Should intelligence analysts be blunt and honest, or remain positive (to a fault)?

MSgt Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 24 Sep 2015 21:10:14 -0400

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.

To save articles or get newsletters, alerts or recommendations – all free.

Response by LTC Yinon Weiss made Sep 24 at 2015 9:11 PM

LTC Yinon Weiss — Thu, 24 Sep 2015 21:11:56 -0400

Clearly there is only one right answer here. 100% honesty and integrity.

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Sep 24 at 2015 9:20 PM

SSG Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 24 Sep 2015 21:20:49 -0400

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.

Response by CPT Private RallyPoint Member made Sep 24 at 2015 9:27 PM

CPT Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 24 Sep 2015 21:27:45 -0400

Blunt and honest.

Response by 1SG Cameron M. Wesson made Sep 24 at 2015 9:35 PM

1SG Cameron M. Wesson — Thu, 24 Sep 2015 21:35:49 -0400

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

Response by MAJ Ken Landgren made Sep 24 at 2015 9:44 PM

MAJ Ken Landgren — Thu, 24 Sep 2015 21:44:32 -0400

How can you spin 30,000+ ISIS in Iraq and some air attacks in a more benign light?

Response by Sgt Private RallyPoint Member made Sep 24 at 2015 9:52 PM

Sgt Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 24 Sep 2015 21:52:24 -0400

Blunt and honest. Intelligence analysts have a duty to report the facts as they actually are.

Response by Capt Brandon Charters made Sep 24 at 2015 9:58 PM

Capt Brandon Charters — Thu, 24 Sep 2015 21:58:02 -0400

From an intel guy, you want the truth...nothing but the truth.

Response by CPT Ahmed Faried made Sep 25 at 2015 12:10 AM

CPT Ahmed Faried — Fri, 25 Sep 2015 00:10:17 -0400

provide the unvarnished truth.

Response by 1LT William Clardy made Sep 25 at 2015 12:19 AM

1LT William Clardy — Fri, 25 Sep 2015 00:19:00 -0400

Isn't this sort of like asking "Whose body should we put in Grant's tomb?"

Response by CMSgt James Nolan made Sep 25 at 2015 1:17 AM

CMSgt James Nolan — Fri, 25 Sep 2015 01:17:43 -0400

I want people to give me honest assessments based on what they see.

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Sep 25 at 2015 1:25 AM

SSG Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 25 Sep 2015 01:25:49 -0400

When "positive ID" on a "HVT" sends me in on a "hot LZ" and the only thing we find in the whole compound is (when we water charge a barn door and light up the room) a scared shitless (literally a MOO followed by a massive drop of poo) COW...!

I'd say Blount n honest would have been better... I'd take accurate & competent any day too!

Response by Sgt Aaron Kennedy, MS made Sep 25 at 2015 6:28 AM

Sgt Aaron Kennedy, MS — Fri, 25 Sep 2015 06:28:58 -0400

We provide data so commanders can make good decisions. We don't sugarcoat it so that they make the decision we think is best.

There's no reason to upplay or downplay capabilities. Downplaying gets our friends killed. Upplaying diverts resources from others which gets our friends killed.

Response by LTC Private RallyPoint Member made Sep 25 at 2015 8:21 AM

LTC Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 25 Sep 2015 08:21:51 -0400

Tell the boss what he needs to hear, not what he wants to hear.

Response by SA Harold Hansmann made Sep 25 at 2015 8:25 AM

SA Harold Hansmann — Fri, 25 Sep 2015 08:25:01 -0400

Sugar coating gets people killed.

Response by SGT Jeremy Thompson made Sep 25 at 2015 8:52 AM

SGT Jeremy Thompson — Fri, 25 Sep 2015 08:52:23 -0400

At the end of the day, it's the job of intelligence professionals to tell truth to power. If we become "yes men" there's no point in having an intelligence apparatus at all.

Response by SFC Terry Fortune made Sep 25 at 2015 9:40 AM

SFC Terry Fortune — Fri, 25 Sep 2015 09:40:23 -0400

I want blunt and honest info. Don't sugar coat the info. Your talking about the lives of your troops who will be taking care of the problem.

Response by SGT Private RallyPoint Member made Sep 25 at 2015 9:47 AM

SGT Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 25 Sep 2015 09:47:55 -0400

Without accurate analysis and assessments leaders won't be able to make the most informed decisions possible. Optimism belongs outside of facts.

Response by MAJ Private RallyPoint Member made Sep 25 at 2015 10:24 AM

MAJ Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 25 Sep 2015 10:24:21 -0400

MSgt Private RallyPoint Member Neither is wholly correct.

Intelligence is all about taking the most reliable data you have, analyzing it, and presenting the closest semblance of truth and future likelihood. Reporting "facts" is news, not intelligence.

As the CJSOTF J2, my analysis frequently differed from my own junior analysts, from my boss, and from the General officers working for Corps and MNF-I. In that case, I always presented what I thought the most likely, most accurate, version; backed up with both the data and analysis that led to it. And to be intellectually honest, also address the competing viewpoints from others, with their analysis. And finally why I thought my version was more correct.

In that process, sometimes my own analysis would be swayed toward one of the others.

But at the end of the day, Commanders (not intelligence officers) decide which analysis they accept and act upon.

Response by LTC Jason Strickland made Sep 25 at 2015 12:41 PM

LTC Jason Strickland — Fri, 25 Sep 2015 12:41:35 -0400

Wow, this is very enlightening! I know many of the people identified in this article, as I was the Deputy Team Chief of Iraqi Ground Forces, at the onset of Operation Iraqi (and Enduring) Freedom.

Response by SSgt Alex Robinson made Sep 25 at 2015 12:44 PM

SSgt Alex Robinson — Fri, 25 Sep 2015 12:44:25 -0400

pull no punches... keep it real!

Response by MAJ Ken Landgren made Sep 25 at 2015 2:25 PM

MAJ Ken Landgren — Fri, 25 Sep 2015 14:25:25 -0400

The world is inefficient if truth does not exist.

Response by SSG John Jensen made Sep 25 at 2015 3:15 PM

SSG John Jensen — Fri, 25 Sep 2015 15:15:06 -0400

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.

Response by CW4 Russ Hamilton (Ret) made Sep 26 at 2015 5:13 AM

CW4 Russ Hamilton (Ret) — Sat, 26 Sep 2015 05:13:10 -0400

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.

Response by SGT Apollo Sharpe made Oct 7 at 2015 5:05 PM

SGT Apollo Sharpe — Wed, 07 Oct 2015 17:05:13 -0400

In all matters, especially ones that can affect someone's lifespan, the right answer will always be "honesty."

Response by LTC Private RallyPoint Member made Oct 23 at 2015 2:04 AM

LTC Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 23 Oct 2015 02:04:44 -0400

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!

Response by CPT(P) Private RallyPoint Member made Oct 8 at 2018 3:45 AM

CPT(P) Private RallyPoint Member — Mon, 08 Oct 2018 03:45:57 -0400

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...

Response by SFC Casey O'Mally made Mar 21 at 2019 5:43 PM

SFC Casey O'Mally — Thu, 21 Mar 2019 17:43:14 -0400

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.