Company Level Intelligence Led Operations

[Cavguy]

Had this discussion at the last SWC Leavenworth get-together.

Agree a company needs an intel cell. In a pinch, and if available, the FS Team can fill it. Unless your FSNCO is not up to the job, like mine was.

Very few companies have an FSO in OIF. They've all been changed into platoon leaders of artillerymen acting as dismounted infantry.

I'd really like to see an analyst and a HUMINT guy added into each company - the first to process info higher and lower, and the second would give the commander the ability to run sources legally.

[William F. Owen]

I'd really like to see an analyst and a HUMINT guy added into each company - the first to process info higher and lower, and the second would give the commander the ability to run sources legally.

One man cannot run a source. He can't identify, recruit, train, operate (task, monitor and debrief) and protect/recover an agent. All one guy can do is debrief someone once in a while. That means sit and chat. - what is more, a few armies cannot legally engage in agent handling operations, because of human rights legislation.

IMO Companies should focus on gathering for higher analysis and exploiting what is fed down to them. Coy level int is really a liaison task. There is no harm in having a specialist detachment at the Company level, but they are specialists, trained in Intelligence.

[Jedburgh]

One man cannot run a source. He can't identify, recruit, train, operate (task, monitor and debrief) and protect/recover an agent. All one guy can do is debrief someone once in a while......

There are significant differences between fully structured agent ops and low-level source ops of the type that Cavguy is referring to. In neither case does "one man" truly run the op on his own. There has to be infrastructure in place to support him. However, at the tactical level, if that infrastructure is in place above Co level, then "one man" can do the job.

The caveat is that it would require an experienced HUMINT NCO to be effective. And even with the expansion of the field, there are nowhere near enough HUMINT NCOs - and even fewer with the appropriate experience - to provide effective fill.

Aside from manning issues, there will be no further discussion of the nuts and bolts of source ops on this board.

Thanks,

Ted

[Cavguy]

Thanks Jed, I wasn't specific enough in my post.

I certainly believe the section as a whole must be bigger, I was mainly referring to the actual MI based augmentation, at a minimum. I'd like more, but a few actual MI NCO's plus platoon level intel augmentees can do it.

Good catch on the source. What you stated was what I meant, forgetting that "source running" to a CO CDR isn't the same as to a pro. I basically meant being able to recruit and pay informants, and give them low level tasks. THT's have this ability, but there aren't enough to go around, so the commander winds up "running" these low level sources, even though it's technically illegal. Having a HUMINTer (even better a team) in the company would allow him to create and develop informants in a more professional manner, and provide the expertise into keeping him out of trouble.

(trying to stay "above the line" in the discussion)

[William F. Owen]

I basically meant being able to recruit and pay informants, and give them low level tasks. THT's have this ability, but there aren't enough to go around, so the commander winds up "running" these low level sources, even though it's technically illegal. Having a HUMINTer (even better a team) in the company would allow him to create and develop informants in a more professional manner, and provide the expertise into keeping him out of trouble.

This indicates a vast problem area, based on my experience, but I am not sure how I can usefully comment given Jedburgh's prescription - WHICH I FULLY AGREE WITH as concerns intent.

About all I can say is IMO, this is not something the company level should be involved in. I guess I'll leave it at that.

[selil]

It kind of sounds like you all do it differently in the military than we did it in law enforcement. From the sounds of it you all have large centralized authority that takes in from a variety of channels information and feeds that down to the unit/solider level. In law enforcement an officer/detective receives information and feeds "some" of that information up into either a detective bureau or now I guess Fusion Centers (though those may be going away). My experience obviously is at the bottom of that chain, but our expected effectiveness was at the localized or even patrol area. Since I worked in the court/corrections bureau we interviewed prisoners for housing assignments and gained some valuable/actionable intelligence on near feudal associations. I'm likely way off base and my knowledge is several years out of date. It seems like if you are dealing with an insurgency that is a distributed, and loosely organized entity, that a distributed intelligence apparatus with centralized reporting would be much better.

[slapout9]

selil, you head the nail on the head. Good LE Intel is run from the street up to the top. Which then can be added to the big picture, which sometime never comes back down but at least they know about it.

[wm]

What Slapout and Selil are calling intel would be what I call situational awareness. Depending on your frame of reference, situational awareness is what you really want anyway, IMHO. At the company level , I suspect I'd want to know who the likely bad guys are in my AO, what kind of things they might be contemplating doing, and what "tools" they might be planning on using to do it. To get this type of info, I think the "cop on the beat" approach to collection and analysis is probably the right model. Sort of like this: "I heard on the street that the A St. Gang is thinking they want to have it out with the Oak Hill Ave boys on Thursday night with knuckles, pipes, and baseball bats. Joe X from A St. was seen playing with a .38 last week. Last three times they fought, they had their dust ups in one of the vacant lots in the industrial park near the river. " You don't need some high level intel system pushing stuff down to you to figure out what all that means. And, it probably won't get you that kind of data to analyze anyway, while your foot patrols and neighborhood visibility will.

In fact, the more stuff that gets pushed down to you, the harder it will probably be to separate the wheat from the chaff, if there's even any wheat in the delivery. Having an intel analyst, who is most likely going to be an E3, E4, or junior E5, there at the company is not likely to be much help in sifting either. They will probably not have enough experience to find the gems any better than anyone else just because they got some schooling at Huachuca. The HUMINT guy that Cavguy wants may be a little more senior, but I doubt will have the all source experience needed to provide a good overall picture.

Common sense, tempered with sufficient cultural awareness to understand what is different every day about the AO compared to being back home on the block, probably does more in developing the situational awareness needed to mount sucessful stability ops at the company level.