Other community's views on Intel Officers.

[Tom_L]

Reading through the posts, it seems like most aviators and flight officers look down on intel officers. Wonder if this is true throughout the fleet. Of course I'm just basing my ovservations on the posts that people right.

Example:

For the most part, they just regurgitate info they find on the SIPRnet and provide no original analysis or insight. All the real work is done by the guys who work at the three letter agencies...Anyone can deliver a brief to anyone else. That doesn't make the briefer quallified, brilliant or original. I don't know of any CO who would chose to seek the advice of his Intel guy...

Looking over at the other thread in the Cryptologist section, it looked like Cryppie/Intel bashing day. Myself, I have SWO listed as #1 on my application (I already know all the bashing that SWO's get from aviators/FO and vice versa, so it might be just a natural rivalry with the bashing of intel and cryppies) but after reading all the posts of too many SWO JO's, I might have to consider my 2nd choice of Intel or 3rd of Supply.

Anyways, I was just curious. Wanted to know if Intel Officers were just looked down upon here or everywhere in the Navy.

 

[webmaster]

You happened to read into a thread discussing a change in how the chain of command is run, not derision of the intel community. I for one have been fortunate to work with some "spot on" intel types, that have taken the time to make sure we had all the data we needed to do our jobs. As with any profession, you have your stellar performers and your turds though. We are all a team, and without their expertise, we couldn't get the mission done, or not as effectively.

 

[SteveG75]

The biggest problem with the intel officers that aviators work with every day (squadron AI's) is that they are generally ENS's with no experience. The only guy in CVIC (carrier intel center) with any prior sea time is usually the CAG AI and he is not really involved in daily interaction with aircrew. During Operation Southern Watch, after 6 years, I was still having to tell the intel guys what radars where were vice them giving me info. It just gets very frustrating.

Like was said above, there are great guys and there are turds. The aviation wash-outs who end up in intel are another story (can you say bitter).

 

[Brett327]

You happened to read into a thread discussing a change in how the chain of command is run, not derision of the intel community. I for one have been fortunate to work with some "spot on" intel types, that have taken the time to make sure we had all the data we needed to do our jobs. As with any profession, you have your stellar performers and your turds though. We are all a team, and without their expertise, we couldn't get the mission done, or not as effectively.

Yeah, ditto there. That other thread, and specifically my out of context quote, is not an indictment of Intel guys, but a justification and rebuttal to the suggestion that they get upgraded to a URL designator. They serve their purpose well and aren't really subject to any more JO games than any other ENS, but to suggest, like some in the other thread have, that they have the most "big picture" SA is just plain ignorant. Hope that clears things up.

Good times,

Brett

 

[PropStop]

I think intel guys are great - one more warm body for SDO....

 

[zab1001]

Your Intel Dood stands SDO???

That IS great.

 

[makana]

Tom,
your quote is most certainly only one guy's opinion of Intel Os (kudos to Brett for claiming it). I can't speak for squadron Intel Os but I can say as a prior enlisted IS that none of them I have ever worked with have ever "regurgitate[d] info they find on the SIPRnet and provide no original analysis or insight." Besides, SIPRnet is sh!t anyways. Think about it, if every swinging d!ck with a secret clearance (every officer and many enlisted), how much intelligence value could it really add for an Intel O? Most good intel products are sanitized down to be put on SIPRnet.

And as far as "All the real work [being] done by the guys who work at the three letter agencies", that is a crock of sh!t. Those 3-letter agencies provide the raw data (i.e. SIGINT, IMINT, etc) for the intel guys to analyze. Web is right about having good ones and bad ones but it doesn't take long to figure out which ones are which.

Brett is right in saying that "Anyone can deliver a brief to anyone else." And as officers we all will at some time or another. But a good intel O will have access to much more info, exerience, and clearance to provide the best brief possible. So a "CO who would chose [not] to seek the advice of his Intel guy", is only selling himself short (as was said before, assuming the intel guy has already proven his worth.

Don't worry about what other communities think about whatever path you choose, they all have their rewards... some are just harder to realize. I can tell you that as an enlisted intel guy, it was extremely rewarding.

 

[A4sForever]

We usually had two AI's in the squadron at any given moment. One "experienced", i.e., he'd made at least one cruise, and another one "new" . Their personalities dictated a lot --- and they were very different from each other -- but they were there to help us and tried to do a good job. I think --- make that KNOW --- that all the Aviators appreciated their efforts.

The senior of the two actually played a part -- a big part -- in planning Air Wing strikes and day-to-day evolutions. All the other "tactical" squadrons contributed their share of AI's to the mix. Our junior guy basically filled the role of assistant and go-fer while learning a huge amount to "stuff" that got dumped into his lap --- OJT. And they stood SDO watches in port --- I didn't even do that -- an LSO perk.

And respect? We all respected them ... just like they did us. We were lucky enough to have "good guys" for AI's (rhymes?) as well ....

Aerial BDA photo of a Hanoi airfield. (DIA)

 

[Brett327]

Your Intel Dood stands SDO???

That IS great.

The best part about that in our squadron was that he couldn't stand during flight ops, so it would always be on days off or weekends. Sweeeet!

Brett

 

[Brett327]

Tom,
your quote is most certainly only one guy's opinion of Intel Os (kudos to Brett for claiming it). I can't speak for squadron Intel Os but I can say as a prior enlisted IS that none of them I have ever worked with have ever "regurgitate[d] info they find on the SIPRnet and provide no original analysis or insight." Besides, SIPRnet is sh!t anyways. Think about it, if every swinging d!ck with a secret clearance (every officer and many enlisted), how much intelligence value could it really add for an Intel O? Most good intel products are sanitized down to be put on SIPRnet.

And as far as "All the real work [being] done by the guys who work at the three letter agencies", that is a crock of sh!t. Those 3-letter agencies provide the raw data (i.e. SIGINT, IMINT, etc) for the intel guys to analyze. Web is right about having good ones and bad ones but it doesn't take long to figure out which ones are which.

Brett is right in saying that "Anyone can deliver a brief to anyone else." And as officers we all will at some time or another. But a good intel O will have access to much more info, exerience, and clearance to provide the best brief possible. So a "CO who would chose [not] to seek the advice of his Intel guy", is only selling himself short (as was said before, assuming the intel guy has already proven his worth.

Don't worry about what other communities think about whatever path you choose, they all have their rewards... some are just harder to realize. I can tell you that as an enlisted intel guy, it was extremely rewarding.

I don't want to slam you because you had some good things to say, but your perspective sounds alot like what the E perspective is and not from someone who has experienced things from the O side. I don't know if you were in an aviation command when you were an IS, but that is typically not the way things work in a squadron. As for the three letter agencies, again, I think you're off base. Analysis is ALL those guys do. The only raw data our Intel department was ever exposed to were EW parametrics that aircrews would bring back from flights, and these things had to constantly be explained and re-explained to those guys. I know that this is just anecdotal evidence about one squadron, but it speaks to the big picture. Squadron Intel personnel are there to disseminate products generated by someone else and send locally generated data (MISREPS) up echelon. Don't mean to sound harsh, just realistic. National security policy isn't being conceived by LTJG Hapenblap in my Intel shop.

Keeping it real,

Brett

 

[makana]

I don't want to slam you because you had some good things to say, but your perspective sounds alot like what the E perspective is and not from someone who has experienced things from the O side. I don't know if you were in an aviation command when you were an IS, but that is typically not the way things work in a squadron. As for the three letter agencies, again, I think you're off base. Analysis is ALL those guys do. The only raw data our Intel department was ever exposed to were EW parametrics that aircrews would bring back from flights, and these things had to constantly be explained and re-explained to those guys. I know that this is just anecdotal evidence about one squadron, but it speaks to the big picture. Squadron Intel personnel are there to disseminate products generated by someone else and send locally generated data (MISREPS) up echelon. Don't mean to sound harsh, just realistic. National security policy isn't being conceived by LTJG Hapenblap in my Intel shop.

Keeping it real,

Brett

You're right, Hapenblap's analysis (or lack thereof) isn't going to save the world. I guess I read into this too much and was simply defending my old community.

No, I was not in an aviation command so I can't speak for how they do business. You seem to have a better handle on that. I can speak for the joint intelligence centers, though. That is where the real analysis is done and not necessarily the "three letter" agencies. My hangup with CIA analysis is they did not share info and from what I hear post-9/11, they still don't share very well. FBI's only international intelligence division is counter-intel so they don't really count. NRO is simply a resource to deploy assets, so they don't count either. NSA is only concerned with SIGINT, regardless of what other sources say (i.e. IMINT, HUMINT, etc). Same goes regarding NIMA/NGA and imagery. The only three-letter agency I will give credit to is DIA. Not sure exactly which agencies you were referring to but this is my very simplified opinion of our intel community. So in your defense, there is probably little analysis necessary at the squadron level, thus Hapenblap simply passes the info on, like you said.

As far as the E vs O controversy (strictly speaking at the JIC), the only difference between our jobs were that the Os were responsible for running the shops. We Es did all our own analysis and simply passed our products up the chop chain. Again, my experience could be totally different than what happens at squadrons. I will soon find out.

I'm not trying to prolong a pissing contest, just keeping it real as well.

 

[STA-21-INTEL]

I just came from a VFA squadron (enlisted) and can tell you the reason the intel guys with squadrons (in general) aren't more adept at what you are refering to as intel is that in that environment we are expected to be CTA's not IS's. All of our time is devoted to learning how to manage clearances for all the pilots and necessary mainainers. I am by no means complaining, it's good to learn new things, broaden horizons, etc, etc, but squadron personnell, pilots especially, have very little appreciation for what we are SUPPOSED to do. This is simply because the only intel types they have ever been exposed to were those in squadrons and therefore victim to the above described circumstance. More senior individuals, espcially O-5 and above have a greater appreciation, in general, because they have experienced a more intel oriented tour (ie EUCOM Staff, NAVEUR, JICPAC, etc). Junior pilots, to complicate this dilemma, often don't know the types of resources we can provide on the ship. Again, this is no one's fault, really, it's just a matter of the way the community is organized.

That said, I will grant you that there are intel types (O and E) that simply aren't worth their salt and I wouldn't trust them either.

enough rambling...

 

[Brett327]

I'm not trying to prolong a pissing contest, just keeping it real as well.

No pissing, good buddy, just good times, yes?

Brett

 

[l7le]

Your Intel Dood stands SDO???

That IS great.

What does SDO stand for?

 

[PropStop]

Squadron Duty Officer, AKA the "OPSO's B!tch"