As a quick response, I think that intel-led operations is a lot like "actionable intelligence." Each may well be a catch phrase used to cover up operators' unhappiness with the quality of intelligence that they receive. Intelligence is provided as a result of a request for information from an operator. So, if the stuff an operator gets isn't good enough, then I submit the first place to look is at the questions that the operator asks.

I acknowledge that sometimes the operators are unsure or unaware of what they need to know and therefore do not know what kind of questions to ask their intel folks (or that they even need to ask their intel guys any questions at all.) When one is in such a situation, then an enterprising intel staff guy should be albe to belly up to the bar and help the Cdr and 3 out with some "gentle" prompting and hinting. This might be the best description of intel-led operations

If we view Intel as broadly divided into I &W and long term studies, then each piece has a part to play in intel-led operations. I & W products give the entire force a heads up that it may need to take or to avoid certain actions now or in the near future--this is like reacting to an air raid siren. Studies provide a commander and staff with some parameters about the bad guy. These parameters suggest likely efficacy or probable ineffectiveness of certain actions by friendly forces against the opponent . These pieces, like many other things--the NORs/NORM rates that come from the loggies and the personnel strength report that comes from the S1/G1 staff for instance--help inform the plan that ultimately results from effective use of the the entire staff. But, we don't have "materiel-led operations" or "morning report-led" operations do we?