion forum. It sounds simple, but it quickly became clear that this was not just a box-checking exercise. People shared their backgrounds, motivations for enrolling, and the kinds of challenges they were hoping to explore. For a fully virtual course, it instantly created a sense of community. You could feel the shared commitment.
Then came the first writing assignment. The prompt was deceptively simple: In your experience, is war primarily an art or primarily a science? It forced me to stop and reflect. My answer leaned toward art. War involves logic and structure, yes, but those are just the tools. The application of force, the shaping of perception, the timing of a decision under pressure—those feel like art to me. That idea stuck with me throughout the rest of the course, especially as we started reading Mahan and Corbett. They might not have agreed on everything, but both understood the creative side of warfare.
Session 1 set the tone. This course was not going to hold your hand. You were expected to think, write, engage, and show up with something to say. And honestly, I loved that.
Session 2: Navy PME and Course Structure
Session 2 shifts gears from personal reflection to professional context. This week is all about understanding the Navy's institutional identity and where this course fits in the broader world of Professional Military Education. You dive into presentations on Navy culture and governance, and for someone like me coming from the civilian side, it was eye-opening.
One of the key takeaways was how much tradition, structure, and strategic thinking are baked into the Navy's organizational DNA. The lectures walked through everything from command relationships to how decisions are made at different levels. It gave me a better appreciation for the environment many of my fellow students operate in every day.
We also got a clearer picture of the NC&S program itself. The overview of Module 1, Fundamentals of Strategy, was a helpful preview of what's ahead. It was like peeking at the map before a long hike. The course isn't just about reading and writing. It's about grappling with theory, applying it to today's problems, and doing so with a joint mindset.
There were also PPME (Primary Professional Military Education) modules to complete, which were more structured and test-based. These weren't hard, but they reinforced key points and made sure everyone had the same baseline.
Session 2 made the path forward feel more real. Less warm-up, more mission brief.
Session 3: Mahan and the Theory of Sea Power
This was the week things started to feel real. Session 3 dropped us into the world of Alfred Thayer Mahan, one of the most influential naval thinkers in history. Until now, I had only heard the name in passing. Suddenly I was reading his words, studying his theories, and debating their relevance with classmates who brought wildly different perspectives to the table.
Mahan believed that control of the sea was the key to national power. His focus was on big fleets, decisive battles, and the idea that whoever controlled maritime trade routes held the keys to global influence. The readings were dense at times, but the message was clear. Mahan saw naval power not just as a military tool, but as a cornerstone of national strategy.
The discussion board came alive this week. Everyone had thoughts. Some fully embraced Mahan's ideas, others pushed back. I found myself somewhere in the middle, drawn to his clarity but aware that today's conflicts rarely offer the kind of decisive naval battles he envisioned. Still, his influence on how we think about sea power is undeniable.
This was also the first time I really felt the academic weight of the course. We were no longer talking about how to navigate Blackboard or write an intro post. We were digging into theory and applying it to the world we live in now. And that shift was exciting.
Session 4: Corbett and Maritime Strategy
Just as I was getting comfortable with Mahan's world of big fleets and decisive battles, Session 4 brought in Julian Corbett — and with him, a very different lens. Corbett viewed naval power as one part of a larger strategic picture. He focused less on absolute control of the sea and more on how maritime operations could support political objectives. His writing felt more grounded in the messy realities of modern conflict.
While Mahan wrote with certainty, Corbett left more room for interpretation. He emphasized limited war, joint operations, and the importance of context. His ideas challenge you to think through how naval power actually works in practice — not just in theory. That shift in tone was subtle but powerful.
This week's discussion board was another step up. Comparing Mahan and Corbett sparked sharp debates about sea control, strategic utility, and the shape of modern warfare. The readings didn't hand us clear answers. Instead, like the rest of the course, they pushed us to think more critically and start asking the right kinds of questions.
For me, Corbett's voice added depth to the conversation. War isn't always about bold moves and clear wins. Sometimes, it's about alignment, restraint, and knowing how to support something bigger than the battle itself.
Session 5: Applying Sea Power
This was the week it all came to a head. Session 5 asked us to take everything we had read, debated, and wrestled with over the past few weeks and apply it to a pressing real-world question: Which theorist, Mahan or Corbett, best applies to the current strategic competition with China?
Writing this essay was no small task. The prompt required a clear thesis, solid evidence from the readings and lectures, a counterargument, and a structured, well-supported conclusion. It wasn't about regurgitating facts. It was about analysis, synthesis, and clarity. It felt like a real test of everything the course had been quietly building toward.
The research was compelling. On one hand, Mahan's emphasis on sea control and decisive power projection speaks directly to the naval posturing we're seeing in the Indo-Pacific. On the other, Corbett's ideas about limited war, strategic restraint, and the political nature of maritime operations also feel highly relevant. The hard part wasn't finding support for either side—it was choosing which lens felt most useful.
n the end, I leaned toward Mahan. In a competition like this — one centered on sea control, strategic chokepoints, and forward naval presence — Mahan's clarity on maritime power as the foundation of national strength and deterrence made the most strategic sense.
This was the most challenging and rewarding assignment so far. It reminded me that applying theory to modern conflict is messy, but necessary. The course isn't interested in spoon-feeding answers. It wants you to build your own framework for thinking—and this essay was proof of that.
Session 6: Wrapping Up and Looking Ahead
Session 6 brought the FKC to a close, but not with a fade-out. Instead, it looked forward. This week was all about connecting what we had learned to what comes next in the Naval Command and Staff Program. We were introduced to upcoming modules like The Security Environment and Joint Maritime Operations, and we completed the last of the Primary Professional Military Education (PPME) content.
There was also a strong focus on how the Navy thinks about war. Not just in terms of platforms and missions, but in terms of culture, history, and mindset. Presentations covered the geopolitical realities shaping maritime strategy and reminded us that future modules will ask us to think beyond just the Navy—to think joint, to think interagency, to think globally.
We wrapped up the course with a final questionnaire. It was a quiet moment to reflect on how much we had covered in just six weeks. From diving into sea power theory to writing analytical essays, debating online with other students, and learning to navigate the cadence of weekly deliverables—it all added up to a strong foundation.
This wasn't just an academic checkbox. It was a reset. The FKC taught me how to approach strategy as a living, evolving discipline. It reminded me that the goal isn't to memorize doctrine. It's to think critically, ask better questions, and be prepared for the complexity of modern conflict.
Conclusion
Finishing the Foundational Knowledge Course felt like crossing a threshold. It was intense, fast-paced, and at times a little overwhelming—but it was also deeply rewarding. I walked away with a better understanding of naval theory, a clearer sense of how to navigate the NC&S program, and most importantly, a sharpened mindset for thinking critically about strategy.
This program doesn't hand you answers. It challenges you to engage, reflect, and take a position. That's what makes it valuable. It's not about memorizing facts or checking boxes. It's about learning how to think in a world that doesn't always give you clear options.
Looking ahead, I'm excited to start Module 1: Fundamentals of Strategy. At the same time, I won't pretend the road is easy. Like many in the federal workforce right now, I'm feeling the strain of return-to-office mandates and long commutes. Policies coming out of the current administration have made work-life balance more difficult, not less. Juggling this program alongside a four-hour round-trip commute and increasing administrative churn is not exactly ideal.
But that's part of the challenge—and part of the motivation. The world is only getting more complex. If we want to support good decision-making, lead effectively, and contribute meaningfully, we have to put in the work. And this is one way I'm doing just that.
More to come as I head into Module 1.
See the associated LinkedIn post.
Comments
To leave feedback or questions, simply login using your preferred social network. I will read and answer your comments promptly, but please keep in mind that they will be public.