Canadian Army Journal, Winter '08: To Provide Focus: Intelligence and Counterinsurgency
From Large Formations....

In a conventional scenario, military intelligence focuses on a larger view of the enemy with minimal impact from individuals. In this context, intelligence is interested in where the enemy forces are and what capabilities they have in terms of equipment and strength. Cold War intelligence doctrine was heavily influenced by the American AirLand Battle doctrine, which required “rapid intelligence analysis to identify quickly the enemy main effort as far away as possible to give US Army maneuver units time to shift laterally from across the front in mass.” The current intelligence doctrine and practices of today still reflect this Cold War mentality.

The current intelligence doctrine is focused on fighting a conventional adversary and is based on four assumptions. The first is that the process needs to focus on the terrain and the enemy only. The second is that the adversary is an organized force conducting combat operations. The third is that an extensive intelligence database on that adversary already exists. The last assumption is that any analysis, supported by the use of templates, would predict the enemy’s potential courses of action. This is based on a top-down approach, which was “originally designed to identify large enemy organizations from [their] parts, and the enemy intentions from a study of stable doctrine, long-term unit positioning, common equipment capability, and terrain limitations.” By focusing first on analyzing and identifying the details of a situation, it was then expected that the big picture would quickly emerge.

....To Individuals

In a counter-insurgency scenario, the focus changes from large enemy formations to individuals. The threat is typically composed of small groups, mixed with and difficult to distinguish from the local population. The intelligence focus, therefore, revolves around providing an understanding of the operational environment in order to facilitate the identification of the factors driving the insurgency and to provide information on those conditions and ways to alleviate them. In addition, intelligence must aim at finding: who are the key players; what are their connections (alliances, organizations, associates) and what do they want to do? To be efficient, therefore, intelligence processes and doctrine need to be adjusted to the specific nature of counter-insurgency operations. In other words, based on American, British, Canadian and Australian doctrine on counterinsurgency, as well as the recent lessons learned from Afghanistan and Iraq, what are the intelligence characteristics in counter-insurgency?