# Military Intelligence: differences in starting earlier or later?



## Poetic_Mind (Mar 31, 2012)

Good afternoon,

As a bit of background, I have always had an interest in the intelligence community and as a current ROTC cadet near the end of his third year, I have been interested in branching MI. I already understand that there are no guarantees about whether or not I will get MI as my branch. There is a lot that goes into accessions after I complete LDAC and when I initially scribble MI as my number one choice at the start of my fourth year. I have just kept it on my mind and one particular question arose that's been in my head for the past week or two.

I had a discussion with a professor on my campus that is familiar with many cadets that went on to become successful Army officers and many of which went MI. During our discussion, he asked me if I wanted to do MI and I said that I do. He then went on to tell me of his experience talking with other cadets interested in MI in his some fifteen years at our university and pointed out something peculiar about many of the cadets: many of them chose not to enter MI straight out of college, but begin MI after having experience in another branch. 

His explanation was that with the nature of intelligence, it may be best to understand intelligence from the receiving end of those that use it out in the field rather than begin MI early without that experience. That made me curious and I've looked around to try and grasp the difference between starting a career in MI early and starting with a few years of another branch under one's belt. I am reaching out to the community of MI professionals here in Shadowspear and asking on your opinions on this. Who among you all began MI early and who entered MI from another branch? Are there any significant differences and what is beneficial/problematic with choosing to do one or the other?

For the class of seniors in my school prepared to commission in one month, there are four going MI and one among them that is branch detailing with MI beginning during his fourth year in the Army. The other three are starting MI straight out of college, so we have cadets doing both approaches of starting early and starting later in their careers.

Again, this has only been a thought for the past week or so. I wanted to read some insight directly from you all within the intelligence community. 

Best Regards,
PM


----------



## AWP (Mar 31, 2012)

Marauder06 was an 11A before going over to MI. A friend of mine did the same thing only he went Signal after his Infantry days. Those two have done "okay" in their careers. ;)


----------



## Kraut783 (Mar 31, 2012)

Speaking from the enlisted standpoint, and IMHO only......I think you bring more to the table in the MI field when you have had a prior MOS.  You get to see how MI can help or hurt from the other side of the table.


----------



## SpitfireV (Mar 31, 2012)

I can't speak for the US Army so I'll talk in generalities using my own experience.

Years ago in my old organisation, they used to hire intel analysts directly. This has benefits because it means you can poach- I mean, hire- people directly that have experience. However I found it meant a disconnect between those analysts and the people who had started working the actual job because those analysts didn't know what it was like, say, to tip out a 3000kg Tongan godzilla who only wants to rip your throat out and rip down the walls of the building. This then results in some bad blood when they ask stupid questions that they'd know the answer to if they'd worked the floor beforehand.


----------



## Brill (Mar 31, 2012)

IMO, time spent doing anything other than MI is time that could have been used to sharpen the MI toolset.  Hell, I've been doing grinding away since '89 and I'm far from being sharp (so much to learn, so little time).


----------



## Marauder06 (Mar 31, 2012)

Freefalling said:


> Marauder06 was an 11A before going over to MI. A friend of mine did the same thing only he went Signal after his Infantry days. Those two have done "okay" in their careers. ;)


 
Yeah, but I'll "never be successful in SOF." ;)

Poetic_Mind What you're describing is the branch detail program. The branches that need more lieutenants (like Infantry) pair up with branches that need more captains (like MI) and let young lieutenants "branch" one branch but "detail" to another for a certain period. There are different lengths of time for different branches, but I think the usual length is 2-4 years. In my case, I was branched MI but detailed to the Infantry for four years. I'm glad I was an Infantry officer, but at the end of four years I was ready to do something different, which is about the time I reverted to my control branch.

While I think that there are some useful things to be learned by serving in another branch first, I think the best way to "be" something is to do it as often as possible. Therefore, I tend to agree with Lindy.

The main thing that a detail might get for you is credibility. If you walk into your first MI assignment sporting an EIB or CIB and a Ranger tab from having spent some time in the Infantry, it's instant (although not permanent) credibility with the shooters. Something else to consider is that you might be more successful getting either Infantry or MI (which are usually two of the most-sought-after branches) by requesting a branch detail. I did not have the grades for either Infantry or MI when I was going through ROTC, I think the reason I got to do both was because I requested a detail.


----------



## Brill (Apr 1, 2012)

Marauder06 said:


> The main thing that a detail might get for you is credibility. If you walk into your first MI assignment sporting an EIB or CIB and a Ranger tab from having spent some time in the Infantry, it's instant (although not permanent) credibility with the shooters.


 
I've seen this from 18-series guys and would add that, while I believe this an advantage over non-tabbed MI guys, it can be a distractor too in that all the "bling" is seen vice the technical background. 

"My job is to find the enemy so you don't have to."


----------



## Marauder06 (Apr 1, 2012)

Part of the problem I saw in Group was that a lot (if not most) of the S2s are former infantry, on their first intel experience straight out of the transition course and the intel advanced course.  Total MI experience:  absolutely zero.  So while there was some initial excitement about a guy who has "walked the walk" tactically, it doesn't always translate into a good S2.  Sometimes it's like having a more mature 2LT.


----------



## BravoOne (Apr 1, 2012)

lindy said:


> IMO, time spent doing anything other than MI is time that could have been used to sharpen the MI toolset. Hell, I've been doing grinding away since '89 and I'm far from being sharp (so much to learn, so little time).


 
I MUST concur. Speaking from the enlisted side I do not care for what happens when some NCO comes to MI into a leadership position straight from reclass school. They are really behind the 8 ball and those under them look at them and shake their head at a lot of things. Everyone expects an MI LT. to be deep in the learning process but their job is different as managers. NCOs need to KNOW how to DO the job and that takes time.


----------



## Crusader74 (Apr 1, 2012)

Do Officers do exactly the same MI course(s)  as NCO's  ?  How many are there?


----------



## Marauder06 (Apr 1, 2012)

There are specific courses based on rank (e.g. basic training, Officer's Basic Course), others based on duty description (e.g. G2X course), still others for special skills (e.g. ASOC) that are not rank-specific.


----------



## Crusader74 (Apr 1, 2012)

Marauder06 said:


> There are specific courses based on rank (e.g. basic training, Officer's Basic Course), others based on duty description (e.g. G2X course), still others for special skills (e.g. ASOC) that are not rank-specific.


 
Cheers Mara.


----------



## Poetic_Mind (Apr 2, 2012)

BravoOne said:


> I MUST concur. Speaking from the enlisted side I do not care for what happens when some NCO comes to MI into a leadership position straight from reclass school. They are really behind the 8 ball and those under them look at them and shake their head at a lot of things. Everyone expects an MI LT. to be deep in the learning process but their job is different as managers. NCOs need to KNOW how to DO the job and that takes time.


 
That would be what worries me if I were to branch detail, should I choose that option next September. My question would go out to someone like Marauder06 who was detailed infantry and then went MI. Sir, how far behind the 8 ball do you think you were? Lately, I've been hearing that MI just doesn't take a whole lot of 2LTs, but like to branch detail their guys because there are more open spots at the CPT level than anything else.


----------



## Marauder06 (Apr 2, 2012)

Poetic_Mind said:


> That would be what worries me if I were to branch detail, should I choose that option next September. My question would go out to someone like Marauder06 who was detailed infantry and then went MI. Sir, how far behind the 8 ball do you think you were? Lately, I've been hearing that MI just doesn't take a whole lot of 2LTs, but like to branch detail their guys because there are more open spots at the CPT level than anything else.


 
Captain is the numerically superior rank in the entire Army; more officers are captains than any other rank.  MI needs far more captains than 2LTs, hence the branch detail.  Win-win for the combat arms and combat support branches.

My own career is not a good example because I didn't have what I considered my first "no shit" intel job until I was a very senior captain.  Most of my career has either been as an infantry officer in an infantry unit, in a direct leadership job, or in SOF, where I had some non-traditional intel jobs.

If you branch detail, as long as you realize that you're operating at a deficit when you report in to your first intel gig, and you do something to mitigate it in advance, you'll be fine.  Some branch detail officers do a spectacular job in their first intel gig, others go down in flames.  Most of the latter were guys whose ego didn't permit them to make the mental transition from "supported" to "supporting."  Additionally, intel work can be exceedingly mentally difficult sometimes.  Guys who excel physically aren't always the same ones who excel mentally.  And those who are both physically and mentally excellent make the jump over to SF and we never see them in the MI ranks anyway ;)


----------



## BravoOne (Apr 3, 2012)

" intel work can be exceedingly mentally difficult sometimes"

...despite all the military intelligence jokes floating around this is very much true. Its also a job that can make you/intel the turd in the punch bowl very easily if you dont have your stuff together as we have seen in recent years due to a few critical errors made by the National Intelligence Community.


----------



## moobob (Apr 4, 2012)

MI is very enlisted/warrant-centric. I think a lot of O's that branch directly into MI get disenchanted when they report to a unit and end up the battalion maintenance officer or the S-2 of an Air Defense Artillery unit that literally does nothing.

The vast majority of intel jobs for officers involve a lot of briefing other people's work. There are exceptions that aren't really up for discussion.


----------



## Brill (Apr 4, 2012)

BravoOne said:


> " intel work can be exceedingly mentally difficult sometimes".


 
Hours of sheer boredom with the occasional "oh shit" moments of total terror knowing that if you f' up, someone could die because of something you did or didn't do.


----------



## x SF med (Apr 4, 2012)

Marauder06 said:


> Yeah, but I'll "never be successful in SOF." ;)  _But you ate in an SOF DFAC once, right?  And issued some analysis for an operation... :-" _
> 
> Poetic_Mind What you're describing is the branch detail program. The branches that need more lieutenants (like Infantry) pair up with branches that need more captains (like MI) and let young lieutenants "branch" one branch but "detail" to another for a certain period. There are different lengths of time for different branches, but I think the usual length is 2-4 years. In my case, I was branched MI but detailed to the Infantry for four years. I'm glad I was an Infantry officer, but at the end of four years I was ready to do something different, which is about the time I reverted to my control branch.
> 
> ...


 
Good points Mara.  I was getting ready to Early Commission before I withdrew from USAR Control Group - I was going to get Infantry with an initial detail to FA for 2 years...  but I got religion and an SF contract and became an NCO.


----------



## Brill (Apr 4, 2012)

x SF med said:


> Good points Mara. I was getting ready to Early Commission before I withdrew from USAR Control Group - I was going to get Infantry with an initial detail to FA for 2 years... but *I got religion and* an SF contract and *became an NCO*.


 
I seriously do not understand why anyone would want to become an officer.  No offense intended, but I personally do enjoy watching an inexperienced sailor/solider learn his trade and then become a proficient intel bubba.  Teaching, coaching, and mentoring is the BEST part of my job.  It's like a mustache with titties...only different.


----------



## Marauder06 (Apr 4, 2012)

Well, how do you get to take credit for other peoples' work if you're not an "O"?  ;)


----------



## x SF med (Apr 5, 2012)

Marauder06 said:


> Well, how do you get to take credit for other peoples' work if you're not an "O"? ;)


 
You don't.  You become a selfless and caring mentor for young enlisted people, and for young officers - so that the Experienced Officers can take your ideas and run with them.  Of course as an NCO, scorn for those young officers and young enlisted is one of the major resources in your toolbox...  along with disdain for lazy experienced officers who spend way too much time on the golf course after taking credit for your hard work...


----------



## Marauder06 (Apr 5, 2012)

Hey, I resent that comment.....   I don't golf!  ;)


----------



## x SF med (Apr 5, 2012)

Marauder06 said:


> Hey, I resent that comment..... I don't golf! ;)


 
No you browse for clip art...  same difference... it's something useless ;)


----------



## Marauder06 (Apr 5, 2012)

Browsing sounds a lot like work, I prefer to wait for the clipart to come to me.


----------



## Chevy (Apr 14, 2012)

lindy said:


> It's like a mustache with titties...only different.


 

I like how you tied a little of Action Figure Therapy in there. Jungle Recon is truly hilarious.


----------



## Marauder06 (Apr 15, 2012)

The whole purpose of the branch detail program is to assign combat support officers to combat arms branches for the first 2-4 years of service. So if you get a branch detail of any type, you are going to start off as some type of combat arms officer. That could be infantry, armor, field artillery, or ADA, for example. There are, of course, no guarantees that you will get MI as your control branch. You could end up getting something like... I don't know... what's the worst thing out there... Signal Corps for example (@Freefalling ;) ).

But there are no guarantees either way. You could request to single-branch MI and end up in the chemical corps for example. "Needs of the Army" and all that. So I recommend you roll the dice on the branch detail. Let the Army know what you want, and see what happens. Whatever you end up being branched, be glad that you have been given the opportunity to serve your country as a commissioned officer, and be the best <insert branch here> 2LT you can be.

By the way, Signal Corps is a very good branch, it was #2 on my combat support picks when I got commissioned. I just tossed that earlier jab in there for the benefit of my good friend Freefalling, who was a signal corps officer back in the day.


----------



## Crusader74 (Apr 16, 2012)

Marauder06 said:


> The whole purpose of the branch detail program is to assign combat support officers to combat arms branches for the first 2-4 years of service. So if you get a branch detail of any type, you are going to start off as some type of combat arms officer. That could be infantry, armor, field artillery, or ADA, for example. There are, of course, no guarantees that you will get MI as your control branch. You could end up getting something like... I don't know... what's the worst thing out there... Signal Corps for example (@Freefalling ;) ).
> 
> But there are no guarantees either way. You could request to single-branch MI and end up in the chemical corps for example. "Needs of the Army" and all that. So I recommend you roll the dice on the branch detail. Let the Army know what you want, and see what happens. Whatever you end up being branched, be glad that you have been given the opportunity to serve your country as a commissioned officer, and be the best <insert branch here> 2LT you can be.
> 
> By the way, Signal Corps is a very good branch, it was #2 on my combat support picks when I got commissioned. I just tossed that earlier jab in there for the benefit of my good friend Freefalling, who was a signal corps officer back in the day.


 

If you had a specialty on commission (linguist Par exemple) would that assist in getting into MI?


----------



## Marauder06 (Apr 16, 2012)

I'm not sure exactly how it works these days, but I kind of doubt it would matter.  When I got commissioned I don't think they dug down to that degree of specificity on each cadet.  It was GPA, where you came out on the order of merit list in your ROTC program, and how you did at Advanced Camp.


----------



## Crusader74 (Apr 16, 2012)

Marauder06 said:


> I'm not sure exactly how it works these days, but I kind of doubt it would matter. When I got commissioned I don't think they dug down to that degree of specificity on each cadet. It was GPA, where you came out on the order of merit list in your ROTC program, and how you did at Advanced Camp.


 
Cheers Mara.


----------



## f12E5H (Aug 14, 2012)

My 2 cents...

While I realize it does rely on the individual to a great extent, my personal experience has been much better with MI officers that were prior branch infantry. I haven't been particularly impressed by the MI O1 to O2 gang who spend most of their time trying to cover up the fact that they don't know their jobs. I just recently came back from an Army INTEL school that had a plethora of LTs and the only one that stood out was a ranger tabbed infantry butterbar. All the MI officers just lollygagged together talking about high paying civilian jobs they could get, while blatantly cheating through the course and then complaining to instructors when they failed exams or hands on evaluations. The infantry officer got down to business and came out on top without having to resort to either. The best OIC i've had to date was an O3 MI officer prior branch infantry.

Of the few O4 OICs I've had, one was a prior enlisted analyst who did a straight shot through MI branch. He pretty much just stayed in his office his entire tour and would only come out during the occasional field problem. Even then, what he would contribute was so horribly out of date (>30 years) Korean War type stuff that it would be marginally beneficial. Didn't really foster training or care about the mission as long as nobody bothered him.

Other O4 was prior branch field artillery - that man was like the used car salesman of intel, running around selling his wares to all the O5s+ that would listen, which was actually terrific when half the battle is trying to stay relevant in big army units that don't care. It definitely worked though, the 2 had good funding and actually got to produce some really cool products during OIF.

From what I hear the intel course for initial MI branch is pretty much identical to the MI captain's career course. The biggest difference is going to be the experience you gain prior to O3, and I think being able to take different perspectives on your job will help you out later on down the line. Don't underestimate the value of credibility either, it matters a lot in a combat arms unit ;)


----------



## moobob (Aug 16, 2012)

Just to add a little detail to my post months ago since this thread was just resurrected... These observations come from the vacuum of my short time in (9 years). However, I have had a wide variety of assignments and have seen a lot of this across the board. MI does tend to have a lot of officers that think coming in that they are on the fast track to being a cool guy at an alphabet soup government agency, then come to realize that (Army) MI is 99% driven by enlisted and warrant officers. It can be an uphill battle for junior MI O's to keep a good attitude and learn how to (eventually) bring something to the table. The best ones I've known were prior Infantry officers who had a good understanding of how operations work. Even with that, you need a good mentor and that's not always available. It's hard to learn anything relevant about MI when you're an MI Branch 2LT whose first job is to be a Company XO, the Battalion Maintenance Officer, S-1, or anywhere else in the myriad of places I've seen young MI officers work.

I've also observed that a large portion of MI has weak leadership skills, either due to their personalities, or due to the fact that there aren't a whole lot of opportunities to "learn" good leadership. Being a fire team and squad leader is more conducive to that than being a Sergeant in an S-2  shop with an LT and one junior soldier where your primary function is to renew people's clearances and mail passport applications. Not saying you can't learn leadership in an office environment... just that it's more challenging as a junior leader to learn in that type of environment. Not all MI jobs work in an office, but you get my point here.

On the officer side, I tend to like the ones that come in after a branch detail more often than not. I'm not saying that's the best path. I really don't know. On the enlisted side, coming in later is hit or miss. A lot of mid/senior NCOs reclassifying into the field do not know how to put their ego aside and realize they just entered a world they know nothing about. I've met maybe two that came in as an E-6 or higher that did that and within a few years turned out to be excellent MI soldiers. The rest have been huge headaches and a liability... then of course, ride the work of their subordinates and are viewed as a success by everyone except the career MI soldiers that have to suffer under them. That last sentence is a summary of the 35M MOS as a whole if anyone is considering going into it.

Reclassifying from one intelligence discipline to another is a much easier transition.


----------



## AWP (Aug 16, 2012)

Marauder06 said:


> By the way, Signal Corps is a very good branch, it was #2 on my combat support picks when I got commissioned. I just tossed that earlier jab in there for the benefit of my good friend Freefalling, who was a signal corps officer back in the day.


 
This just appeared on my Alerts...it only took 4 months.

Signal? You couldn't pay me to go Signal on AD. rv808 is a SIGO as I recall and he has a much better perspective on it, but conventional Signal is broken IMO. If I were a SIGO on AD, I would beat on the door of every SOF or "unique" unit out there until I found a job. SF, 112th, JCSE, WHCA, 160th, JCU, the 75th, etc.

And Signal in the Guard? It is even worse there. I'd only take Signal to either A) land a job in an SF SIGDET or LRS support role or B) Just to take a commission....and either of the two would allow me to drop a packet to make a run at 18A. A Guard Signal O after CPT has a bleak future indeed.

Enlisted is a somewhat different game for the AD guys, but I'd also make tracks to go to one of the above mentioned units ASAP.

If someone were to enlist today into Signal, I would recommend 25C or 25U with an Opt. 40 contract or 25S with BAC or Opt. 40 in their contract (if you can obtain the latter as a Sierra). 2-3 years after AIT those choices would open a ton of doors in the SOF community whether you remained 25 series or "upgraded" into 18E or a SMU.


----------



## goon175 (Aug 16, 2012)

If I were going to carry a radio around, it would either be as a 35P (whch im switching to) in a SOF role or a 13F in the 75th.


----------



## x SF med (Aug 16, 2012)

Marauder06 said:


> .... where you came out on the order of merit list in your ROTC program, and how you did at Advanced Camp.


 
Recondo!   That was one thing that ticked off my PMS...  I was in the top 10% of my cycle at Advanced Camp, Glowing CTLT ER's, and was in the top 10% of my Airborne Class (never figured the criterial for that one out...)   and them spurned the O Corps and went to SF...  he was a Ranger, Pathfinder, COL with a CIB, SS, BS-V and PH....


----------

