Where Are Our Priorities Focused…Lack of Knowledge of Basic Enemy Capabilites
I don't like to double post, however this applies to both the training and intelligence sections of this forum.
....All I have to say is we have a problem in the intelligence community...
About three days ago, I had a student that was completely lost during the FTX of the All-Source Intelligence Analyst Course (35F). I was bringing up points on knowing your enemy, their capabilities, what they are equipped with, how this effects you as an intelligence analyst, and how you need to take your knowledge of the enemy to better brief the Commander.
We started to discuss the aspects of the scenario, who the players were, what they were doing, what the pattern of life was, and eventually…we got on the topic of…What are they using to attack us.
I asked a few questions regarding weapons that were within the scenario that would pose a threat to friendly forces operating in that area. I was asked by the student who is about to graduate…
“You mean we need to know enemy weapons too???”
The student was being honest and sincere in their question, which made it hit me that much harder.
What I have been finding out is that there is the focus of targeting, data mining, COIN, etc., however intelligence analysts and combat arms troops alike can not differentiate between an AK-47, AKM, AKMS, or AK-74. I sat through a brief today, and was told that a PKM fires 5.45x45mm, and that an AK-74 is the same as a PKM, that is the same as an AK-47. The other day, the student was doing a scenario brief and tried to explain how the indicator to Indirect Fire (IDF) on a FOB was directly related to SA-7’s and DSHK Machine Guns found in a cache located near where IDF was reported to have been fired from. When I asked, acting as the commander, what the primary target of an SA-7 was, I came to find out that they did not know that it was a Surface-To-Air MANPAD weapon, and is not a weapon utilized in IDF attacks.
Additionally, I asked the students today what the difference between a 7.62x39mm and 7.62x54r was, and how that effected what may be found in a cache and how it might be related to a threat to troops in that area. Not one out of (24) students knew the difference, or could explain that the scenario that was presented to them included the application of that basic knowledge.
What I am finding is that we used to have playing cards that had Warsaw Pact aircraft and tanks on them that were commonly found in units. Only to now find that the students cannot differentiate between the application of an AK-47, and a Dragunov. After (4) months of courseware, these same students had no idea that a DSHK 12.7mm machine gun could take out a helicopter. Well…the problem arose that they didn’t even know what I was taking about at first until I showed them a picture.
What is going on with our training? What is it that the higher commands are expecting from our intelligence professionals, when all they know how to do is to identify data trends in a database? The current focus on upper echelon commanders has trickled down into our analysts not knowing basic information about how to research enemy capabilities, or knowledge of what they use.
I can understand if they have trouble differentiating between a VOIED, RCIED, etc., but to not know anything about weapons that are out there??? The Taliban utilizes weapons that are not lasers, or plasma guns, but basic weapons that have been around since their initial design in the 1940’s with only improvements in design, but still remain similar to the old.
I am finding that the analyst of today is useless without their computer, and unable to perform basic link analysis, enemy capabilities knowledge, or knowledge of common threats to our troops…which includes the everyday weapons that wound or kill our soldiers that leave the wire.
I have seen the same things...
..and decried the same lack of ability of analysts to relate to these minute details. I have alo begun to notice (or maybe it was always an issue) that the junior analysts do not know a lick about operations and manuever, meaning they hae a harder time assimilating what they see, and comparing it against what maneuver is doing, and therefore how their knowledge is relevant.
This has reared its ugly head among some intelligence officers as well, who unfortunately start out at the same infantry officer's course as every other grunt officer.
I think this also correlates to the issue the intelligence community has in determining some of the "why's" behind what is going on in the environment and with the actors, as opposed to just regurgitating the symptoms.
Old Reliable, always able to find chinks...
Quote:
Originally Posted by
JMA
I agree with you. But I don't know what level a 35F is but as the
job description indicates it seems to be a person who
assists in most things. Could this be like and Int Clerk in the old days? A corporal or at most a sgt? I don't know.
He can range from a Specialist -- your Int Clerk -- to a Sergeant Major (WO 1). Most are mid grade NCOs equivalent to British Staff Sergeants and WO2 types, above merely clerkly stuff, they are supposed to be able to produce intelligence. Most can and do it well, frequently covering for know it all Lieutenants and Captains -- and the occasional Major...;)
The word "assists" appears in the synopsis (and it is that, a lot of detail is omitted) that you linked five times. An analyst assists in those items to which the word is tied because he obtains the information for his analysis from primary sources and, as is true in any military heirarchy, he has help from others and then he passes things up the chain. What you missed in looking for an attack point was this:
"The Intelligence Analyst is primarily responsible for supervising, coordinating and participating in the analysis, processing and distribution of strategic and tactical intelligence.
...
"Analyzes current intelligence holdings to identify gaps, and subsequent intelligence collection requirements. Considers enemy Order of Battle records in the development of collection tasks and assessment of enemy vulnerabilities and probable courses of action. Assists in the preparation of reports on captured enemy material. Drafts periodic and special intelligence reports, plans, and briefings." (emphasis added / kw)
Quote:
At that level it is less about what the individual already knows and more about the hunger to learn, yes?
Thus you're correct for the entry level but the more senior Analysts are competent to do -- and in fact do -- all sorts of things in the production of usable Intel. Many do not like to leave a comfort zone but there are enough that will to make a difference.
As for the hunger, at any level that should be true. Well, hopefully, anyway... :wry: