Posted on Sep 24, 2015
Should intelligence analysts be blunt and honest, or remain positive (to a fault)?
18.6K
127
39
6
6
0
A mentor and former boss of mine with nearly thirty years on Iraq is getting national attention for challenging senior intelligence officials at USCENTCOM. They reportedly edited assessments written by analysts with years of expertise to make things on the ground appear more positive to their superiors than they actually were/are.
Operation Iraqi Freedom (OIF)
Iraq
Intelligence
Edited >1 y ago
Posted >1 y ago
Responses: 27
13
13
0
Blunt and honest may not win you brownie points, but at the end of the day, the commander (at whatever level) will remember the guy who gave him the heads up over the guy who gave him a warm and fuzzy.
(13)
(0)
Blunt and honest. Intelligence analysts have a duty to report the facts as they actually are.
(9)
(0)
8
8
0
Those are not the only two options.
Place the assessment/analytics in an unbiase format and speak to honest facts... Without the extreme opinion. Then when asked a hard question on a given topic provide it with minimal emotion and ensure that you maintain your integrity with the topic.
I've provided enough assessments and learned... The hard way... To minimize my emotions eith most subjects. If someone modified my assessment... Then my name should no longer be associated with it.
Prepared by: me
Approved by: so in so
If so in so has modified the assessment to the point it is not mine... Then they prepared it.
My 2 cents
Place the assessment/analytics in an unbiase format and speak to honest facts... Without the extreme opinion. Then when asked a hard question on a given topic provide it with minimal emotion and ensure that you maintain your integrity with the topic.
I've provided enough assessments and learned... The hard way... To minimize my emotions eith most subjects. If someone modified my assessment... Then my name should no longer be associated with it.
Prepared by: me
Approved by: so in so
If so in so has modified the assessment to the point it is not mine... Then they prepared it.
My 2 cents
(8)
(0)
MSgt (Join to see)
1SG Cameron M. Wesson I know that more options would make the survey more rounded. I absolutely agree that assessments need to be unbiased, supported by facts and most of all, accurate. You're right: name implies ownership, regardless of editing.
The problem that's come to surface is that senior leaders in the J2 and JICCENT were editing assessments to a point that made them less accurate because they wanted them more palatable for CENTCOM and White House officials.
The problem that's come to surface is that senior leaders in the J2 and JICCENT were editing assessments to a point that made them less accurate because they wanted them more palatable for CENTCOM and White House officials.
(1)
(0)
1SG Cameron M. Wesson
MSgt (Join to see) - Brother I know but I'm a guy that actually helps prep surveys.... and closed ended surveys never get at the analytics required to come up with a good COA.
This issue is screwed up. I had someone try to "modify" an assessment I provided on a program of record. I called them on it... and then after the rank card got pulled I said, "No issue... take my name off the position paper... or I'll submit an MFR to Program Manager with this conversation and my actual assessment". Two assessments went up... and when asked by the PM I articulated my assessment and it was my assessment went forward.
I trust the system... no I'm not naive... that there will be folks that will listen and those that try to play games will get held accountable. Maybe not to a level I'd like... but accountable... now they will collectively have to explain to the people.... what this is all about.
This issue is screwed up. I had someone try to "modify" an assessment I provided on a program of record. I called them on it... and then after the rank card got pulled I said, "No issue... take my name off the position paper... or I'll submit an MFR to Program Manager with this conversation and my actual assessment". Two assessments went up... and when asked by the PM I articulated my assessment and it was my assessment went forward.
I trust the system... no I'm not naive... that there will be folks that will listen and those that try to play games will get held accountable. Maybe not to a level I'd like... but accountable... now they will collectively have to explain to the people.... what this is all about.
(2)
(0)
CSM Charles Hayden
MSgt (Join to see) - Why does the military continue to speak of 'intentions' to emphasize ethics? Will they ever learn ethics or to be alert for close scrutiny of their actions?
Duty , Honor, Country; until?
Duty , Honor, Country; until?
(1)
(0)
CDR Mike Kovack
The military is made up of people. Until you perfect people you will always have these issues. Strong command integrity trumps all, but you can always have lone wolves.
(0)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google