Posted on Sep 24, 2015
Should intelligence analysts be blunt and honest, or remain positive (to a fault)?
21.8K
127
36
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 10 y ago
Posted 10 y ago
Responses: 25
1
1
0
1
1
0
Isn't this sort of like asking "Whose body should we put in Grant's tomb?"
(1)
(0)
1
1
0
1LT William Clardy
I dunno, CPT Ahmed Faried -- it might need a coat of varnish to protect it from all the abuse it's likely to suffer...
(0)
(0)
CPT Ahmed Faried
1LT William Clardy - and who is to say that coating wouldn't be tainted. By presenting it as it stands, it gives others to read it without the bias of presenting it with caveats. I get you though.
(1)
(0)
0
0
0
None of the above.
Tactful and honest.
Commander wants to use route X as avenue of approach. Intel says that enemy has an ambush emplaced and most of its firepower focused on route X.
Blunt and honest: Sir, you're going to get a lot of people killed doing that. (Elaborate upon request.)
Tactful and honest: Sir, Intel shows that route X is the primary focus of the enemy's preparations and is heavily fortified. (Elaborate upon request.)
Absolutely speak truth to power, but do it in a way which doesn't make you the enemy. Remember, we are all on the same team - team "accomplish the mission with minimal losses."
Saying things tactfully doesn't prevent saying things honestly, even forcefully if necessary. It just prevents the burning of bridges.
Tactful and honest.
Commander wants to use route X as avenue of approach. Intel says that enemy has an ambush emplaced and most of its firepower focused on route X.
Blunt and honest: Sir, you're going to get a lot of people killed doing that. (Elaborate upon request.)
Tactful and honest: Sir, Intel shows that route X is the primary focus of the enemy's preparations and is heavily fortified. (Elaborate upon request.)
Absolutely speak truth to power, but do it in a way which doesn't make you the enemy. Remember, we are all on the same team - team "accomplish the mission with minimal losses."
Saying things tactfully doesn't prevent saying things honestly, even forcefully if necessary. It just prevents the burning of bridges.
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
There was a little (not so little) war on the peninsula of Korea that killed thousands of Americans because of the egos of a few men, and their unwillingness to admit that intelligence predictions had been incorrect. That's putting it nicely. Give the Commander the brutal truth. It's his call whether he takes action or not. Withholding information, or dressing it up may seem harmless, but in full-scale, peer threat combat it will cost thousands of lives...
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
I'm not sure about blunt, but definitely Honest. Anything other than total integrity would not only be contrary to core values but could cost lives. Just give an honest assessment in a professional manner!
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
In all matters, especially ones that can affect someone's lifespan, the right answer will always be "honesty."
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
Blunt, honest and to the point. I hate those sharp shooters flying a desk back in the states contradicting what intel we gathered and reported because that’s their personal AOR and they’re an “expert.” Just because they don’t agree with it doesn’t mean they’re right. Blunt and honest.
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
if you give the worst case scenarios so that the CDR preps for them, and the worst scenarios don't happen, then you've done your job.
(0)
(0)
SFC Casey O'Mally
SSG John Jensen ... As long as you provided that to the CDR and identified it a most dangerous CoA and NOT as most likely CoA. Prepare for the worst is all well and good, but In a situation of limited resources (and combat is ALWAYS limited resources - time, manpower, engineer assets, food, bullets, you name it), using assets to prepare for a MDCOA at point A robs them from a MLCOA at point B. By all means, brief the worst case scenario, but make damned sure the Commander knows that it IS the worst case - and how likely you assess that scenario to be.
(0)
(0)
SSG John Jensen
2 Armor officers were laughing about the North Koreans have towed anti-tank guns - so I found for them a spot on the map of little draw that opened to the north, and asked them how many batteries of towed anti-tank guns could they cram into that space, they suddenly imagined a lot of anti-tank round aimed at the ass end of their tank as went barreling north on a narrow hi way, with a bn of inf (at least) on the 2 ridge lines that would have to be dug to by inf the hard way, and how long that would put them behind schedule. And started planning accordingly for that, if that saved American lives, I did my job.
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google