# Int to CSIS?



## Nauticus

Hey there,

Quick question here that I'm curious about. I did do a search, but I found no information on this particular subject.

I've been in contact with the Canadian Forces for a while, and I'm working towards starting my military career in either infantry or armour. That is all well and good. I later want to remuster as an Intelligence Operator and work as that for a number of years. That, also, is well and good.

My question is in relation to CSIS. I've spoken to CSIS over the phone, and they have informed me that they are looking for somebody "with a degree, related experience, or a willingness to learn". However, I asked one of their respresentitives if Military Intelligence is 'related experience', and he said that, in his opinion, you cannot re-train military people.

What is your opinion on this? Does anybody have any useful information about going from Intl to CSIS? That is one of my goals (military for the experience, CSIS for the money). Any suggestions?

_Edited to change the use of 'intl'._


----------



## Greymatters

Nauticus said:
			
		

> However, I asked one of their respresentitives if Military Intelligence is 'related experience', and he said that, in his opinion, you cannot re-train military people.



Its a load of BS, but thats what many of them believe...  

_Oh, and it's 'Int', not 'Intel' - the former is the Canadian usage, the latter is American usage._


----------



## Nauticus

My apologies. Intl it is, then!

I completely agree that it's BS, because I see an entire career in the military as an ongoing learning experience. But when the the guys at CSIS are making the decisions, we don't have a choice. I also don't know if it's the general opinion of CSIS, or just the respresentitive I spoke to.

I suppose I'm just looking for general info, opinions, about it. My dream is to work for CSIS, but I feel like I would be missing an important part of my life if I didn't pursue the Forces. I have a very military family, and I have a ton of pride for my country, and the military has so many experiences that I would love to have done. Is this a sort of "one or the other" choice?


----------



## armchair_throwaway

Maybe you can check out CSE (Communications Security Establishment). http://www.cse-cst.gc.ca/index-e.html 

From my research on the Communicator Research Operator trade, there was a thread that mentioned ex-291 working at CSE. 
Some full-time positions they offer:

Foreign Language Intelligence Analysts
Electrical/Computer/Systems Engineers
Mathematicians/Cryptographers
Help Desk/Sys Admin
OTHER - General Application Inventory
Computer Scientists - Programmer/Developer
Administration/Clerical Inventory
Financial Analysts (Inventory)
Human Resource Professionals (Inventory)
Telecommunications/Protocol/Network Analysts
IT Security Analysts
Intelligence Analysts (Technical)


----------



## Nauticus

That's very interesting! Thank you for that information. Researching up on it now


----------



## lou-reed

If you do not have a degree CSIS will not even talk to you - other than to say come see us again when you have a degree.  They will not budge from that requirement.  I am not sure but I do not think that CSE will look at you without a degree.  

Do not join CSIS for the money.  The starting salary is low and it is not negiocable - even with previous related experience. 

If you want more info PM me.


----------



## Greymatters

lou-reed said:
			
		

> Do not join CSIS for the money.  The starting salary is low and it is not negiocable - even with previous related experience.



I would emphasize that I am not saying 'dont work for them'.  Although there are differences of opinion between intelligence services, CSIS is still recognized as providing valuable services and they have some really good people.  There are however differences of opinion on certain subjects, plus very different work environments and organizational cultures.  

And of course, when they talk about 're-training' military people, what they really mean is they dont want to have to deal with a former CF member saying how much better it was in the CF.   ;D

_Additional - Its not INTL, its INT !!!   _


----------



## medaid

Greymatter, because we KNOW that's true  it is better to work for the Branch.


----------



## George Wallace

lou-reed said:
			
		

> If you do not have a degree CSIS will not even talk to you - other than to say come see us again when you have a degree.  They will not budge from that requirement.  I am not sure but I do not think that CSE will look at you without a degree.
> 
> Do not join CSIS for the money.  The starting salary is low and it is not negiocable - even with previous related experience.
> 
> If you want more info PM me.



And unlike other Gov't Depts, they will not give you more than a week off at a time for Military Trg.  Their "Turnover Rate" is very high.  However, if you are a guy, there are some other very 'visual' benefits.   ;D

Take everything you hear from your source, and here, with a grain of salt.   You probably just witnessed a "D*** measuring contest".


----------



## dapaterson

lou-reed said:
			
		

> Do not join CSIS for the money.  The starting salary is low and it is not negiocable - even with previous related experience.



This is under consideration at senior levels of the organization.  The need to attract talent, sometimes with previous experience in related fields, is changing mindsets and leading to the realization that people won't shift mid-career to joinat below market wages.

Finally, the "No military" was a personal opinion, not a formal policy.


----------



## Nauticus

Thanks for the help guys!


----------



## blacktriangle

Does CSIS have any recruiters per say that can be spoken with in person in Ottawa?


----------



## EW

dapaterson said:
			
		

> Finally, the "No military" was a personal opinion, not a formal policy.



100% true.  Such a policy would be illegal.  Education criteria can be set for hiring, but not a ban on recruits with a military background.  Each application is weighed individually - but first you have to get past the background threshold of thousands of applications, which you can be sure includes a healthy dose of military personnel.  

There are retired military personnel throughout the various services in Canada; but, they normally get hired for specific skills/experience.   Heavy emphasis on proven experience.  Int Op/Officer, and Comm Rsch can provide opportunities to work at the civilian agencies and make contacts and look for employment opportunities.  You still have to be pretty damn good at whatever they might look at your for, and show potential to move beyond that specific skill.  People who do so without a degree are very much the exception, and the odds are slim and unpredictable.  Whatever you do for the next few years - do it VERY well.


----------



## Nauticus

Thanks for the reply!

I've had some very helpful replies and help from you guys, and an idea was suggested to me that I hadn't considered. I already have some post-secondary education behind me, but I could do my thing with the military, and look into going distance education at RMC. That would solve the degree problem.

Thanks again for all the help, guys!


----------



## blacktriangle

Nauticus said:
			
		

> distance education at RMC.



That's what I'm doing too, I have heard from others that it is a very good experience. 

Back on topic, and without straying into too much OPSEC, would passing the HCAP and having that type of background be looked upon favourably? Feel free to PM me with an answer, anyone.


----------



## stegner

Just so you know CSIS does hire people without university degrees-just not as Intelligence Officers.   Positions such as surveillant do not require a degree.


----------



## Nauticus

stegner said:
			
		

> Just so you know CSIS does hire people without university degrees-just not as Intelligence Officers.   Positions such as surveillant do not require a degree.


Oh?

I could just be an idiot, but I'm looking on their website and I see two options. The first is a career as an Intelligence Officer, and they have 'support' positions, like scientists, information specialists, engineers, etc.

But Intelligence Officer would be what I'd target, years down the road.


----------



## X-mo-1979

stegner said:
			
		

> Just so you know CSIS does hire people without university degrees-just not as Intelligence Officers.   Positions such as surveillant do not require a degree.



Can you direct me towards surveillance as I couldn't see it on the CSIS webpage.


----------



## blacktriangle

X-mo-1979 said:
			
		

> Can you direct me towards surveillance as I couldn't see it on the CSIS webpage.



http://www.csis.gc.ca/crrs/pprtnts/2008-0009-eng.asp

Looks like you need a college diploma though (Police Foundations anyone?) and the pay starts off similar to Cpl/MCpl. I was reading up on it last night, maybe if you're in the area you can talk to someone from the service? 

Cheers.


----------



## X-mo-1979

Thanks.
Looks real interesting,now how to get 2 years of school... ;D


----------



## blacktriangle

Yea I saw that too, rolled my eyes, and the proceeded to print the page out and put it in my "10 years from now" file. 

Good luck.


----------



## Nauticus

Interesting. Looking at the surveillant's job description, that's the stuff I actually thought a CSIS Intelligence Officer would do. Now I'm at a loss as to what an Intelligence Officer does


----------



## medaid

Nauticus said:
			
		

> Interesting. Looking at the surveillant's job description, that's the stuff I actually thought a CSIS Intelligence Officer would do. Now I'm at a loss as to what an Intelligence Officer does



They sort, collate, document, disseminate, filter etc etc etc.



			
				silver said:
			
		

> Yeah they used to need peeps in a whole load of cities but poor old Van is the only one left on the list now.. guess nobody wants to watch all the drug gangs and Olympics stuff



There's a reason why Vancouver is still left on the list...



Surveillants are regional positions and are hired and retained by their respective regions. Languages are an asset, the ability to blend in to the local population is also highly looked upon.


----------



## twistedcables

CSIS agents are also unarmed, have no powers of arrest and do almost zero self-defense trg.  MANY of its agents are fresh university grads who would get their butts kicked in an on-the-ground encounter scenario.  I'd rather work in the military thanks!

Dont bother calling - they wont return calls no matter how many messages you leave - apply first then figure everything else out.

As for having a military background - it does'nt really matter: CSIS operates in a civilian context which comes with its own objectives. Yes, the skill set overlaps at places but you should recognize the differences.


----------



## Nauticus

twistedcables said:
			
		

> CSIS agents are also unarmed, have no powers of arrest and do almost zero self-defense trg.  MANY of its agents are fresh university grads who would get their butts kicked in an on-the-ground encounter scenario.  I'd rather work in the military thanks!
> 
> Dont bother calling - they wont return calls no matter how many messages you leave - apply first then figure everything else out.
> 
> As for having a military background - it does'nt really matter: CSIS operates in a civilian context which comes with its own objectives. Yes, the skill set overlaps at places but you should recognize the differences.


I question the relevance of the butts kicked point you made  CSIS and the military do two very different things...


----------



## Greywolf

I would say military experience would be considered related experience.  Whoever told you it's not is wrong.  A degree is a mandatory requirement to be an intelligence officer.  As for intelligence officers doing surveillance work...let me say the surveillants will be the experts in this area.  

The intelligence officer has 2 main roles: investigator and analyst.  Investigators perform the fieldwork while the analyst sorts through the information collected and provides direction to the investigators.  However, it's not a one way process.  It's more of a circular process.  

If you want to talk to somebody, job fairs are held at major universities and colleges every year.  There are some running now this time of the year.


----------



## Nauticus

Thanks for the info.

I actually start my career in the military on October 13 in St. Jean. After some years in the Combat Arms, I plan on looking towards the Intelligence Branch of the Forces. Whenever I conclude my career with the military, and have my degree, I hope I'll be a competitive candidate for CSIS.


----------



## Retired AF Guy

Greywolf said:
			
		

> I would say military experience would be considered related experience.  Whoever told you it's not is wrong.



Actually, the only similarities between the CF Intelligence Branch and CSIS is that they both have "intelligence" in their titles. Their jobs, how they operate (e.g. CF personnel are not allowed to collect information on Canadian citizens) and hence their mindset (military vs civilian) are completely different . 



> As for intelligence officers doing surveillance work...let me say the surveillants will be the experts in this area.



True. The IO would tell the surveillance pers who to monitor, but, is unlikely (I could be wrong) to actually take part in the actual surveillance   



> Investigators perform the fieldwork while the analyst sorts through the information collected and provides direction to the investigators.



Once the analyst has done his/her thing, the finished int product would be disseminated far and wide, including back to the IO in the field. However, its the managers/supervisors who would actually provide direction to the IO (Again, I could be wrong).   



> However, it's not a one way process.  It's more of a circular process.



Again, true. Its  called the  intelligence cycle


----------



## Redeye

"No military" is bollocks.  I'm nearly through the selection process and during my selection interview they were very interested in what little experience I had in the first place.

Agreed about not joining for the money - starting salary is $50,000.  Period.  If you aren't fluent in both official languages, you're going to Ottawa right away to language school, and if you need more than - 18 weeks? I think it is - you're moving there on your own time (first posting moves aren't paid for)  In that case you do your analyst rotation first, and your field posting afterward at a regional office.

Be prepared for a long process, though.  I applied last February and am still two interviews and completion of my security clearance upgrade away from the hiring.


----------



## PanaEng

Retired AF Guy said:
			
		

> Actually, the only similarities between the CF Intelligence Branch and CSIS is that they both have "intelligence" in their titles. Their jobs, how they operate (e.g. CF personnel are not allowed to collect information on Canadian citizens) and hence their mindset (military vs civilian) are completely different .


 
Actually, the difference is more in the focus. Military intelligence is more to do with what an opponents intentions are and provide this data to the planners/decision makers. CISIS could be involved in intelligence for security (tightly integrated with law enforcement agencies) at a national level, political, economical, etc. Hence the requirement for higher education for the IO. 
For this they would coordinate with CSE, RCMP, the military and other partner agencies (US, UK, etc.) if required. And it could involve electronic or personal surveillance (very strict warrants are required), open source data analysis, UC operators posing as businessmen or sympathizers, etc.
As you stated, the process is slightly different as well.

However, now that we have the "unmentionable" unit, their intel requirements are well beyond the traditional Intel Ops/Officer training and more like that of CSIS; therefore, there is a need for skill setts that would be an asset if you would try later to switch to CSIS. 

for those getting their panties in knots: this is not OPSEC!
and it is not TS, S, or C or protected C, B or A for those that at least know the difference  - all open source 

and even then, I may not know what I am talking about...   ;D


----------



## Redeye

Retired AF Guy said:
			
		

> Actually, the only similarities between the CF Intelligence Branch and CSIS is that they both have "intelligence" in their titles. Their jobs, how they operate (e.g. CF personnel are not allowed to collect information on Canadian citizens) and hence their mindset (military vs civilian) are completely different .



The CSIS Act also forbids the Service from conducting any sort of covert investigation against any Canadian entities - Canadian businesses, citizens, and permanent residents.




			
				Retired AF Guy said:
			
		

> True. The IO would tell the surveillance pers who to monitor, but, is unlikely (I could be wrong) to actually take part in the actual surveillance
> 
> Once the analyst has done his/her thing, the finished int product would be disseminated far and wide, including back to the IO in the field. However, its the managers/supervisors who would actually provide direction to the IO (Again, I could be wrong).
> 
> Again, true. Its  called the  intelligence cycle



Also true from what I'm learning (again, all open source).


----------



## PanaEng

Redeye said:
			
		

> The CSIS Act also forbids the Service from conducting any sort of covert investigation against any Canadian entities - Canadian businesses, citizens, and permanent residents.



I think you may be confusing it with CSE, CSIS does collect intel from Canadians; re: Maher Arar, etc.

cheers,
Frank


----------



## George Wallace

PanaEng said:
			
		

> for those getting their panties in knots: this is not OPSEC!
> and it is not TS, S, or C or protected C, B or A for those that at least know the difference  - all open source
> 
> and even then, I may not know what I am talking about...   ;D



Unfortunate that you have stated that.  OPSEC.  Where do most Intelligence gathering agencies get most of their information?  Open Source.  So, your little statement that this is all Open Source does not mean that the information you just blurted out is "UNIMPORTANT".  It just means that it isn't CLASSIFIED and if released could become a Security Breach and a Chargable Offence.  Even though it may not be CLASSIFIED, it is still IMPORTANT and is a matter of OPSEC.

As well your last comment could also be considered a bit of a breach of Personal OPSEC and interesting to anyone who "may be interested" in YOU.


----------



## Redeye

PanaEng said:
			
		

> I think you may be confusing it with CSE, CSIS does collect intel from Canadians; re: Maher Arar, etc.
> 
> cheers,
> Frank



From the CSIS Act:

16. (1) Subject to this section, the Service may, in relation to the defence of Canada or the conduct of the international affairs of Canada, assist the Minister of National Defence or the Minister of Foreign Affairs, within Canada, in the collection of information or intelligence relating to the capabilities, intentions or activities of 

(a) any foreign state or group of foreign states; or

(b) any person other than 

(i) a Canadian citizen,

(ii) a permanent resident within the meaning of subsection 2(1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, or

(iii) a corporation incorporated by or under an Act of Parliament or of the legislature of a province.

Now, as it this restriction basically only covers covert activities (for lack of a better description) - but there is partnership with RCMP and other agencies as well that covers domestic parties.


----------



## PanaEng

George Wallace said:
			
		

> Unfortunate that you have stated that.  OPSEC.  Where do most Intelligence gathering agencies get most of their information?  Open Source.  So, your little statement that this is all Open Source does not mean that the information you just blurted out is "UNIMPORTANT".  It just means that it isn't CLASSIFIED and if released could become a Security Breach and a Chargable Offence.  Even though it may not be CLASSIFIED, it is still IMPORTANT and is a matter of OPSEC.
> 
> As well your last comment could also be considered a bit of a breach of Personal OPSEC and interesting to anyone who "may be interested" in YOU.



Not quite. Yes, open sources are the primary source of intelligence for all/most intel orgs. But open source is unclassified/not protected. Sure there could be information out there that is considered to cause "injury to the national interest" (definition of CONFIDENTIAL) and the gov. agency responsible could take steps to remove it but that just brings attention to it and brackets its level of importance. However, once the OS information is collected, that becomes subject to protection/classification - not the data itself per say but the fact that the agency is interested in that data and is analyzing it. So, what you say that it isn't classified is correct but its release could be a security breach is false unless it is linked to a file/operation/department/gov. agency.

Is what I said OPSEC? ...NO. Is it sensitive? NO
Only the most naive observer that has not done any reading of what is publicly available on gov publications and gov web pages - in plain but somewhat lawyerly/gov speak - not to mention books and media would consider that a revelation. Furthermore, I, as a non-authoritative person on a public forum, am not linking that information to agents, plans, operations or concluded files. Therefore, not Operational Security.

Is what I said protected? NO. It is right on the clear in gov publications/web.
Is it classified? NO. Same thing.
Is it important? That depends. Foreign gov, organized crime, terrorists? NO it is old news. But it may be important for the young fellow who was asking the questions initially.

Is my current employment information classified or protected? (just the basic facts). No, I am fully researchable and discoverable. 

However, I agree that the whole issue is a bit tricky and it is easy to mess up so it is best to play it safe in general if you are unsure. So, "when in doubt shut your mouth" is a safe motto.

Perhaps my approach is a bit too out-there and for that I apologize.

cheers,
Frank


----------



## daftandbarmy

The best thing about military intelligence is that you actually get to be see things destroyed/fixed/actioned as a result of your work. My understanding of CSIS is that it can be a very frustrating experience where lots of int is gathered, and then never used.

Pushed for a choice, the military route seems to be the most fun at any rate. And, if you wanted to, you could later covert that experience to just about anything really cool in the civilian security and intelligence sector. That is, if you ever get bored with getting things 'all blowed up' and stuff  ;D


----------



## PanaEng

Redeye said:
			
		

> From the CSIS Act:
> 
> 16. (1) Subject to this section, the Service may, in relation to the defence of Canada or the conduct of the international affairs of Canada, assist the Minister of National Defence or the Minister of Foreign Affairs, within Canada, in the collection of information or intelligence relating to the capabilities, intentions or activities of
> (deleted)
> Now, as it this restriction basically only covers covert activities (for lack of a better description) - but there is partnership with RCMP and other agencies as well that covers domestic parties.


That's is quite correct. And I haven't had time to search the text; however, this para seems to preclude this activity in relation to assistance to DND and FA. As far as I can recall, they can seek a search warrant and proceed independently and then inform the RCMP for action or other dept. if required.


----------



## PanaEng

daftandbarmy said:
			
		

> The best thing about military intelligence is that you actually get to be see things destroyed/fixed/actioned as a result of your work. My understanding of CSIS is that it can be a very frustrating experience where lots of int is gathered, and then never used.
> 
> Pushed for a choice, the military route seems to be the most fun at any rate. And, if you wanted to, you could later covert that experience to just about anything really cool in the civilian security and intelligence sector. That is, if you ever get bored with getting things 'all blowed up' and stuff  ;D



That's the best description of the difference that I have seen.


----------



## George Wallace

PanaEng said:
			
		

> So, what you say that it isn't classified is correct but its release could be a security breach is false unless it is linked to a file/operation/department/gov. agency.



Just a small point, but that is not what I said.


----------



## PanaEng

George Wallace said:
			
		

> Just a small point, but that is not what I said.


I must have not read clearly. Mea culpa.

cheers,
Frank


----------



## Greymatters

daftandbarmy said:
			
		

> The best thing about military intelligence is that you actually get to be see things destroyed/fixed/actioned as a result of your work. My understanding of CSIS is that it can be a very frustrating experience where lots of int is gathered, and then never used.  Pushed for a choice, the military route seems to be the most fun at any rate. And, if you wanted to, you could later covert that experience to just about anything really cool in the civilian security and intelligence sector. That is, if you ever get bored with getting things 'all blowed up' and stuff  ;D



And anything more detailed than that would be OPSEC (if not classified) ...


----------



## TimBit

First post here. So hello all!

Speaking from experience (in intelligence and the military, not necessarily at the same time) and contacts in most intelligence functions... CSIS doesn't like the military. In fact they do not really like anybody but themselves (ouch...). Seriously though, there is a certain presumption, particularly strong over there, that military members will not have the "finesse", the "subtlety" to do the IO job in respect of canadian laws. There is also a belief that military action eventually ends up making their job harder, perpetuating the terror cycle... I'll leave you to judge that belief. Nevertheless, they still are aspiring to become a key provider of intelligence to the CF. Which they will never be, exactly because of this "mindset"...funny that they should reproach the military for having a certain "mindset" in the first place.


----------



## Pete H

TimBit said:
			
		

> First post here. So hello all!
> 
> Speaking from experience (in intelligence and the military, not necessarily at the same time) and contacts in most intelligence functions... CSIS doesn't like the military. In fact they do not really like anybody but themselves (ouch...). Seriously though, there is a certain presumption, particularly strong over there, that military members will not have the "finesse", the "subtlety" to do the IO job in respect of canadian laws. There is also a belief that military action eventually ends up making their job harder, perpetuating the terror cycle... I'll leave you to judge that belief. Nevertheless, they still are aspiring to become a key provider of intelligence to the CF. Which they will never be, exactly because of this "mindset"...funny that they should reproach the military for having a certain "mindset" in the first place.



I recently had a conversation with a family member who has been in CSIS since its inception, and he echoed these exact same sentiments.


----------



## dapaterson

Interestingly, my exeriences with CSIS personnel have been dramatically different.  They are able to draw the distinction between members of the military, and impacts of military actions, and understand that there may be second or third order effects to military actions - and that conflict resolution does not mean "kill them all", but rather the establishment of a civil society.  Oddly enough, military COIN doctrine is founded on the same precepts.

The Canadian military intelligence community has still not realized that we are not still engaged with massive soviet formations racing through the Fulda Gap, and have yet to amend their training.  (To be fair, individual members rail against the failings of the training system to respond to change, and the slow pace of institutional change in the CF is not limited to the Int branch.)  Their focus is on low-level tactical issues; even the Chief of Defence Intelligence has yet to adopt much of a perspective beyond the tactical.

The CF's insecurities and inferiority complex vis a vis the Americans have lead to the creation of the dot COM HQs and now a growing desire to have something similar to the DSA.  Whether such a need exists or whether the CF should be forced out of its insular little world to deal with other governmental agencies on a formalized basis is an important policy decision that needs to be made by government.  Indeed, any expansion of military intelligence capability requires well-defined civilian oversight and control, to ensure its use remains consistent with Canadian values and law.

The CSIS personnel I have met at all levels up to Deputy Director have been informed, intelligent and capable, and displayed no bias against the military.  Perhaps the fact that I didn't go in with a chip on my shoulder had something to do with that.  Or that I approached them as professional peers with whom I could have a frank exchange of ideas and information (within the bounds permitted).

Attitude counts for a lot - if you go in with one, don't be surprised if you get one right back at you.


----------



## TimBit

Interesting post dapaterson! My dealings with CSIS have also been on a peer-to-peer level, not as a military, and have found them to be competitive to the extreme. They are very agressive in protecting and expanding their turf, I found. As well I have faced the idea that we all work for them... that they are the supreme intelligence body in Canada.

In the past however, as a prospective employee, I had clearly been told that military experience was not a plus for employment, and that they were not looking for people with a "military mindset".

I do however agree with you on the reform of Military int... in fact, this links quite nicely with many of the posts in here that have expressed dismay at DEO enrollment of INT O's. Recruiting directly from universities for a part of the trade's establishment promote, in my view, an open mind and a possible driving factor towards new problems and new solutions to them. One of the problems of the whole intelligence community is , I think, the traditional concentration of strategic analysis within a few very set bodies, i.e. PCOIAS, which presents the interesting situation of an all-source analysis shop without an intelligence collector, planning or disseminator culture in the organisation. CDI definitely has the potential, as an all source collector, of actively participating in the whole cycle of intelligence in Canada, on a strategic and tactical level. I think the times are very fluid for the organisagtion of intelligence in Canada. Time will tell what the direction will be, and ultimately how that will influence CDI.


----------



## George Wallace

TimBit said:
			
		

> Interesting I do however agree with you on the reform of Military int... in fact, this links quite nicely with many of the posts in here that have expressed dismay at DEO enrollment of INT O's. Recruiting directly from universities for a part of the trade's establishment promote, in my view, an open mind and a possible driving factor towards new problems and new solutions to them. One of the problems of the whole intelligence community is , I think, the traditional concentration of strategic analysis within a few very set bodies, i.e. PCOIAS, which presents the interesting situation of an all-source analysis shop without an intelligence collector, planning or disseminator culture in the organisation. CDI definitely has the potential, as an all source collector, of actively participating in the whole cycle of intelligence in Canada, on a strategic and tactical level. I think the times are very fluid for the organisagtion of intelligence in Canada. Time will tell what the direction will be, and ultimately how that will influence CDI.




Somehow this seems out of order to me.  Are you insinuating that the current members of the CF are not capable of innovation or imagination and thinking outside the box?  I have seen the hiring off the street and the great many problems that these practices are creating.  I would put any competent member of the CF from a Combat Trade, Air, Land or Sea,  before any "new blood" 'off the street' any day.  They have the 'corporate knowledge' and if they are 'evil' enough they will make the best INT Ops and officers.  They know what ORBATs are.  They have knowledge of the capabilities and ranges of various Weapons Systems, Electronic devices, vehicles, etc.  They know tactics and understand how regular and irregular forces move, deploy, and react to differing stimuli.  This is something that has to be taught to someone 'off the street' but still doesn't give them the knowledge, experience and skills necessary to do the job.  They will be lacking in that little extra that is required for the job, that a Combat Trade soldier, airman or sailor already has.  The people coming 'off the street' are in a way a burden on the system.  Not having "been there, done that", they have a hard time with credibility and gaining the confidence of the people they have to brief/debrief.   There is no way that they can gain this experience that the Combat Trades have.   

A lot rests on perception, and someone who has walked the walk, talked the talk, has a bit more of a leg up than someone who hasn't.  Combat Trades pay more attention to someone who has walked in their shoes and knows what they need to know, not the extraneous UFI.  

Sorry, but I see little that nonmilitary personnel can offer to the INT Branch.  I am sure that existing members of the CF are more than capable of taking up the task.  There is a great number of people in uniform capable of innovative thought.  I would even hazard a guess that there are more than those outside the CF.


----------



## aesop081

George Wallace said:
			
		

> Sorry, but I see little that nonmilitary personnel can offer to the INT Branch.



This from a branch that loves to use CNN, Jane's , Google earth, AIS , Lloyd's registry, etc...


----------



## dapaterson

CDN Aviator said:
			
		

> This from a branch that loves to use CNN, Jane's , Google earth, AIS , Lloyd's registry, etc...



Yes, but put together a few of them and then you can slap a TSSA label on it.

 >


----------



## TimBit

Hi George. I am not insinuating anything... however, there is a number of things that I find interesting.
I'm all with you on the fact that CF members are capable of doing the job. I am sure the screening folks at the branch make sure it is the case. But your assumption that a civvy could not learn these things is, I find, a little presumptuous. ORBATS, Weapon Systems, Electronic Devices, combat tactics, all these things can be learned, just as other trades do learn it. I'm not saying they'll have similar a command of those skills, only that they can be learned.

People from "the street", as you say, bring in a new perspective. Seriously, civilians do intelligence all around the world... I guess if that wasn't the right thing, nobody would do it. How does CSIS, for example, manage to accomplish its missions, given the fact that it is only recruiting from "the street". Would RCMP officers be better suited, as it was back then? History shows that no. Now I'm a soldier and have tremendous respect for everyone in the Forces. But the fact is that neither US Military INtelligence nor ours have seen the transformation of operational nature coming prior to Sept 11.  I'd never seen an exercise with terrorists before that. SOme other agencies, on the other hand, had raised the flag. WHat I'm talking about is teamwork and synergy. Intelligence is about great minds thinking about what could be, now and in the future, hashing it out and communicating it. Experience and client knowledge is one part of that, so is education, different background and so forth.

As well, what you describes seem to be Batallion Intelligence Officer-like duties. But a sizeable number of positions are in strategic analysis and threat analysis; I can't see, particularly for strategic analysis, any huge advantage that internal recruiting would have.

I really don't intend to downplay the capabilities of anybody... I just think that intelligence requires a wide set of skills, some of which CAN be better acquired elsewhere than in the military, and some others of which can't.


----------



## George Wallace

TimBit said:
			
		

> People from "the street", as you say, bring in a new perspective.



So what?  Is a new perspective really an asset?  Perhaps it is more of a detriment.




			
				TimBit said:
			
		

> Seriously, civilians do intelligence all around the world... I guess if that wasn't the right thing, nobody would do it. How does CSIS, for example, manage to accomplish its missions, given the fact that it is only recruiting from "the street".



Again, so what?  What kind of intelligence are they doing?  Is it pertinent to what the military needs?



			
				TimBit said:
			
		

> Would RCMP officers be better suited, as it was back then? History shows that no.



Did you just contradict yourself?




			
				TimBit said:
			
		

> But the fact is that neither US Military INtelligence nor ours have seen the transformation of operational nature coming prior to Sept 11.



Not sure what you are getting on about there.



			
				TimBit said:
			
		

> I'd never seen an exercise with terrorists before that. SOme other agencies, on the other hand, had raised the flag.




Would anyone other than participants known?  The military wargames with regular and irregular force scenarios all the time.  There is no indication to validate your statement.  Terrorism has been around a lot longer than 911.  The French have been fighting Algerian terrorists since the 1950's.  The British the IRA for as long.  The US and other NATO countries, in have been fighting terrorists in Europe throughout the Cold War.  Terrorism is not new.  Canadian Forces have been exposed to these acts since the 1950's.  



			
				TimBit said:
			
		

> WHat I'm talking about is teamwork and synergy. Intelligence is about great minds thinking about what could be, now and in the future, hashing it out and communicating it. Experience and client knowledge is one part of that, so is education, different background and so forth.



That is what I am saying.  People "off the street" don't have that 'client knowledge' and it is very time consuming and often never successful in educating them on this.  As for different backgrounds and so forth, there is quite a variety of Trades in the CF that provide those qualities.  As for Teamwork, that is one of the building blocks of training in all aspects and Trades within the CF.



			
				TimBit said:
			
		

> As well, what you describes seem to be Batallion Intelligence Officer-like duties. But a sizeable number of positions are in strategic analysis and threat analysis; I can't see, particularly for strategic analysis, any huge advantage that internal recruiting would have.
> 
> I really don't intend to downplay the capabilities of anybody... I just think that intelligence requires a wide set of skills, some of which CAN be better acquired elsewhere than in the military, and some others of which can't.



There are a large number of civilian analysts doing strategic analysis and threat analysis, who have military backgrounds.  I would not say that necessarily classify them as being "off the street".   They, for the most part, know what weather, terrain, etc. effects have on deployed troops.  Someone with no such experience, often can not factor these things in.


----------



## Nemo888

CDN Aviator said:
			
		

> This from a branch that loves to use CNN, Jane's , Google earth, AIS , Lloyd's registry, etc...


bwahaha


----------



## aesop081

Nemo888 said:
			
		

> bwahaha



Not only that but also try to pass it off as actionable int.


----------



## George Wallace

CDN Aviator said:
			
		

> Not only that but also try to pass it off as actionable int.



Well you know...."Garbage in, Garbage out".


----------



## observor 69

Boy is this ever a timely topic. I just started reading "Fiasco" by Thomas E.Ricks.
So far one of the main themes on why the US went into Iraq is the different outlook between Bush administration civilian academic thinkers, Wolfowitz and Perle in particular versus retired military such as Powell, Zinni and Scrowcroft. 
Which reminds me of the Vietnam era and the "Best and Brightest."  
Theory versus experience. Not that those with experience couldn't think theoretically but they new the price that would be paid if certain choices were made.


----------



## TimBit

Good point! However, you probably also know that CIA told the White House that there were no WMD's in Iraq, while DIA assured that there were some. So civilian intel is sometimes better as well. 

I really don't see your adequation between Wolfowitz and Perle and "off-the-streets" recrutees. These men were overt neo-conservative thinkers. So if I follow your reasonning, civilian=intellectual and theory, probably bad, military=experience and wisdom.

Forgot the cuban missile crisis yet? Or General Westmorland arguing the US didn't lose Vietnam? Or the AirPower theorists in the 50's saying the US should nuke USSR to dust?

I agree with you that theoreticians often fail to see the cost of what they are getting into. But it's no secret that the military has often been willing to cope with a much higher cost than needed or acceptable to the public, i.e. 99% of the population. That being said, I take pride in the CF's tradition of fearless advice and loyal implementation towards the powers-that-be. But again, let me state my point: if INT job is to advise Command, then the more advice there is the better, so that command can make an enlightened decision. And I strongly believe that the more variety in that advice the better it is.


----------



## meni0n

Timbit, quality advice supercedes quantity any day of the week. Just because there is more advice doesn`t mean it is better. CSIS is tailored, at least officially, towards domestic intelligence so I don`t see how they can be compared to military intelligence compabilities which have a bigger spectrum of things to cover, from tactical to strategic. 

And I agree with George that at least for the INT brach, it would be better to take people with military experience. The OT process specifically states that operational experience is an asset. Just because a off-the-street recruit can learn some concepts like ORBATs doesn`t necessarily mean he will completely understand them. Some things you just have to experience to get them fully.


----------



## TimBit

Alright well I respect your point of view everyone. But I still disagree. CSIS might seem tailored to you, but they cover CT (a very difficult topic... culturally, politically and operationnally... much more so than what it is for the CF), CI, Cyberwarfare and Domestic Intelligence, all around the world (yes they do operate abroad on security intelligence), while at the scrutiny of the public. What about CSE, which supports the CF in Afghanistan, with up to 25% of their production as the Chief stated in front of Parliament?

I respect your call for experience. But to say that this is because of the civilian intelligence's menial and simple tasks compared to the military's is demeaning; the learning curve and difficulties associated with int jobs are tremendous, whether on the civilian side or the military side.

As for more advice...it isn't necessarily better, true. But the more ideas you throw in the better the advice in the end. If you ask one man for his reading of a situation, he'll give you his; ask 10 and they'll each give you theirs; but once merged, it might be a bit more open and inclusive than the first one.

Anyway...I say, let's agree to disagree


----------



## observor 69

Well I hate to say it's my argument  

But Mr.Ricks, in his book, is arguing that once Wolfofitz and Perle had sold Rumsfeld and Cheney that taking out Saddam by invasion was the way to go vice containment then the military voice of experience and caution was lost. And of course combining that with a weak president.

This same theme of "best and brightest" and experience was brought to mind again by this article in todays New York Times.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/24/opinion/24brooks.html


----------



## PMedMoe

TimBit said:
			
		

> I respect your call for experience. But to say that this is because of the civilian intelligence's menial and simple tasks compared to the military's is demeaning; the learning curve and difficulties associated with int jobs are tremendous, whether on the civilian side or the military side.



I've been reading this thread and even though I am "out of my lane" I will say that I haven't seen where anyone has said that the civilian intelligence’s tasks are menial and simple compared to the military.

What I have read, is that personnel who have military experience outside of intelligence will be easier to train as Int Ops than a civilian off the street who is not familiar with the CF.

It's no different than when I sit in an O Gp with civilians and we're talking in acronyms and one of them asks (every time):  What's a SME?  What's an OPI?  What's an APRV?"  If they had CF experience, we wouldn't have to explain anything.  That may be a simple comparison, but that's the way I see it.


----------



## George Wallace

TimBit said:
			
		

> Alright well I respect your point of view everyone. But I still disagree. CSIS might seem tailored to you, but they cover CT (a very difficult topic... culturally, politically and operationnally... much more so than what it is for the CF), CI, Cyberwarfare and Domestic Intelligence, all around the world (yes they do operate abroad on security intelligence), while at the scrutiny of the public. What about CSE, which supports the CF in Afghanistan, with up to 25% of their production as the Chief stated in front of Parliament?



I see you really don't understand the way things are.  First, CSE is closely related to the CF, and has always been a civilian arm of DND.  CSIS is working closely with the CF in certain Regions.  The CF also operates a wide variety of Intelligence 'agencies' covering a wide variety of 'information gathering sources'.




			
				TimBit said:
			
		

> I respect your call for experience. But to say that this is because of the civilian intelligence's menial and simple tasks compared to the military's is demeaning; the learning curve and difficulties associated with int jobs are tremendous, whether on the civilian side or the military side.



No one has been making that comparison.  The comparison has been the 'hiring' of people 'off the street' and not experienced CF members.



			
				TimBit said:
			
		

> As for more advice...it isn't necessarily better, true. But the more ideas you throw in the better the advice in the end. If you ask one man for his reading of a situation, he'll give you his; ask 10 and they'll each give you theirs; but once merged, it might be a bit more open and inclusive than the first one.



This is much the same as what I said earlier, but perhaps should have carried further in response to Cdn Aviator and another, "Garbage In is Garbage OUT.  What did you provide?"  If the sources are providing garbage to the INT people, then the INT product produced will be garbage.


----------



## TimBit

> I see you really don't understand the way things are.  First, CSE is closely related to the CF, and has always been a civilian arm of DND.  CSIS is working closely with the CF in certain Regions.  The CF also operates a wide variety of Intelligence 'agencies' covering a wide variety of 'information gathering sources'.



CSE might be related to the CF and DND. BUt it is not run by the military, nor is it run by the military, nor does it act like it, period. The civvies there who provide support to the CF are just that, civvies. Believe me. As for the "you really don't understand the way things are". Ah! If you think I'm some think of stupid kid reading books in my basement, you got it wrong. Intelligence is what I do every day of the week. It's my job. So explain to me now what I don't understand.



> No one has been making that comparison.  The comparison has been the 'hiring' of people 'off the street' and not experienced CF members.



Well my apologies, I took this 





> CSIS is tailored, at least officially, towards domestic intelligence so I don`t see how they can be compared to military intelligence compabilities which have a bigger spectrum of things to cover, from tactical to strategic.


 to mean that DEO's couldn't perform the military intelligence job because CDI's tasks were so much more complex. Was I so off? Tailored doesn't mean simple? Then what does it mean? More narrow? More focused? If so, then you clearly don't understand the business of many GoC agencies.

Anyway, I see that this argument is going nowhere... Not respectfully anyway.

As for the Acronym Soup comment by PMedMoe: That's true! But it is a little bit like that in other places still... and again, I say that this could be learned.


----------



## PMedMoe

TimBit said:
			
		

> As for the Acronym Soup comment by PMedMoe: That's true! But it is a little bit like that in other places still... and again, I say that this could be learned.



Never said it couldn't be learned, but military personnel would already know it.
But, you can't teach someone experience (e.g. operational), right?


----------



## medaid

Just putting it out there... Perhaps it is not a good idea 
To put your day job out there. This is NOT a secure forum...


----------



## meni0n

When I said tailored, I meant that their main focus is domestic. At least that`s their official mandate. As for CSE, from their web site: The Communications Security Establishment Canada (CSEC) is Canada's national cryptologic agency.

We provide the Government of Canada with two key services: foreign signals intelligence in support of defence and foreign policy, and the protection of electronic information and communication.

I`m pretty sure that Leitrim takes care of foreign signals intelligence, and guess who runs that show?


----------



## TimBit

Bah well... putting my day job out there is not such a biggie. It's left to us really. Plus, I haven't used my own name nor put out my address on purpose. Thanks for the reminder though.

And meni0n... Leitrim does not "take care" of signals intelligence. It is much more complicated than that. ANd CSE runs the show. A bit of open source info, the DG of Military Sig, a BGEn, works for CSE. Guess that tells you who runs the show. To those doubting the unclassified nature, http://www.cmp-cpm.forces.gc.ca/dsa-dns/sa-ns/ab/sobv-vbos-eng.asp?mAction=View&mBiographyID=510

CFIOG is a partner, just like CSS is a partner to NSA, hence NSA/CSS. Anyway guess I'd better zip it


----------



## meni0n

So you want to say that the civilians at CSE are the main source of foreign signint? Even though when you check out CSE careers web site and the main personnel that are hired are analysts, mathematicians, engineers and programmers. You want to tell me CSE can function without Leitrim? 

Leitrim's mission is to: 

* Operate and maintain signals intelligence collection and geolocation facilities in support of the Canadian cryptologic program. interception, decrypting and processing of communications for the Communications Security Establishment 
* Operate and maintain radio frequency direction finding facilities in support of search and rescue and other programs. 
* Maintain an operationally ready Cryptologic Direct Support Element in support of military operations. 
* Provide technical and logistic support to other units of the Canadian Forces Information Operations Group. 

Since Leitrim is part of CFIOG, and you yourself says that they are like a partner, I don`t see how CSE "runs the show" alone. I don't see anywhere that CSE does its own sigint gathering.


----------



## TimBit

I never said "alone". But it remains a fact, the senior SIGINT person in Canada is a civilian. 
Analysts at CSE write foreign intelligence reports. So says the website.

Collection, as you know, is classified. The missions of both organizations are quite complementary., but leitrim has about 500 personnel while CSE has 1800+. You can look at CSE's partner as well, i.e. NSA and GCHQ. While NSA is more a mixed mil/civ agency, GCHQ clearly is civ.

In short it is a partnership, but all these agencies are civilian.


----------



## PuckChaser

Anytime I've dealt with CSE, they were a headache and a roadblock to anything we did with the military, but seem to have been given control of everything in the SIGINT world in Canada. I think we're swinging off the original topic though.

I worked with a CSIS guy once, he was a really down to earth guy, and definately didn't have a chip on his shoulder about the military.


----------



## George Wallace

TimBit said:
			
		

> ......... As an example, Leitrim currently has around 500 personel. CSE has 1800+.




 :     So what?  Have you looked at other installations besides Leitrim?  I suppose you remember a place called Shelburne, or perhaps Alert, or several other lesser know places, installations and CF establishments, warships and aircraft.   

As for those CSE 1800, how many are actually ex-military who jumped the fence for better wages in a CS job, not requiring an annual BFT/CF Expres or IBTS?  Just start at the top with; Chief of CSEC: John Adams, who was a Cbt Engr and retired a MGen.  How many others are currently Reservists?    

But we are wandering way off the sidetracked discussion as to whether or not it is wise to hire 'people off the street' into the INT Branch rather than encourage promising candidates from the Combat Trades.


----------



## Journeyman

*LONG-WINDED RESPONSE FOLLOWS -- YOU MAY WANT TO GET A COFFEE FIRST*

Every now that then, a thread develops which reaffirms "never wrestle with a pig -- you'll both get dirty, and only the pig will enjoy it."

As to the sidetracked discussion of hiring off the street versus internal recruiting..... hey, I've got some opinions (imagine that  ;D )

As a strategic analyst, will insights learned studying international relations, economics, nuclear policies, languages, etc be more useful than the skills learned commanding a rifle platoon? Yes. Also, the networking ability will likely be stronger since the analyst will be possibly interacting with other government department peers, hired from the same Carleton/York/Queen's/McGill gene pool. While one may wish to employ infantry skills when dealing with the Eye of Mordor, er, the Privy Council Office, it's not allowed, so no real benefit there.

At the tactical level, will a civie hire face a steeper learning curve than someone military? Yes, absolutely. But even this comes with a caveat. Is the former 'number 3 rifleman' going to have any sort of edge when memorizing Sovremmenyy-class destroyers or Blackjack bombers? Possibly not.

Tactical-level credibilty. Mixed response here. Former service, but unknown to the command and staff: A new IO, with a couple of deployments, has a degree of cred over the civie-hire with nothing on his tunic, even if he has a StFX ring. Now here's where the theory of 'must have prior service' gets a little shakey. 

On paper, having previously spent time at sea, or in an armd regiment, is excellent for providing knowledge of how the military really operates; if there are reports of two enemy battalions forward, the IO unthinkingly knows that there's a third in reserve somewhere (yes, simplistic example; everyone and his dog should see that). 

However....we also know that INT doesn't _always_ get "promising candidates from the Combat Trades." I've heard it said quite openly that "PAffO and Trg Dev O keeps INT from getting _all_ the cast-offs." And yes, I obviously acknowledge that that is clearly not the case -- there are a multitude of very well qualified and respected officers and NCMs going into your Branch. But INT can be a very personality-driven world, and when Capt Thud gets ushered out of the 1st Battalion's A/Adjt line serial, only to return as their IO....

Now, turning to CF/CSE/CSIS......again, don't discount the personality-driven aspect. While "culturally," I think CSIS tends to be distainful of military intelligence (no less so than DFAIT or several other players at PCO/IAC). Individually, however, and harkening back to Puck Chaser's 'one time at band camp' response, individually most play nicely with DND. No one group has a monopoly on arrogance. And CSE...well, believe it or not young Jimmies, there's more to CSE than a 291er linkage. I do have to say though, CSIS folks dress a whole lot nicer.

Bottom line: Hires off of the street face a steep learning curve (beyond having to learn acronyms), and sometimes the time/effort to bring them to a 'common military understanding' have been problematic; sometimes the student is the weak link, sometimes the time simply isn't available. Once in their line serials as INT officers or NCMs, their initial credibility may vary depending on their background and the supported command/staff mindset. It soon becomes obvious, however, who is capable and who is not...and that will have little to do with previous abilities at the mortar baseplate.


----------



## George Wallace

Guess that about sums it up.  I'll go for a beer now.  NCIS is on.


----------



## BradCon

I have been enjoying this debate immensely.  It's great to see democracy in action.

George and the pro OT side, I understand your bias, in that you want Int Ops / Int Os with combat experience working on providing the info that informs the commanders decisions.  It makes sense to me from your perspective that these people will have a better understanding of what CF is all about, and the language that members use.

What also makes sense to me is that the training one receives will largely determine the quality of work that one will provide.  As a civvy hoping to become an Int Op, I am prepared to do my time in combat arms, if necessary but would much prefer to start my CF career as an Int Op.

What advice would you give a civilian to better prepare them for the role of Int Op should the come in off the street.  What knowledge can a civvy arm themselves with beforehand so as too decrease the learning curves incline?

Tanks

B


----------



## stegner

George Wallace said:
			
		

> Guess that about sums it up.  I'll go for a beer now.  NCIS is on.



Sweet! Gibs shot down a helicopter with one shot.


----------



## ltmaverick25

BradCon said:
			
		

> I have been enjoying this debate immensely.  It's great to see democracy in action.
> 
> George and the pro OT side, I understand your bias, in that you want Int Ops / Int Os with combat experience working on providing the info that informs the commanders decisions.  It makes sense to me from your perspective that these people will have a better understanding of what CF is all about, and the language that members use.
> 
> What also makes sense to me is that the training one receives will largely determine the quality of work that one will provide.  As a civvy hoping to become an Int Op, I am prepared to do my time in combat arms, if necessary but would much prefer to start my CF career as an Int Op.
> 
> What advice would you give a civilian to better prepare them for the role of Int Op should the come in off the street.  What knowledge can a civvy arm themselves with beforehand so as too decrease the learning curves incline?
> 
> Tanks
> 
> B



There probably is not a whole hell of alot you can do to get a leg up in the tactical intelligence area.  Former service really does help with that, but its not the be all end all.  The fact of the matter is, weather you are a seasoned combat veteran or a bright promissing university graduate, the learning curve for this job is VERY steep, and its only getting more steep and the military starts to understand that they cant wait until after the war in Afghanistan is over to update their training.

Ive seen former combat arms soldiers come over as Int Ops and do a terrible job of it.  There is nothing worse then an infanteer running around playing army with a pen in his hand.  Ive also seen civies come in and be completely incompetant and useless as well.  Ive also seen former combat arms types come in and prove to be amazing Int Ops and ive also seen some civies do the same thing.

Former military experience helps a little bit, but it doesnt help enough to justify the exclusion of others.  

With that in mind, if you really want to prepare yourself, try to focus on the things that you have in your control.  For example, stay extremely up to date with news from around the world of all different shapes and sizes.  Ask questions here and see what people have to say.  Dont take it as law, take it as a very small sample as to how some CF members communicate with each other.  Practice your public speaking skills.  Also practice writing very brief, short and do the point prose.  You have to be a good writer to succeed in this job, but it cant be the academic good kind.  You have to speak in simple terms, easy to understand, that dont take more time then available, or more space then available to make your point.

Communication is everything.  It doesnt matter how much experience you have, if you cannot communicate your so called brilliance or experience then what good are you?

Read lots of books.  Study Canadian military history meticulously.  Short of combat arms experience, its the best education out there on military matters.  Read books on intelligence as well, it will also help give you a breadth of depth going into the trade.

Make sure when reading this books, you are mindful of what kind of author is writing them.  Is it a journalist or other form of "popular" writer?  Or is it a scholarly or academic work?  Being able to understand the differences there will help you evaluate these works as sources and take them for what they are.  Which source is better?  I dont think the answer matters here, what matters is that you understand how they both work and come to their conclusions so you can make your own assessments.

Take news with a grain of salt.

Stay active on the forums, read the combat stuff, ask questions, and dont get discouraged when you get rebuked.

Thats the best you can do, and even after all of that, you still wont be ready.

You will be well trained, by the time you get to Int given that the training is now changing.  After you are done that, you still wont be ready.  You are going to have to take all of that, put it together, and try your best, and roll with what comes your way.  There is only so much that any of us can do.  Just make sure what you do is your best, take opinions with a grain of salt, form your OWN opinions, and then strap in and see what fate has to say about it  ;D


----------



## BradCon

Thanks so much for all that.


----------



## Greymatters

Too late to jump in as the debate seems to have gone off fairly well.



			
				ltmaverick25 said:
			
		

> Ive seen former combat arms soldiers come over as Int Ops and do a terrible job of it.  There is nothing worse then an infanteer running around playing army with a pen in his hand.  Ive also seen civies come in and be completely incompetant and useless as well.  Ive also seen former combat arms types come in and prove to be amazing Int Ops and ive also seen some civies do the same thing.



That about sums it up...

_Edit:_



			
				George Wallace said:
			
		

> Guess that about sums it up.  I'll go for a beer now.  NCIS is on.



_Sorry George, looks like I copied your line there..._


----------



## George Wallace

Greymatters said:
			
		

> That about sums it up...



I think I said the same thing just a few posts ago, yet it keeps on going.  Oh well?



One important point, and one that many that have been posting on this topic haven't clued into  yet;  "Check your ego at the door."  This is a job that requires complete honesty and dedication.  Anyone with an ego, inability to admit that they don't know, or think that they know more than everyone else and can BS their way through, will land up giving themselves and the Branch a bad name.  As the Branch is still fairly well 'personalities' this could be a 'career stopper'....


----------



## ltmaverick25

As far as the same things being said a few posts ago.  Sure, I touched on some things that were already said, but I was also answering someone elses question about what he could do to prepare for a career within Int.  I phrased my responce within the context of answering his question, while at the same time weighing in on the debate which I think is entirely legitimate.

Besides, I didnt see anyone else rushing off to answer the question.


----------



## dustinm

I realize this is a very old post, however there's something here that I don't think anyone has mentioned.

Enlisted members of the US military have the option of going directly into Intelligence. After an 8-12-week Intelligence School (depending on branch) they get their first posting.

If the US does it on a regular basis, what's to stop the CF from doing it as well? It seems to work for them, or they would have curbed the practice.


----------



## medaid

Neo Cortex said:
			
		

> I realize this is a very old post, however there's something here that I don't think anyone has mentioned.
> 
> Enlisted members of the US military have the option of going directly into Intelligence. After an 8-12-week Intelligence School (depending on branch) they get their first posting.
> 
> If the US does it on a regular basis, what's to stop the CF from doing it as well? It seems to work for them, or they would have curbed the practice.



The also have a Marine Corps, and Army Aviation! Maybe we should start emulating those practices too? 

The CF is slowly opening up opportunities for direct entry Int O and Int Ops. The results are varied, and although the Branch has produced some fine DEO and DE Int Ops... I for one am NOT convinced of the practice. That being said I've worked with 1 Int Op that's a direct entry and he's bang on. Then again... he's got a LE background too, and is used to thinking like a bad guy.


----------



## dustinm

MedTech said:
			
		

> The also have a Marine Corps, and Army Aviation! Maybe we should start emulating those practices too?
> 
> The CF is slowly opening up opportunities for direct entry Int O and Int Ops. The results are varied, and although the Branch has produced some fine DEO and DE Int Ops... I for one am NOT convinced of the practice. That being said I've worked with 1 Int Op that's a direct entry and he's bang on. Then again... he's got a LE background too, and is used to thinking like a bad guy.



Hmm. Makes sense.


----------



## George Wallace

Neo Cortex said:
			
		

> Enlisted members of the US military have the option of going directly into Intelligence. After an 8-12-week Intelligence School (depending on branch) they get their first posting.
> 
> If the US does it on a regular basis, what's to stop the CF from doing it as well? It seems to work for them, or they would have curbed the practice.



OK?  The CF hasn't been in the habit of hiring off the street until just recently.  That means the Trade was only open to "Enlisted members".  So?  What was your point?


----------



## Nauticus

Wow. This thread has been incredible. 

Just wanted to thank you all for your opinions. I learned a lot from each of you, and I appreciate the time you guys all took to share your thoughts!


----------

