What Is The Purpose of Intelligence?

[JBS]

Just because we haven't found WMD's yet, doesn't mean they're not there.

I'm glad you mentioned that, Razor_Baghdad.



This is one of those tough subjects that I see discussed all over the internet, and people tend to lose rational thought processes when they mix facts with opinion or facts with emotion. It is one thing to criticize the current administration about not finding the LOCATION of WMD's. It is another thing entirely different to claim- even on major media outlets- that there are "no WMD's in Iraq". It is intellectually dishonest to make such claims, since we already know that there WERE WMD's in Iraq in the recent past (through observation of the Kurdish population) for example. There are reams of footage of them getting gassed, hours of firsthand interviews with survivors, and medical evaluations by impartial medical personnel, showing the effects of chemicals.


The actual use of WMD's pretty much confirms the possession of them.

The question should never have been "does {Saddam} have WMD's?", but rather "where are the WMD's".


He had them. He used them. They are definitely somewhere.

For once, I'd like to see the media cover this matter from the proper perspective, instead of sidetracking such an important security issue with sensational political jabs.

"...yet, one of the types of intelligence is called estimative intelligence...

Is that the same as (?):


"Eventually some details that cannot be directly confirmed must be extrapolated from other, secondary evidence. "

 

[moobob]

The actual use of WMD's pretty much confirms the possession of them.

The question should never have been "does {Saddam} have WMD's?", but rather "where are the WMD's".


He had them. He used them. They are definitely somewhere.

For once, I'd like to see the media cover this matter from the proper perspective, instead of sidetracking such an important security issue with sensational political jabs.

I recently heard the opinion from someone that Saddam probably didn't have WMDs, but wanted people to think he did. Now, the only cold hard facts I know are that he had them before, and he used them, and there is no evidence showing that he destroyed them. They may have been moved, hidden, whatever.

All I know is that when I ask the Magic 8-Ball whether or not WMDs were in Iraq when we invaded, it said yes. So, I'm pretty convinced. Just because we have an inability to figure out where they went, doesn't mean they weren't there. I won't even get into the relationship between politics and intelligence...

 

[JBS]

From what I understand about the Hussein regime, it is also possible that some of his WMD's came from other, more stable nations, at a time when his regime was viewed as a stable, non-radical alternative to "other" regional influences. In other words, there may even be receipts for some of those WMD's, in the filing cabinets of certain large, powerful nations.

I'll have to read up on this. I wonder if there are any public statements readily available about sales of these weapons.

 

[irnbndr]

Right, you did state that.
I misread your post to say that intelligence is what we know.

 

[irnbndr]

I hate the send button

 

[irnbndr]

This is from a Marine Corps manual: MCDP 2 Intelligence


Intelligence strives to build as complete a picture of both the
enemy and the area of operations as possible. Such a picture is
made up of a variety of factors—the concrete and measurable,
the intangible and subjective, the environmental and cultural,
the military and political—all of which must be assessed in order
to develop the knowledge needed to support the commander’s
decisionmaking. Building this complete picture
requires that we understand and apply the characteristics of
good intelligence. Our intelligence picture must be comprehensive;
it should combine relevant basic, current, and estimative
intelligence from all levels of intelligence. It must include estimates
of both capabilities and intentions. Finally, developing
an understanding of the situation requires that we be able to
distinguish between signals and noise—that we avoid the pitfalls
of bias and preconception while interpreting collected information
as objectively as possible.(Intelligence MCDP 2, 70)


...the sole criterion for good intelligence is whether it provides sufficient knowledge regarding the environment and an understanding of the enemy’s
capabilities, limitations, and intentions to effectively support the commander’s planning and decisionmaking. (Intelligence MCDP 2, 71)

I especially like to part about distnguishing between signals and noise and avoiding biased opinions and preconveived notions. Objectivity is crucial.

On another note, Jarheads are actually smart! Who'da thunk?

 

[moobob]

I will second that. The Marine Corps Intelligence Activity (MCIA) does EXCELLENT work. I use their products for all sorts of stuff.

 

[Paddlefoot]

It's about finding your enemy (target) and more importantly, knowing him.

What drives him, what's his intent, what will disrupt his activites. Intel isn't just about information, it's about figuring out what to do with that info when it becomes available. That's the commander's job, and he can't just look at the info he's being given as the end all/be all.

And bear in mind, sometimes even the best intel, stuff that is spot on and solid, might not keep everything from going to shit anyway.

 

[Rabid Badger]

And bear in mind, sometimes even the best intel, stuff that is spot on and solid, might not keep everything from going to shit anyway.

and that's where we come in.....and make 'em look good.....as if.... :confused::confused:

A lot of our teams have gone to using our own generated intel...whodathunkit?

Ever wonder why? :doh::doh:

 

[SgtUSMC8541]

What Is The Purpose of Intelligence?

To not take the fat chick home?

 

[Swill]

Ever wonder why? :doh::doh:

'Cuz Huachuca couldn't teach a whore how to fuck if their life depended on it.

 

[JBS]

On another note, Jarheads are actually smart! Who'da thunk?

Aww, shucks! We's ne'er been one's fer book learnin' and such!;)

"What drives him, what's his intent, what will disrupt his activites."

Do intelligence analysts go on to decide what types of activities would disrupt an enemy's activities? I would think perhaps this aspect of the chain-of-progression might be better decided by the recipient of the intelligence product.

Intel isn't just about information, it's about figuring out what to do with that info when it becomes available.

Same question. At what point does the gathering of intelligence, the analysis of intelligence, and the rendering of conclusions end?

Should intelligence be completely sterile, devoid of conclusions- leaving the client / customer to draw his own? I'd guess there is a balance between objectivity and actually producing usable data, in a digestible format.


I ask this question since so much of intelligence work is apparently compartmentalized. An analyst may not have access to other parts of the puzzle. From where he sits, that elephant may appear to be a flat, leathery wall. Another analyst- working via a different set of mediums- might see a tree trunk. Since much of intelligence- especially as it relates to combat operations- is a living, breathing thing- and evolves by the second, I believe more of the "conclusions" should be left to the commander on the battlefield, and perhaps just a little bit more "raw".

Of course, as little as I know about this subject, I'm just speculating.

 

[FNG_tracker]

'Cuz Huachuca couldn't teach a whore how to fuck if their life depended on it.

ouch....
I will admit we graduate our fair share of retards, and let students go that should not, but belive me its not the instructors here that want that. Its all about stats and QTB and crap like that. In the end, its the CDRs decsion if the student stays or goes. If they leave because of acdamic reasons, its a failure on their part and their OERs reflect that. I have fought that crap since i got here. I have seen soldiers go through the same course and test the same material 3 times and still get pushed through the system to keep up the commpany stats. The biggest issue here is the all the MI MOSs train sepeartely and dont share crap. They need to work togther here first before they get out to the big army and see how each MI job helps each other out. the system here is definately broken.

...

 

[Swill]

ouch....
I will admit we graduate our fair share of retards, and let students go that should not, but belive me its not the instructors here that want that. Its all about stats and QTB and crap like that. In the end, its the CDRs decsion if the student stays or goes. If they leave because of acdamic reasons, its a failure on their part and their OERs reflect that. I have fought that crap since i got here. I have seen soldiers go through the same course and test the same material 3 times and still get pushed through the system to keep up the commpany stats. The biggest issue here is the all the MI MOSs train sepeartely and dont share crap. They need to work togther here first before they get out to the big army and see how each MI job helps each other out. the system here is definately broken.

...

PM Inbound.

 

[car]

At what point does the gathering of intelligence, the analysis of intelligence, and the rendering of conclusions end?

It's a cycle.

 

[pardus]

It's a cycle.

I see.... :cool:

 

[car]

I see.... :cool:

LMFAO!

 

[JBS]

LOL!


It goes the other way in the Southern Hemisphere too!

 

[RackMaster]

I see.... :cool:

LMFAO!

;) I think that "cycle" is turning in the wrong direction though.

 

[pardus]

Southern Hemisphere Intel! ;)