What Is The Purpose of Intelligence?

[LongTabSigO]

The purpose of intelligence is to acquire, process, and disseminate timely, accurate, predictive and contextualized assessments of the operational environment in order to provide early warning, prevent surprise, and enable operational decisonmaking.

The problem here is you have the "how" before you state the why (i.e. "the purpose"). Also, you use "Operational" twice and serves to limit your definitional scope and be redundant.

Reordering your words, consider: The purpose of intelligence is to enable decisonmaking by disseminating timely, accurate, predictive and contextualized assessments of the operational environment in order to provide early warning and/or prevent surprise.

 

[LongTabSigO]

Finish to edit above (since the 15 min window expired).

I would prefer: "The purpose of intelligence is to support decisonmaking by disseminating timely, accurate, predictive and contextualized assessments of the operational environment in order to provide early warning and/or prevent surprise."

 

[Marauder06]

I disagree slightly with regard to "enable" vs. "support." If "enable" means "to provide with the means or opportunity," to make possible," or "to cause to operate," I think that it is a better choice of words. "Support," while meaning "to promote the interests or cause of," or "to serve as the foundation for" is also a good word choice, I think "enable" is a better choice of words to reflect intel's function and purpose.

 

[LongTabSigO]

If Intel were the sole function, I'd agree with your application of the "enable" definition. But, that is not the case. And you know that.

Also, since you want to expand scope beyond purely military purpose, enable implies a degree of control not as appropriate for non-military functions.

 

[Manolito]

The one thing that intelligence did a long time ago was pass information between stove pipes. We had free fire zones that required no permission to light up. Often operators were in those areas and without intelligence information we would have had a lot more casualties of friendly fire.
The thing we developed among ourselves were the day to day information that included new hide places. New traffic patterns. New engines on a certain area of the river. This information was never handed to us in briefings but was invaluable in the field.
Tuefel hit the nail for my time anyway. We were often given the order patrol sector x we would ask anything new in the area and were often told we don't have any new intel on that area.
I slept good when intel said we were going to get hit. When the local didn't set up the fruit stand outside the wire I didn't sleep.
Remembering this was a long time ago.

 

[Diamondback 2/2]

I would apply some K.I.S.S. to your role definition.

JAB Example: Intel provides collected information and analyses in order to assist in the planning process.

 

[Crusader74]

"A product of collecting, evaluating, analysis, integration and interpretation of all available information on an enemy and his area of operations of immediate or potential significance to ones own planning and operations..

 

[SpitfireV]

I think you can't define the purpose of intelligence overall (encompassing all types, military, LE, Squirrelly, et al) because they're all so very different. Some of the collection techniques are similar (from my limited observation) but as to the actual purpose, they're all different.

In saying that I came up with this rough purpose this morning:

"The purpose of intelligence is to analyse information and disseminate it to those who might benefit from it."

Thoughts?

 

[Diamondback 2/2]

I would say it can be defined, but not with any depth. Hints my K.I.S.S. post earlier, instead of trying to jock it up to some “high speed statement”, take it down the most very basic purpose of Intel for all fields (LE, MIL, ect). When I read “drives ops or enables ops” I think yeah fucking right, it does none of a sort… Makes me think of that movie “Joe Dirt” where he is being interviewed and says his name is “Joe Dirteh” and the interviewer says “don’t try to church it up son, don’t you mean Joe Dirt”

I laughed my ass off when I read this from one of RB’s first posts, b/c it’s been pretty well the case with the conventional side of the house as well…

Sometimes not the case because we, as thinking on our feet SOF professionals, 'read' the intel and make our own assessments, arriving at and reacting on our own judgements. In other words, We fukn make those jackass Intel weenies look good, even though we had Shitty Intel.

 

[LongTabSigO]

"A product of collecting, evaluating, analysis, integration and interpretation of all available information on an enemy and his area of operations of immediate or potential significance to ones own planning and operations..

This may "define" intelligence, but the question on the table is "for what reason do we have/use intelligence".

 

[AWP]

This may "define" intelligence, but the question on the table is "for what reason do we have/use intelligence".

To support the execution of the commander's intent.

Were I a commander, I'd rather have comm than intel, but I digress....

 

[x SF med]

This may "define" intelligence, but the question on the table is "for what reason do we have/use intelligence".

To keep soldiers alive by giving them insight into the objective.

 

[LongTabSigO]

To support the execution of the commander's intent.

Were I a commander, I'd rather have comm than intel, but I digress....

Well, if you're going to "there"...I thought it important to make the lesser functions feel important.

 

[Diamondback 2/2]

There is no doubt in anyone’s mind that Intel is a very important piece of the pie, but to what level is determined by the commander/soldier on the ground.

Comm’s, Intel, SR, Air Support and ground forces/support are all integrated pieces of the planning process. However you can drop several from that list and still conduct operations, or in many cases can be forced to conduct ops without those pieces in place in your planning. Which piece is more important than the other? Neither, it’s 100% mission dependent. I have been on missions without all of the above, comms fails, no Intel, SR was us, Air was too far out for any use and we were our own support. That is all too common and to what drove or enabled those missions was nothing more than a rag-tag platoon of Infantry getting shit done.

I guess my point is that all though I love good support such as Intel, Comms (everything I listed above); none of them drive/enable the operation. Now in some case they may be the mission, or a mission may come down b/c of their work. I just would not make it part of their defining role. They are a tool in the war fighter/leaders tool box to be utilized as needed. The same way everything else I listed is nothing more than a tool to be used when needed, if the tool breaks or won’t work then we find a way around it.

 

[Marauder06]

Don't remember if I posted this already or not- this is what the new (March 2010) version of FM 2-0 says about the purpose of intel:

1-16. The purpose of intelligence is to provide commanders and staffs with timely, relevant, accurate,
predictive, and tailored intelligence about the enemy and other aspects of the AO. Intelligence supports the
planning, preparing, execution, and assessment of operations. The most important role of intelligence is to
drive operations by supporting the commander’s decisionmaking.

I think I like some of the suggestions I've read here better than what's in the FM.

 

[LongTabSigO]

From Joint Pub 2-0:
The primary function of joint intelligence is to provide information and assessments to facilitate accomplishment of the mission. This function is supported by more-specific “purposes of joint intelligence” (described below) to guide the intelligence directorate of a joint staff (J-2) staff and those of supporting organizations:

Inform the commander
Identify, define, and nominate objectives
Support the planning and execution of operations
Counter adversary deception and surprise
Support friendly deception efforts
Assess the effects of operations

 

[Polar Bear]

Intelligence comes from the Latin verb "intelligence", which means "to understand".

Class dismissed, Test this Friday

an·a·lyze/ˈanlˌīz/Verb
1. Examine methodically and in detail the constitution or structure of (something, esp. information), typically for purposes of explanation and interpretation.


Analysis is the process of breaking a complex topic or substance into smaller parts to gain a better understanding of it.

 

[LongTabSigO]

an·a·lyze/ˈanlˌīz/Verb
1. Examine methodically and in detail the constitution or structure of (something, esp. information), typically for purposes of explanation and interpretation.


Analysis is the process of breaking a complex topic or substance into smaller parts to gain a better understanding of it.

That's interesting. Not particularly on point with the question at hand, but an appreciated contribution.

 

[pardus]

That's interesting. Not particularly on point with the question at hand, but an appreciated contribution.

Thats a very diplomatic way of saying PB's a tard, well done

 

[JBS]

In defining intelligence, I noticed a few posts where there was an attempt at trying to convey two things:

• the nature of action that friendly forces might take, based on information
• the nature of action that enemy forces might take, based on information

For example this type of verbiage:

...to facilitate accomplishment of the mission.

And here:

Counter adversary deception and surprise
Support friendly deception efforts

And here:

To support the execution of the commander's intent.

In the FM's:

The most important role of intelligence is to drive operations

In each of these cases, there is the overlapping theme, using synonymous terminology. There is mention of surprise (as in, "we want to surprise the enemy whenever possible"), as well as preventing surprise against friendly forces. From my perspective the one word that can apply almost universally to all these various themes is the one word that everyone in the chain of command can readily identify with. It is the concept of initiative. Warfighters want to establish, gain, sieze, and keep the initiative in every operation, every mission, every strategy. And we want to actively prevent the enemy from ever gaining the initiative. When friendlies have the initiative, then by definition the enemy does not have it. Initiative is everything, since the force that is causing the other side to react is the force which has the initiative. Intelligence can disclose so many different aspects of the enemy's disposition, but the end result (or the objective) is to give advantage to friendlies so that we can sieze the initiative, and deny the enemy the ability or opportunity to seize the initiative from us. Whatever else happens- whatever tactics, covert means, SIGINT, HUMINT, and other sources, these are methods and avenues to the same destination, in my opinion: seizing and keeping the initiative.

So, coming from this perspective, I propose the following alternative verbiage:

"The primary function of intelligence is to provide information and assessments to facilitate accomplishment of the mission, by aiding friendly forces to seize and actively maintain the initiative."