If you had the power to change what and how things are being taught in the 35FAIT and 35F ALC/SLC what would you change

SFC Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 01 Apr 2015 16:13:20 -0400

Hint: You can paste a link to a video or article, or simply add more details to your question.

Invite others to respond by typing @name

Response by SGT Private RallyPoint Member made Apr 1 at 2015 5:59 PM

SGT Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 01 Apr 2015 17:59:22 -0400

Conventional force on force doctrine and TTPs would be very helpful for young soldiers. I also feel like more MFWS and or ArcGIS training would be greatly beneficial to new AIT soldiers.

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Apr 2 at 2015 4:30 AM

SFC Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 02 Apr 2015 04:30:11 -0400

More on how to handle message traffic as well as mIRC chat and ISR sychronization

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Apr 2 at 2015 11:47 AM

SFC Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 02 Apr 2015 11:47:17 -0400

I don't think that there is a way to universalize the 35F-specific training to be beneficial for every analyst coming through the course. There are 35F's in tactical, operational, specialized, strategic, cyber, and unmentionable units; there's no way to develop a training plan that is going to tailor to the needs of each of those analysts. I think emphasizing training on critical thinking, doctrinal writing, Soldier leadership/development, briefing skills, and data-mining would be more beneficial for 35F's as a whole. In my career I have been a strategic and tactical analyst, I have flown in the back of MC-12's controlling the ISR and making products from the air, and been a cyber intelligence analyst. Learning more about conventional warfare would have been useful before my DATE rotation, training on COIN would have helpful before deploying, and learning cyber-intelligence would have been helpful before my current assignment. All of those assignments require doctrinal writing, product creation, critical thinking, and briefing skills. Rather than focus on one narrow field or another, I think that providing NCO's with the ability to apply their knowledge in their specific threat-set with their baselined skills would be better than teaching cyber analysts conventional or conventional analysts COIN. They are all skill-sets that diminish over time due to technology or situational developments. The majority of the NCO's I've been responsible for have been bad at writing, bad at briefing, and have had to be coached through critical thinking before they could lead their Soldiers. My personal beliefs about Intelligence NCOA anyways.

Response by SPC Eric Cunningham made Apr 2 at 2015 1:53 PM

SPC Eric Cunningham — Thu, 02 Apr 2015 13:53:46 -0400

Kill CARVERSHP. The attempt to objectify what is by its very nature a subjective subject like targeting is moronic and doesn't take into account the intent of shaping operations towards a specific objective. And my instructor for that section was a moron who subsisted that production shutting down for two weeks was the same as production ceasing in two weeks.

Increase statistical and critical thinking training. While decisions shouldn't be made by algorithm, it would be helpful if analysts were able to do basic statistical computing when it is asked for while critical thinking is needed to interpret those results.

Response by CW2 Private RallyPoint Member made Apr 11 at 2015 2:53 PM

CW2 Private RallyPoint Member — Sat, 11 Apr 2015 14:53:58 -0400

I will forever prioritize processes over programs.

While I value doctrinal understanding of the intelligence war fighting functions, and a brief introduction to conventional programs, the process of understanding IPB or F3EA is more important than what widget does what function. If there's one thing I've learned, technology will fail you. Know what your trying to do, and an analog workaround for each program, tool, or widget.

If all of that fails, teach them to be coachable, adaptable, and independent, critical thinkers, and I've got everything I need.

Response by MSG Private RallyPoint Member made Apr 16 at 2015 9:38 PM

MSG Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 16 Apr 2015 21:38:36 -0400

I think that it is as important to teach intelligence analysts in the Army to the same competency levels as the rest of the IC. There are many people that that simply cannot write, properly source, portion mark, and overall classify at the required levels. While there are plenty of online courses available, this is not universally so. This is because the intelligence analyst critical task list was created in a vacuum and didn't reflect what the analyst does at each level within the Army (CO, BN, BDE, DIV, Corps, etc.). While IPB is taught there is not any cross level training or awareness as to how other agencies train their IAs. The IC has to come up with a standard set of capabilities it wants its IAs to perform to and disseminate that throughout the 17 agencies that compose it.

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made May 23 at 2015 5:33 PM

SSG Private RallyPoint Member — Sat, 23 May 2015 17:33:40 -0400

Training is but one aspect of the overall problem. The use of intelligence is certainly flawed. Many commanders or J2's don't know how to write effective PIRs. We have an institution that doesn't even know how to properly define a problem or identify gaps. We are good at tactical intelligence. Perhaps that is all we are good at. Most senior military only know how to regurgitate headlines from Foreign Policy or worst yet what they heard on Fox News. There is no depth of understanding. There is only fallacious lines of reasoning and narrow institutional knowledge. The leadership needs to be re-educated. So many failed concepts: COIN chief amongst them. As an institution we try to break everything down into steps or into acronyms-its all paper thin. Its fine for training someone to do a task. Intelligence is not a task (doctrine aside). At its core it requires critical thinking. We teach critical thinking and even some structured analytical techniques. Block checked. We still don't effectively demonstrate how to use it. I've worked tactical to strategic in a wide hosts of different analytical roles. I've been both a collector and an analysts. If I've had any success in intelligence it was due to civilian education and experience not anything the military "taught" me.

Yes the military is terribly flawed. Its the only institution that would have someone be a carpenter for 15 years and then in their last 5 years be an architect. To be effective an analyst needs to study discrete mathematics, philosophy (specifically logic and reasoning), technical writing, database design, social networking theory (to expand on the graph theory they learned in discrete), sociology, political science, and some classes in programming wouldn't hurt. The CW2 made a good point about processes over programs. An analyst should be able to work with nothing but a whiteboard or some paper. They will create whatever tools they need to speed the process up along the way. As an aside working with HUMINTers during a exercise we took away all computers and networks forcing them to use butcher block, written notes, and blackboard. Productivity increased as did the quality of their products.

Simply put we have too many "analysts" anyways. How many shops do we need all creating the same INTSUMs that nobody reads? We should increase the quality and decrease the quantity. Strategic analyst should be regional and work one theater their entire career. Only tactical intelligence analysts should be organic to units and it should be a separate MOS from strategic intelligence. At least a different rating. There should be different schools. Look at the IC. You have strategic analysts and you have targeting officers. They don't do both. Frankly the state intelligence within the DoD sickens me. We are over reliant on contractors because we have an inability to adapt. Its been 15 years. Senior officers should have been fired. Its the worst form of mismanagement.

We often hear. Think outside the box. I say burn the box. Start over fresh. Fire any body that gets in the way. Military Intelligence needs a hostile take over and aggressive restructuring. *sigh* and I haven't even addressed the issues with leaders not being effectively taught how to use intelligence. Lots for the next generation of military to work on.

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made May 23 at 2015 5:40 PM

SSG Private RallyPoint Member — Sat, 23 May 2015 17:40:31 -0400

This "there are no wrong answers" has to go. Sure if you are brainstorming that is fine; however, everywhere else it is the worst kind of defeatism. It implies that nobody can ever understand the problem set. Model the system properly and you will be able to make some predictions. If not review data and adjust the model to account from what you've learned. There is a "right" answer we need to educate people on how to get at it.