- Reaction score
- 213
- Points
- 880
dwalter said:
Intel makes processors... ;D
Intel makes processors... ;D
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 410
dwalter said:
A military intelligence officer must know their element's function almost inside and out. They need to be able to think like the enemy and observe, analyze and critique information that has been gathered, then siphon it into one clean neat end result. In order for you to do that, you need have experience in the setting in one of the trades that you will eventually have to provide information to.
Your experience with one or two or three previous MOCs will only aid you in better decision making, and allow a Int Op or Int O to better understand what everyone else is doing, and what type of information they might possibly need.
CSIS is a whole different animal. You're comparing apples and oranges.
Also what popnfresh said, Intel makes processors, Int is what we use and do to make us look like James Bond.
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 410
MedTech said:
I think you are wrong. Very very wrong. But we can discuss that offline some time.
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 210
an INTO without any medals!
No thanks, just another glorfied university educated DEO who can use spell check!
Do at least 6 years in an operational trade/element and then join the INT branch.
Everybody is tired of listening to INTO's with no experience briefing operational teams with not even a tour under there belt.
Just the battlefields of CFB Kingston.
What a joke!
No thanks, just another glorfied university educated DEO who can use spell check!
Do at least 6 years in an operational trade/element and then join the INT branch.
Everybody is tired of listening to INTO's with no experience briefing operational teams with not even a tour under there belt.
Just the battlefields of CFB Kingston.
What a joke!
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 210
Well unfortunately for me I can't go into an 'operational' trade first because I have a V4 vision category, so they told me unless I wanted to be a LogO I should apply for Intel. I chose it because it is interesting work in my mind, and because my vision stopped me from getting my first choice in careers. Don't most IntOs operate under a senior IntO for one tour anyways for OJT?
A
aesop081
Guest
dwalter said:
its INT.....in this country we say INT
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 410
HFXCrow said:
These things happen - it takes time for an Int O to get their first tour, just like any other trade.
HFXCrow said:
Are you putting all Int O's into one basket here? I can assure they are not all this way.
HFXCrow said:
At least 4, but otherwise I wouldnt disagree...
HFXCrow said:
This is true, but not neccesarily the fault of the 'no-tour officer' giving the presentation. This is the fault of whoever decided to have this inexperienced Int O give the presentation when it should be done by someone who has had at least one tour in or near the region in question. There are some out there who insist that the person doing the presentation be an officer regardless of the Int O's experience level.
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 410
dwalter said:
The Int trade is not 'short-staffed', this is an incorrect observation, but rather has a sudden demand for support that is bigger than the Int trade can support. This is what happens when for decades the higher levels think they dont need intelligence support for their missions, or that they can do it themselves better, or when they do get it you need more than just 1 or 2 to do the job properly.
Also, the CF operates in areas where the opposing or threat force is normally a proper military force or a force trained in using military tactics. If you dont understand military tactics, you cannot effectively understand the actions of your opponent, or predict what they will do next. Int personnel also need to understand the way that the people they are working for think and act, use same the common language, understand internal porcesses, and finally, know how to interpret orders. University students have a greater challenge in doing this than those who come in from four years experience from other trades. Its not something you learn from a two-month familiarization course...
As a retired INT O I am going to add this for thought. Over the past several years I have seen some very good INT Os come in from Combat arms trades. Most of them have had several tours and a lot of operational experience. Some are good INT Os, others not so good. However, they do not come with experience as an INT O. Unfortunately, just as in any other trade this experience is only gained on deployment. Thus, until an INT O has deployed in the capacity as an INT O he/she really has no more experience at doing their job in a theatre of war than a DEO would have on their first deployment. Up until 2001 how many INT Os and INT Ops really knew a lot about the Taliban and Al-Qaida...Not that many - myself included. It is knowledge we have gained over the past six years and from being in theatre.
The real issue here is that people are too closed minded to consider the advantages of allowing DEOs into the INT branch. I say give it a try - see how the first few make out. Do not send them to Ottawa but send them to the brigades so they will be immersed in the environment. Deploy them as soon as possible. If it does not work out then we know for next time. Until then, nothing ventured nothing gained.
The bread and butter of the INT O and INT Op is to be able to analyze the information that they are seeing. Analyze the threat and tell the commander on the ground what he/she really needs to know.
I have seen first hand INT Os and INT Ops who have a lot of combat arms experience but lack the necessary skills needed to conduct proper and sound analysis. When this happens there is no value added and credibility wanes.
Perhaps a DEO would require a bit of mentoring (but then who hasn't) and this could be done during the pre-deployment phase. I personally would much rather take a green DEO civi U type with no operational experience who has sound analytical skills with the ability to express those skills than an ex-combat arms type who cannot write or spell or be nothing more than a news reporter.
But, hey, I am retired so I guess this debate will have to go on without me.
The real issue here is that people are too closed minded to consider the advantages of allowing DEOs into the INT branch. I say give it a try - see how the first few make out. Do not send them to Ottawa but send them to the brigades so they will be immersed in the environment. Deploy them as soon as possible. If it does not work out then we know for next time. Until then, nothing ventured nothing gained.
The bread and butter of the INT O and INT Op is to be able to analyze the information that they are seeing. Analyze the threat and tell the commander on the ground what he/she really needs to know.
I have seen first hand INT Os and INT Ops who have a lot of combat arms experience but lack the necessary skills needed to conduct proper and sound analysis. When this happens there is no value added and credibility wanes.
Perhaps a DEO would require a bit of mentoring (but then who hasn't) and this could be done during the pre-deployment phase. I personally would much rather take a green DEO civi U type with no operational experience who has sound analytical skills with the ability to express those skills than an ex-combat arms type who cannot write or spell or be nothing more than a news reporter.
But, hey, I am retired so I guess this debate will have to go on without me.
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 210
lou-reed said:
Out of curiosity is that not the fault of the INT selection process and standards during training?(not saying that it's lacking in any way) It goes without saying I guess that a good combat arms vet does not necessarily make a good INT O/Op or whatever else for that matter.
I realise that the training one receives is only an indicator of the future success a member may have while employed in his trade...but given the critical importance of INT perhaps some red flags should have went up before these member were posted or operational?
cheers.
Let's face it, every trade has training and standards issues.
My main point is give the DEO course of action a chance to either prove successful or unsuccessful. Maybe there is a requirement to put them through CAP and/or phase III infantry first then on to BIOC. Just a thought. Afterall, a newly commissioned 2LT in the infantry has no more operational experience than a newly commissioned INT O yet no one seems to think the infantry officer will not succeed. Both require maximum mentoring from the Snr NCM level. Just my thoughts
My main point is give the DEO course of action a chance to either prove successful or unsuccessful. Maybe there is a requirement to put them through CAP and/or phase III infantry first then on to BIOC. Just a thought. Afterall, a newly commissioned 2LT in the infantry has no more operational experience than a newly commissioned INT O yet no one seems to think the infantry officer will not succeed. Both require maximum mentoring from the Snr NCM level. Just my thoughts
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 410
At least they are good ones and worth considering. I agree that there are advantages to having a DEO, but IMO so far not enough to convince me they are worth more than OT transfers. Many of the points you bring up as valid problems can in turn be rectified by improvements to the selection process, and more 'in-trade' courses to improve writing and analytical skills.
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 410
Greymatters said:
I don't have a problem with INT being opened to DEO for exceptional candidates depending on what skills they bring to the table.
What do people think about ROTP/RMC INT Os?
- Reaction score
- 26
- Points
- 430
I personally feel that they are coming in lacking in many of the issues Greymatters has been bringing up. I think that DEO are not good for the INT Branch in the vast majority of cases. The Branch does suffer from many personalities that shouldn't be giving anyone advice other than Steven Staples. There is a lot of "Corporate Knowledge" being brought to the Branch by INT Ops and INT Os who have OT ed. There is a lot of training that can be cut from the QL5 and BIOC due to their having this "Corporate Knowledge". They already have working knowledge of what ORBATs are and how they function on both Blue and Red Force models. They usually have good Map and Map Marking Skills. They know how the CF functions and is structured. They are usually physically fit and know how to wear their uniforms and handle a wide variety of weapons. They have usually picked up other skills that are IT related, interests in Imagery, interests in Foreign weapons and vehicles, etc. All qualities that many DEO candidates are lacking and would have to be extensively trained in.
The worse thing that the INT Branch can do, is put a slovenly INT Op or INT O in front of a group of Cbt Arms types and expect them to garner anything of value from that briefing. Image means a lot; both visual and spoken. If an INT O or and INT Op can't walk the walk and talk the talk, they are hamstrung from the get go. A DEO who can analyze better than any man on the face of the planet, and use big words that an Infanteer can only guess at, is totally ineffective.
Can an effective INT O be culled from the DEO herd? I guess the answer could be a "Yes"; but I feel that this would be one heck of an exceptional person.
The worse thing that the INT Branch can do, is put a slovenly INT Op or INT O in front of a group of Cbt Arms types and expect them to garner anything of value from that briefing. Image means a lot; both visual and spoken. If an INT O or and INT Op can't walk the walk and talk the talk, they are hamstrung from the get go. A DEO who can analyze better than any man on the face of the planet, and use big words that an Infanteer can only guess at, is totally ineffective.
Can an effective INT O be culled from the DEO herd? I guess the answer could be a "Yes"; but I feel that this would be one heck of an exceptional person.
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 410
George Wallace said:
Ive met a few and they were indeed exceptionally bright, able to adapt to the new environment, and great fun to work with. Unfortunately they were the exception and not the standard. 'Minimum standards' during recruitment would not be likely to capture the same level of competence these people had, and of note none of these men and women I use as an example of good DEO candidates were right out of university, they each had quite a few years of experience in the private business sector under their belt.
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 410
meni0n said:
Its been done.
