Int to CSIS?

[Greymatters]

The best thing about military intelligence is that you actually get to be see things destroyed/fixed/actioned as a result of your work. My understanding of CSIS is that it can be a very frustrating experience where lots of int is gathered, and then never used.  Pushed for a choice, the military route seems to be the most fun at any rate. And, if you wanted to, you could later covert that experience to just about anything really cool in the civilian security and intelligence sector. That is, if you ever get bored with getting things 'all blowed up' and stuff  ;D

And anything more detailed than that would be OPSEC (if not classified) ... 

 

[TimBit]

First post here. So hello all!

Speaking from experience (in intelligence and the military, not necessarily at the same time) and contacts in most intelligence functions... CSIS doesn't like the military. In fact they do not really like anybody but themselves (ouch...). Seriously though, there is a certain presumption, particularly strong over there, that military members will not have the "finesse", the "subtlety" to do the IO job in respect of canadian laws. There is also a belief that military action eventually ends up making their job harder, perpetuating the terror cycle... I'll leave you to judge that belief. Nevertheless, they still are aspiring to become a key provider of intelligence to the CF. Which they will never be, exactly because of this "mindset"...funny that they should reproach the military for having a certain "mindset" in the first place.

 

[Pete H]

First post here. So hello all!

Speaking from experience (in intelligence and the military, not necessarily at the same time) and contacts in most intelligence functions... CSIS doesn't like the military. In fact they do not really like anybody but themselves (ouch...). Seriously though, there is a certain presumption, particularly strong over there, that military members will not have the "finesse", the "subtlety" to do the IO job in respect of canadian laws. There is also a belief that military action eventually ends up making their job harder, perpetuating the terror cycle... I'll leave you to judge that belief. Nevertheless, they still are aspiring to become a key provider of intelligence to the CF. Which they will never be, exactly because of this "mindset"...funny that they should reproach the military for having a certain "mindset" in the first place.

I recently had a conversation with a family member who has been in CSIS since its inception, and he echoed these exact same sentiments.

 

[dapaterson]

Interestingly, my exeriences with CSIS personnel have been dramatically different.  They are able to draw the distinction between members of the military, and impacts of military actions, and understand that there may be second or third order effects to military actions - and that conflict resolution does not mean "kill them all", but rather the establishment of a civil society.  Oddly enough, military COIN doctrine is founded on the same precepts.

The Canadian military intelligence community has still not realized that we are not still engaged with massive soviet formations racing through the Fulda Gap, and have yet to amend their training.  (To be fair, individual members rail against the failings of the training system to respond to change, and the slow pace of institutional change in the CF is not limited to the Int branch.)  Their focus is on low-level tactical issues; even the Chief of Defence Intelligence has yet to adopt much of a perspective beyond the tactical.

The CF's insecurities and inferiority complex vis a vis the Americans have lead to the creation of the dot COM HQs and now a growing desire to have something similar to the DSA.  Whether such a need exists or whether the CF should be forced out of its insular little world to deal with other governmental agencies on a formalized basis is an important policy decision that needs to be made by government.  Indeed, any expansion of military intelligence capability requires well-defined civilian oversight and control, to ensure its use remains consistent with Canadian values and law.

The CSIS personnel I have met at all levels up to Deputy Director have been informed, intelligent and capable, and displayed no bias against the military.  Perhaps the fact that I didn't go in with a chip on my shoulder had something to do with that.  Or that I approached them as professional peers with whom I could have a frank exchange of ideas and information (within the bounds permitted).

Attitude counts for a lot - if you go in with one, don't be surprised if you get one right back at you.

 

[TimBit]

Interesting post dapaterson! My dealings with CSIS have also been on a peer-to-peer level, not as a military, and have found them to be competitive to the extreme. They are very agressive in protecting and expanding their turf, I found. As well I have faced the idea that we all work for them... that they are the supreme intelligence body in Canada.

In the past however, as a prospective employee, I had clearly been told that military experience was not a plus for employment, and that they were not looking for people with a "military mindset".

I do however agree with you on the reform of Military int... in fact, this links quite nicely with many of the posts in here that have expressed dismay at DEO enrollment of INT O's. Recruiting directly from universities for a part of the trade's establishment promote, in my view, an open mind and a possible driving factor towards new problems and new solutions to them. One of the problems of the whole intelligence community is , I think, the traditional concentration of strategic analysis within a few very set bodies, i.e. PCOIAS, which presents the interesting situation of an all-source analysis shop without an intelligence collector, planning or disseminator culture in the organisation. CDI definitely has the potential, as an all source collector, of actively participating in the whole cycle of intelligence in Canada, on a strategic and tactical level. I think the times are very fluid for the organisagtion of intelligence in Canada. Time will tell what the direction will be, and ultimately how that will influence CDI.

 

[George Wallace]

Interesting I do however agree with you on the reform of Military int... in fact, this links quite nicely with many of the posts in here that have expressed dismay at DEO enrollment of INT O's. Recruiting directly from universities for a part of the trade's establishment promote, in my view, an open mind and a possible driving factor towards new problems and new solutions to them. One of the problems of the whole intelligence community is , I think, the traditional concentration of strategic analysis within a few very set bodies, i.e. PCOIAS, which presents the interesting situation of an all-source analysis shop without an intelligence collector, planning or disseminator culture in the organisation. CDI definitely has the potential, as an all source collector, of actively participating in the whole cycle of intelligence in Canada, on a strategic and tactical level. I think the times are very fluid for the organisagtion of intelligence in Canada. Time will tell what the direction will be, and ultimately how that will influence CDI.

Somehow this seems out of order to me.  Are you insinuating that the current members of the CF are not capable of innovation or imagination and thinking outside the box?  I have seen the hiring off the street and the great many problems that these practices are creating.  I would put any competent member of the CF from a Combat Trade, Air, Land or Sea,  before any "new blood" 'off the street' any day.  They have the 'corporate knowledge' and if they are 'evil' enough they will make the best INT Ops and officers.  They know what ORBATs are.  They have knowledge of the capabilities and ranges of various Weapons Systems, Electronic devices, vehicles, etc.  They know tactics and understand how regular and irregular forces move, deploy, and react to differing stimuli.  This is something that has to be taught to someone 'off the street' but still doesn't give them the knowledge, experience and skills necessary to do the job.  They will be lacking in that little extra that is required for the job, that a Combat Trade soldier, airman or sailor already has.  The people coming 'off the street' are in a way a burden on the system.  Not having "been there, done that", they have a hard time with credibility and gaining the confidence of the people they have to brief/debrief.  There is no way that they can gain this experience that the Combat Trades have. 

A lot rests on perception, and someone who has walked the walk, talked the talk, has a bit more of a leg up than someone who hasn't.  Combat Trades pay more attention to someone who has walked in their shoes and knows what they need to know, not the extraneous UFI. 

Sorry, but I see little that nonmilitary personnel can offer to the INT Branch.  I am sure that existing members of the CF are more than capable of taking up the task.  There is a great number of people in uniform capable of innovative thought.  I would even hazard a guess that there are more than those outside the CF.

 

[aesop081]

Sorry, but I see little that nonmilitary personnel can offer to the INT Branch. 

This from a branch that loves to use CNN, Jane's , Google earth, AIS , Lloyd's registry, etc...

 

[dapaterson]

This from a branch that loves to use CNN, Jane's , Google earth, AIS , Lloyd's registry, etc...

Yes, but put together a few of them and then you can slap a TSSA label on it.

>

 

[TimBit]

Hi George. I am not insinuating anything... however, there is a number of things that I find interesting.
I'm all with you on the fact that CF members are capable of doing the job. I am sure the screening folks at the branch make sure it is the case. But your assumption that a civvy could not learn these things is, I find, a little presumptuous. ORBATS, Weapon Systems, Electronic Devices, combat tactics, all these things can be learned, just as other trades do learn it. I'm not saying they'll have similar a command of those skills, only that they can be learned.

People from "the street", as you say, bring in a new perspective. Seriously, civilians do intelligence all around the world... I guess if that wasn't the right thing, nobody would do it. How does CSIS, for example, manage to accomplish its missions, given the fact that it is only recruiting from "the street". Would RCMP officers be better suited, as it was back then? History shows that no. Now I'm a soldier and have tremendous respect for everyone in the Forces. But the fact is that neither US Military INtelligence nor ours have seen the transformation of operational nature coming prior to Sept 11.  I'd never seen an exercise with terrorists before that. SOme other agencies, on the other hand, had raised the flag. WHat I'm talking about is teamwork and synergy. Intelligence is about great minds thinking about what could be, now and in the future, hashing it out and communicating it. Experience and client knowledge is one part of that, so is education, different background and so forth.

As well, what you describes seem to be Batallion Intelligence Officer-like duties. But a sizeable number of positions are in strategic analysis and threat analysis; I can't see, particularly for strategic analysis, any huge advantage that internal recruiting would have.

I really don't intend to downplay the capabilities of anybody... I just think that intelligence requires a wide set of skills, some of which CAN be better acquired elsewhere than in the military, and some others of which can't.

 

[George Wallace]

People from "the street", as you say, bring in a new perspective.

So what?  Is a new perspective really an asset?  Perhaps it is more of a detriment.

Seriously, civilians do intelligence all around the world... I guess if that wasn't the right thing, nobody would do it. How does CSIS, for example, manage to accomplish its missions, given the fact that it is only recruiting from "the street".

Again, so what?  What kind of intelligence are they doing?  Is it pertinent to what the military needs?

Would RCMP officers be better suited, as it was back then? History shows that no.

Did you just contradict yourself?

But the fact is that neither US Military INtelligence nor ours have seen the transformation of operational nature coming prior to Sept 11.

Not sure what you are getting on about there.

  I'd never seen an exercise with terrorists before that. SOme other agencies, on the other hand, had raised the flag.

Would anyone other than participants known?  The military wargames with regular and irregular force scenarios all the time.  There is no indication to validate your statement.  Terrorism has been around a lot longer than 911.  The French have been fighting Algerian terrorists since the 1950's.  The British the IRA for as long.  The US and other NATO countries, in have been fighting terrorists in Europe throughout the Cold War.  Terrorism is not new.  Canadian Forces have been exposed to these acts since the 1950's. 

WHat I'm talking about is teamwork and synergy. Intelligence is about great minds thinking about what could be, now and in the future, hashing it out and communicating it. Experience and client knowledge is one part of that, so is education, different background and so forth.

That is what I am saying.  People "off the street" don't have that 'client knowledge' and it is very time consuming and often never successful in educating them on this.  As for different backgrounds and so forth, there is quite a variety of Trades in the CF that provide those qualities.  As for Teamwork, that is one of the building blocks of training in all aspects and Trades within the CF.

As well, what you describes seem to be Batallion Intelligence Officer-like duties. But a sizeable number of positions are in strategic analysis and threat analysis; I can't see, particularly for strategic analysis, any huge advantage that internal recruiting would have.

I really don't intend to downplay the capabilities of anybody... I just think that intelligence requires a wide set of skills, some of which CAN be better acquired elsewhere than in the military, and some others of which can't.

There are a large number of civilian analysts doing strategic analysis and threat analysis, who have military backgrounds.  I would not say that necessarily classify them as being "off the street".  They, for the most part, know what weather, terrain, etc. effects have on deployed troops.  Someone with no such experience, often can not factor these things in.       

 

[Nemo888]

This from a branch that loves to use CNN, Jane's , Google earth, AIS , Lloyd's registry, etc...

bwahaha

 

[aesop081]

bwahaha

Not only that but also try to pass it off as actionable int.

 

[George Wallace]

Not only that but also try to pass it off as actionable int.

Well you know...."Garbage in, Garbage out".

 

[observor 69]

Boy is this ever a timely topic. I just started reading "Fiasco" by Thomas E.Ricks.
So far one of the main themes on why the US went into Iraq is the different outlook between Bush administration civilian academic thinkers, Wolfowitz and Perle in particular versus retired military such as Powell, Zinni and Scrowcroft.
Which reminds me of the Vietnam era and the "Best and Brightest." 
Theory versus experience. Not that those with experience couldn't think theoretically but they new the price that would be paid if certain choices were made.

 

[TimBit]

Good point! However, you probably also know that CIA told the White House that there were no WMD's in Iraq, while DIA assured that there were some. So civilian intel is sometimes better as well.

I really don't see your adequation between Wolfowitz and Perle and "off-the-streets" recrutees. These men were overt neo-conservative thinkers. So if I follow your reasonning, civilian=intellectual and theory, probably bad, military=experience and wisdom.

Forgot the cuban missile crisis yet? Or General Westmorland arguing the US didn't lose Vietnam? Or the AirPower theorists in the 50's saying the US should nuke USSR to dust?

I agree with you that theoreticians often fail to see the cost of what they are getting into. But it's no secret that the military has often been willing to cope with a much higher cost than needed or acceptable to the public, i.e. 99% of the population. That being said, I take pride in the CF's tradition of fearless advice and loyal implementation towards the powers-that-be. But again, let me state my point: if INT job is to advise Command, then the more advice there is the better, so that command can make an enlightened decision. And I strongly believe that the more variety in that advice the better it is.

 

[meni0n]

Timbit, quality advice supercedes quantity any day of the week. Just because there is more advice doesn`t mean it is better. CSIS is tailored, at least officially, towards domestic intelligence so I don`t see how they can be compared to military intelligence compabilities which have a bigger spectrum of things to cover, from tactical to strategic.

And I agree with George that at least for the INT brach, it would be better to take people with military experience. The OT process specifically states that operational experience is an asset. Just because a off-the-street recruit can learn some concepts like ORBATs doesn`t necessarily mean he will completely understand them. Some things you just have to experience to get them fully.

 

[TimBit]

Alright well I respect your point of view everyone. But I still disagree. CSIS might seem tailored to you, but they cover CT (a very difficult topic... culturally, politically and operationnally... much more so than what it is for the CF), CI, Cyberwarfare and Domestic Intelligence, all around the world (yes they do operate abroad on security intelligence), while at the scrutiny of the public. What about CSE, which supports the CF in Afghanistan, with up to 25% of their production as the Chief stated in front of Parliament?

I respect your call for experience. But to say that this is because of the civilian intelligence's menial and simple tasks compared to the military's is demeaning; the learning curve and difficulties associated with int jobs are tremendous, whether on the civilian side or the military side.

As for more advice...it isn't necessarily better, true. But the more ideas you throw in the better the advice in the end. If you ask one man for his reading of a situation, he'll give you his; ask 10 and they'll each give you theirs; but once merged, it might be a bit more open and inclusive than the first one.

Anyway...I say, let's agree to disagree

 

[observor 69]

Well I hate to say it's my argument 

But Mr.Ricks, in his book, is arguing that once Wolfofitz and Perle had sold Rumsfeld and Cheney that taking out Saddam by invasion was the way to go vice containment then the military voice of experience and caution was lost. And of course combining that with a weak president.

This same theme of "best and brightest" and experience was brought to mind again by this article in todays New York Times.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/24/opinion/24brooks.html

 

[PMedMoe]

I respect your call for experience. But to say that this is because of the civilian intelligence's menial and simple tasks compared to the military's is demeaning; the learning curve and difficulties associated with int jobs are tremendous, whether on the civilian side or the military side.

I've been reading this thread and even though I am "out of my lane" I will say that I haven't seen where anyone has said that the civilian intelligence’s tasks are menial and simple compared to the military.

What I have read, is that personnel who have military experience outside of intelligence will be easier to train as Int Ops than a civilian off the street who is not familiar with the CF.

It's no different than when I sit in an O Gp with civilians and we're talking in acronyms and one of them asks (every time):  What's a SME?  What's an OPI?  What's an APRV?"  If they had CF experience, we wouldn't have to explain anything.  That may be a simple comparison, but that's the way I see it.

 

[George Wallace]

Alright well I respect your point of view everyone. But I still disagree. CSIS might seem tailored to you, but they cover CT (a very difficult topic... culturally, politically and operationnally... much more so than what it is for the CF), CI, Cyberwarfare and Domestic Intelligence, all around the world (yes they do operate abroad on security intelligence), while at the scrutiny of the public. What about CSE, which supports the CF in Afghanistan, with up to 25% of their production as the Chief stated in front of Parliament?

I see you really don't understand the way things are.  First, CSE is closely related to the CF, and has always been a civilian arm of DND.  CSIS is working closely with the CF in certain Regions.  The CF also operates a wide variety of Intelligence 'agencies' covering a wide variety of 'information gathering sources'.

I respect your call for experience. But to say that this is because of the civilian intelligence's menial and simple tasks compared to the military's is demeaning; the learning curve and difficulties associated with int jobs are tremendous, whether on the civilian side or the military side.

No one has been making that comparison.  The comparison has been the 'hiring' of people 'off the street' and not experienced CF members.

As for more advice...it isn't necessarily better, true. But the more ideas you throw in the better the advice in the end. If you ask one man for his reading of a situation, he'll give you his; ask 10 and they'll each give you theirs; but once merged, it might be a bit more open and inclusive than the first one.

This is much the same as what I said earlier, but perhaps should have carried further in response to Cdn Aviator and another, "Garbage In is Garbage OUT.  What did you provide?"  If the sources are providing garbage to the INT people, then the INT product produced will be garbage.