Where Are Our Priorities Focused…Lack of Knowledge of Basic Enemy Capabilites

[120mm]

Some of the kids seem to get it, but they're usually from that part of the population I call "the naturals," inherently inclined and gifted for this kind of work. The majority need to be taught critical thinking skills and how to synthesize intelligence from information.

Here, I think, is the source of the problem.

Once upon a time, intel people were experienced other branch soldiers who happened to show a knack for it.

Then we screwed up and made Intelligence a branch.

Then we made it worse and made it verboten to put non-Intel rated people in Intel spots.

People that need to be taught critical thinking skills have no business being in Intel. In the tactical units I've served in, with few exceptions, Intel types were incredibly ill-suited for Intel work. How, exactly, does a competent personnel system allow that to happen?

[Entropy]

120mm,

I agree, but I think the number of "naturals" is pretty small and the competition for those people is significant. I know when I went through intel school in the early 1990's at least 1/4 of my class had no business being there, but they were pushed through the system because intel is constantly undermanned.

It doesn't help that these schools (at least in the Navy and Air Force - I don't have experience with the Army schools) are run like mini-boot camps. It's hard to teach critical thinking and promote introspection when so much time is spent enforcing conformity. The courses themselves are overly focused on powerpoint, briefing, memorizing "facts," and are constantly 3-5 years behind in terms of curriculum. The system produces people who can create a relatively polished "threat" brief on some weapons system but are unable to answer fundamental "so what" questions and apply that knowledge in a real-world context.

Then there is the security clearance issue, which is a whole 'nother ball of wax.

In my previous job, I was in charge of unit intel training and it took a year to 18 months (this was a reserve unit) to fix most of the bad habits learned in intel school and get them to a rudimentary level of competence. This went for both the officers and enlisted.

Another problem is that intel is a dumping ground for personnel from other career fields who are unable to continue in that field for whatever reason (due again, to the fact that intel is constantly undermanned). Many aren't remotely interested in intel and are simply marking time. They got into intel because it was one of the "open" career fields and oh, there's also a five-figure bonus!

Additionally, intel is simply a huge and diverse field. In my career I've gone from supporting small tactical units all the way up to theater-level strategic warning. That kind of change feels like moving to a whole other career field. That diversity is one reason I like intel so much, but there are a lot of people who don't like it.

Finally, I think some responsibility needs to be spread around. Too many people seem to view intel as the one-stop-shop for any and all information. The 3 shop is especially bad. If I had a dollar for every time someone from the 3 shop asked me where some US unit was located, I'd be a rich man. We're often tasked with stuff the 3 shop is too lazy to do on their own.

In summary, there are a lot of problems in intel. Training problems, organizational problems, cultural problems, personnel problems. After 17 years including my own attempts at bashing by head through brick walls trying to improve things, I'm not confident at all any of those problems will be fixed anytime soon. Indeed, it's likely to get worse.