Analysis and control Team—The New Force Multiplier - military training for intelligence operations

Military Intelligence Professional Bulletin, July, 2000 by Victor J. Diaz

It is only the enlightened ruler and the wise general who will use the highest intelligence of the army for purposes of spying and thereby they achieve great results.

Sun Tzu, Art of War

Conceptualization

Could this scenario be further from the truth? For some S2s, the ability to leverage the capabilities of an ACT is a difficult task. Recent findings published in the JRTC (Joint Readiness Training Center) and NTC trends reports for 1997 and 1998 illustrated how the Intelligence battlefield operating system (BOS), in particular the S2s and ACTs, needed emphasis on their working relationships. [1] The study also concluded that the Ml battalion's ACT, "lacked the basic skills necessary to provide the commander with consistent predictive analysis based on incoming intelligence reports. "This truth, however painful, may be a direct result of insufficient information on how an ACT should operate and function, and what this analytical team can bring to the fight.

As I began my research, I found that there is little information on the ACT in Army regulations and field manuals (FMs). In both FM 34-253, All-Source Analysis System and the Analysis and Control Element, and FM 71-3, Armored and Mechanized Infantry Brigade, the ACT was only described as a derivative of the IEW (intelligence and electronic warfare) support element (IEWSE) and Ml company team. [2] According to the FMs, the ACT is to provide the brigade S2 with automated intelligence processing, analysis, and dissemination capabilities. This lack of information, coupled with the collective impression that the ACT's primary function was IEW asset management, led to a concerted effort in the 103d Military Intelligence Battalion and the Analysis and Control Element (ACE) to establish clearly defined roles and responsibilities for the ACT and its team members. (See the following article by Lieutenant Colonel Stephen Perkins for additional information.) Figure 1 clarifies the intelligence responsibilities of the br igade S2, Direct Support (DS) MI company commander, and the ACT chief.

ACT Mission

The ACT is simply a "mini ACE" for S2s. Maneuver brigades no longer face a single, well-defined conventional threat. Brigades must be able to conduct missions in peacetime, conflict, and war against threats ranging from regional powers in Southwest Asia to warring factions in Bosnia-Herzegovina and Kosovo. The conduit for the S2's overall success is the ACT, an analytical team that the brigade or battalion should fully integrate into the S2 section, as the ACE is integrated in the division G2 shop (see Figure 2). As a pivotal player in the brigade analytical effort, the ACT uses a wide variety of automated systems and intelligence disciplines to provide the commander with a timely, relevant, and accurate picture of the enemy.

Intel XXI Oversight

Our problem with the ACT was not unique. Throughout the intelligence community, the integration of ACTs with the brigade S2 receives scant attention. For example, one of the recommendations from the Intel XXI study conducted in June 1999 was to adjust the MI Force XXI ECB (echelons corps and below) design based on Intel XXI findings. [3] The Intel XXI proposal includes introducing several new or improved capabilities through the Force XXI model. Changes or improvements cited in the Intel XXI findings include increasing analytical capabilities for the brigade and battalion S2 by adding Reserve intelligence officers to S2 sections. A better answer, however, would have been to emphasize the importance of the ACT in the brigade intelligence fight.

ACT Redefined

Based on a common misconception that the ACT was no more than an asset manager, the ACT and MI battalion focused little time in developing both garrison and deployed tactics, techniques, and procedures (TTP). With numerous NTC rotations and real-world contingency operations, our brigades and the S2s had little time to develop a deliberate and cooperative relationship with the MI ACT. Therefore, the analysts in our ACTs lost their analytical edge, which made it harder to establish the level of confidence required in an intelligence support team. Add to this loss of skills the continual demand for intelligence analysts (96Bs) in both Bosnia and Kosovo and one can see the significant challenge that faced the 103d MI Battalion. The Battalion's ACE took on the arduous task of revitalizing the ineffective ACT concept. Implicit in this task was defining roles and responsibilities for the ACT in both garrison and field duties, establishing individual and collective tasks, and implementing a comprehensive training st rategy using the eight-step training model. [4] Figure 3 further defines the ACT's roles in garrison and the field.

ACT Roles and Responsibilities

Visualization of a clear and distinct link between the S2 and the ACT was simple. The brigade S2 is the commander's focal point for intelligence. He assists the brigade commander in identifying intelligence requirements that support the brigade mission. He also provides information to the commander for tactical decisionmaking by fully employing brigade IEW assets as part of the Intelligence BOS. Through the ACT, the S2 provides multidiscipline intelligence support to the brigade commander. The ACE further defined the ACT roles as shown in Figure 3.