The Search for Strategic Intelligence
Over the past 8 years I have served in 3 separate 4-Star Headquarters (Army Staff, PACOM/SOCPAC, and SOCOM), and have always been amazed at the level of intel product that has been requested, expected, provided, accepted.
Invariably it has been very very tactical in nature. Even if they looked at a broad area, they still focus on and talk about very tactical intelligence. Not that this is bad information, but it does tend to draw senior leaders down into the weeds that they grew up in and are comfortable with (plus it is sexy and fun) as opposed to much larger perspectives and issues that are the turf that these respective commands really need to be focused upon.
So, here is my question: WHAT exactly is strategic intelligence? and why is it so rarely asked for, and even more rarely provided?
Some thoughts on this as I work on some projects in my lane:
1. What types of Competitors are associated with a problem, probably laid out in 3 tiers from those directly engaged, those 1 degree of separation away, and those 2 degrees of separation away.
a. Who are the state actors?
1. Nuclear States
2. Non-nuclear States
3. Failing States
4. Criminal States
b. Who are the non-state actors working within these states and what are their relationships to the same and each other?
1. Quasi-State Competitors (LH, Hamas, etc)
2. Non-State Competitiors (AQ, Exxon, Red Cross, etc)
3. Insurgent Competitors (Taliban, MILF, etc)
4. Dissident Competitors (Green Peace, Individuals)
c. Of all of these, what are there stated and implied interests, and where are there points of shared interests and conflicting interests (goes to opportunities, risks, and predicting likely respones to various COAs)
These are things I think about, but get the 1,000 yard stare when I ask the intel guys about the same. Does anyone else have thoughts on what "strategic intelligence" should be?
I don't want to take away from...
COL Jones' points. They are important, but I get excited when Jedburgh steps outside the norm to comment. His insight are often very informative. As for me, y'all will realize that I use this forum to talk about things that I can't typically do in real life.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Jedburgh
I wholeheartedly agree with you. But my experience over the past couple of decades is that it is far easier said than done. The old adage #### up, move up I've seen function in the intel world so often its painful.
Tom and I had this discussion earlier in conversations about intelligence. Here's the worst example that I endured wrt manuever,
"Mike, I'm going to send you to x place to un#### y battalion."
"Sir, I'm just a company commander."
"Mike, I know, but you can handle it."
"Roger, sir."
Mike
Geography of Conflict changes
Steve,
Valid point, but taking the Middle East as one example. Oil production IIRC was concentrated in a few places, notably Abadan, Iran; the oil resources in North Africa e.g. Libya had not been identified. So the focus in the region has moved around.
I am sure mapping of conflict will show the same places dominate, so will an article search - who for example watches the Dardenelles closely now?
Reversing the focus - which areas do not feature? Have those changed over time?
Ethiopia is one country that has a low historical profile, for a variety of reasons and without media and NGO reported starvation i.e. Band Aid would it feature on a current map of places that need watching? I think not.
Geography is one aspect, important yes; there are others - religion for one.
davidbfpo
Dorronsorro, Semple, Nathan, Exum
Went to a Center for American Progress conference today.
Gilles Dorronsoro, Micheal Semple and Joanne Nathan (corrected), all non-US experts who have been in Afghanistan since before 2001.
Each had a presentation on their field. Most of you have heard some of this: Dorronsorro (secure the cities first, etc..), and Semple's work with the Taliban are pretty well known.
Nathan, an Australian, asked: What's this COIN thing about? I read the manual and it said Clear-Hold-Build, but all you ever do is Clear, Clear, Clear. No administrative purpose or capability. Why are you clearing unless you have civilian capacity to Hold and Build? Where has this strategy ever been applied?
Even Andrew Exum didn't take a stab at answering that.
The big question that all were asked to comment on: What do you think of these people who see one small part of the country, then try to exprapolte what they saw there to a bigger picture about the country? (Obviously, the Hoh question).
They were pretty devastating in explaining just a snippet of what they know about the whole country, and why that kind of speculation is not useful.
Like Exum said, DC is usually full of generalists, and it was a rare opportunity to have three leading specialists in one place.
Certainly worth hearing every word yourself to build or assess strategy.
http://www.americanprogress.org/even...streaming.html
Steve