Content provided in partnership with
Government Industry
Intelligence in support of strategic signal units
Military Intelligence Professional Bulletin, July-Sept, 2003 by James R. Lint
The views expressed in this article are those of the author and do not reflect the official policy or position of the U.S. Army Intelligence Center, the Departments of the Army and Defense, or the U.S. Government.
The intention of this article is to foment discussion and debate to improve the MI Corps. It is not the author's intention to beat up soldiers stationed in S2 shops of signal units. By asking questions, we can often garner future improvements to doctrine and utilization of MI soldiers.
Most of us would admit that it is traditionally the S2, particularly in combat arms units, who brings intelligence to the commander, especially intelligence pertaining to the unit's mission. After all, it is normally the S2 who--
- Most Popular Articles in News
- The Ten Best Laptop bags
- Tata plans cheapest-ever car for Indian market
- GLOBALIZATION AND THE DEVELOPMENT OF UNDERDEVELOPMENT OF THE THIRD WORLD
- Corn is good for you; Corn is not only a tasty treat, but also a cereal that ...
- THE 50 BEST STYLISH HANDBAGS TO CARRY
- More »
[] Ensures intelligence readiness.
[] Supervises the conduct of the intelligence tasks.
[] Performs intelligence synchronization.
[] Provides other intelligence support such as: orders production, products, updates, advising the command, and MI-unique deconfliction.
[] Coordinates for counterintelligence (CI) activities.
[] Supports security programs.
Background
With most of the above responsibilities, those with experience in combat arms units would definitely state the S2 should provide that information to the supported commander. However, in a signal unit, especially a strategic signal unit, the responsibility seems to shift away from the S2. Some S2s might respond that "we do not have the training, time, or people." More diplomatic responses might include "We are not staffed for this," or something similar. However, the military and moral responsibility remains; it is imperative that there be no retreat from the cyber-battlefield.
Many of us have often seen S2s become irritated when the G2 passed intelligence directly to a brigade commander. (They are often officers of equal rank who live in the same neighborhood and attend the same meetings.) This sometimes "blindsides" an S2 who did not have the information. Most would agree that the normal process is for intelligence--especially intelligence affecting the command--to flow through the command S2. However, often in computer network defense (CND) or cyber-matters, the S2s are not in the loop. Should they be the channel for cyber-intelligence or CND? Who should notify the commander that a node or router is under a hacker attack? Is the S2 in the "threat to systems" loop? Does the S2 provide the commander with an intelligence summary (INTSUM) that covers cyber-intelligence? Do military intelligence (MI) and S2s have the mission to conduct cyberthreat analysis in strategic (theater support) signal units? Are we actually ready to support a network-centric Army?
Many will also say that the outstanding work done by the regional computer emergency response teams (CERTs), Army CERT, and the 1st Information Operations (IO) Command (formerly the U.S. Army Land Information Warfare Activity, or LIWA) is an intelligence job, and is all the intelligence product needed, desired, or required for support to a signal brigade. Should that information go through the S2 or directly to the S3 or network operation center? Should there be long-term analysis of cyber-indications and warning (I&W)? Should that information go to the. S2 or S3? This author believes that there must be a change in the S2 office for the S2 personnel to support operations better, or a decision must be made to give up the fight at the Brigade S2 level and "hope" for success. S2 soldiers and personnel require more training specifically targeted to support cyber if they are to be effective in this fight. We see the Chinese military thought in a paper on "Information Warfare," by Senior Colonel Wang Baocun and Li Fei published in Liberation Army Daily, 13 and 20 June 1995. The authors work at the Academy of Military Science, Beijing. There have been a few good papers translated and put in public domain about the Chinese "new ideas in waging war." We must be prepared for new methods in future wars. Luckily, the Chinese have put their ideas in paper and it is in public domain.
Editor's Note: See the article by Timothy L. Thomas on Chinese Information War Theory and Practice in this issue of MIPB.
Lack of Specialized Training
The lack of specialized training is not unique. Often, young intelligence analysts (military occupational specialty [MOS] 96B) arrive at aviation units, where they must suddenly learn about air mobility corridors. (This is not something taught in great detail in their basic courses; they must learn it through unit training for the unit's specific mission.) When the junior 96B reports to an engineer unit, he must learn about engineer-specific tasks, such as river crossings, also in greater detail. We also see young 96B soldiers move to strategic signal unit assignments where they must then learn the cyber- and signal threat. The U.S. Army is a tactical and strategic Internet service provider (ISP); however, our junior intelligence analysts are not trained for supporting the signal or cyber missions.
