Should Intelligence Officers be ‘Hunters’ or ‘Gatherers’?

2015-11-22T13:54:54-05:00

Today, with the exponential rise of the ISIS threat –both foreign and domestic- along with the budget challenges, Colonel (Ret.) Philip Lisagor reflects on the objective of Intelligence Officers at the Central Intelligence Agency and their approach to collecting information.

Nice article to put into perspective what happened since January.

Thoughts?

http://ciceromagazine.com/opinion/organizational-drift-why-u-s-intelligence-missed-the-rise-of-isis/

Colonel (Ret.) Philip Lisagor argues that America's leaders and intelligence community missed the inevitable rise of ISIS because of organizational drift to from a 'gatherer' to a 'hunter' culture and a focus on 'actionable intelligence' to the detriment of analysis.

Response by Capt Seid Waddell made Nov 22 at 2015 2:35 PM

2015-11-22T14:35:55-05:00

There is need for both. The gatherers direct the hunters to the targets.

Our problems with intelligence recently are due to an over-reliance on technical methods of information gathering and a diminution of human sources - combined with a lack of interest in intelligence products on the part of the current administration, whose main concern is domestic partisan politics.

Response by TSgt David L. made Nov 22 at 2015 2:38 PM

2015-11-22T14:38:22-05:00

I think it has to be a bit of both. Obviously you cant force info but you can't sit back and wish for it either.

Response by MSgt Curtis Ellis made Nov 22 at 2015 3:48 PM

2015-11-22T15:48:59-05:00

Both are important, but as a 35M Instructor, I will always lean toward "Gatherer" as that is always the beginning to any great and successful "Hunt". The prey consistently changes and no longer conforms to what was gathered last, and without gathering updates, as the article indicates, whole organizations become blind to a now non-applicable prey whose former hunting ground and tactics have long since expired/expanded.

Response by CPT Private RallyPoint Member made Nov 22 at 2015 6:30 PM

2015-11-22T18:30:09-05:00

You have to "hunt" in order to "gather" and "gather" in order to "hunt." It's the nature of Military Intelligence. (human intelligence , counter intelligence and area intelligence,)

Response by SGT Private RallyPoint Member made Nov 24 at 2015 4:59 AM

2015-11-24T04:59:43-05:00

Both. Hunting is collection. Gathering is analysis *and* dissemination. Without analysis and dissemination, the whole exercise is pointless.

Response by Capt Richard I P. made Nov 24 at 2015 10:50 AM

2015-11-24T10:50:37-05:00

Yes.

Response by MAJ Private RallyPoint Member made Nov 24 at 2015 8:36 PM

2015-11-24T20:36:37-05:00

The third option is to be a Tracker-- read the situation with the information at hand leading to a particular target. Even if the target is an organization. That's how I tell laymen what my job as a 35D was all about.
Many people think of hunting and gathering as two separate tasks that only come together to provide a mixed feast of vegetables or fruits with meat. And, unfortunately that is how our intel and operational community treat each other. It's time to bring the two back together as a team with a tracker and hunter. Extensions of each other.

Response by CPT Private RallyPoint Member made Nov 25 at 2015 5:02 PM

2015-11-25T17:02:28-05:00

Did those of you who commented read the actual article or just react to the words "hunter" and "gatherer?" This exemplifies what we are doing wrong right here. We have lost our depth. We take a few pieces of information (not intelligence - there's a difference) and construct an opinion and allow that relatively uninformed opinion influence how we think about the problem.

To address the original question, I agree with COL(R) Lisagor, everyone wants to be in on kinetic ops. People confuse the term "actionable intelligence" with "actionable RIGHT NOW intelligence." We have dumped predictive analysis for grid coordinates. Instead of developing superior situational awareness and being able to predict major trends (e.g. the rise of ISIS), we are running around after IED emplacers and generally irrelevant "bad guys." I constantly hear the refrain that taking out the #1 guy won't stop whatever group, but then I look at the targeting strategy and the ISR plan and that's what I see. I think it makes us feel busy and like we are making progress, but it's the opposite. We are losing ground. Every minute and dollar we spend HUNTING individual personality is a lost opportunity to invest on GATHERING what we need to achieve intelligence dominance.

Ten years of COIN has caught us mentally flat footed to face our current challenges. COIN was designed to address a specific PART of a greater problem, but has now become *the* only tool people want to apply. In some cases, it's the only system the Soldiers were trained on, but I still think it's on us to realize when we are being ineffective.