Rocco R Rosano
prosano at insight.rr.com
Sun Apr 11 10:12:20 EDT 2004
Good Morning Mr Irwin, et al,
I debated on whether to make a comment on this, option to wait and see
what other responses it elicited.
I want to start by saying that the Huachuca School (of which I have
attended ñ twice) , is a find school for elementary training; and I want
this commentary to be viewed in a positive view, as opposed in a
The Army view of CI and HUMINT is combat arms oriented. But that I mean
it is amateur hour in some regards. So, we have to understand what we
mean when we say CI and HUMINT in the Army, as opposed to a more general
discussion and using those terms in an acceptable way for the remainder
of the IC.
First, a HUMINTer in the Army is NOT a case officer that spots, assesses
and recruits sources to penetrate a hostile apparatus (conventional or
asymmetric) and report on intentions and capabilities (the tradition
Area Intelligence Specialist). It is an ìInterrogator.î The name was
changed in the Army by some well meaning, yet idiotic, Army folks that
assumed that since HUMINT is information derived from ìhumanî sources,
and since ìprisoners of warî and villagers are ìhumanî, therefore
interrogators are involved in HUMINT. These interrogators do not train
to establish defensive or offensive source acquisition projects designed
to create a pool of useful support to target specific OFCOs, or
Commercial Cover Activities (431 Ops) or general area coverage.
Second, CI Agents in the Army are ìpart-timeî agents. That is to say
that they are not always assigned to perform CI work. As an example,
Special Agent Heather Hanrahan of U.S. Joint Forces Command's (USJFCOM),
who was named USJFCOM military member of the year 2003, was assigned as
a physical security specialist at J9. She has successfully tackled a
variety of challenging job duties from security container inventory and
mapping; custodian accountability and training; assisting with the reset
of combinations and relocating containers; and facilitating the issue of
new security badges. She had virtually no CI duties (detection,
exploitation and neutralization of hostiles). The Agent training for an
Army CI Agent is nothing on the order of a professional ìAgentî course.
Agents are not given their Badge and Credential upon graduation and most
will be assigned tactical assignments. Contrary to popular belief, there
is no such thing as Army Counterintelligence ñ there is not such animal.
An Agent assigned to INSCOM is not related to an Agent assigned to the
1st AD in Baghdad.
CI and HUMINT are different animals in the Army (and the USMC) than it
is in any other member of the IC, and cannot be used as a successful
model to view. A minor exception to this is FCA (the Foreign CI
Activity, INSCOM which is mostly civilian Agents). There are Agents
assigned to JTTFs, but again they are largely civilians.
The basic foundation and superstructure on which the Army CI and HUMINT
program are built are unstable and completely segmented. It couldnít
have become more disrupted and dysfunctional if the hostiles had built it.
Because of this dyfunctionality, we find ourselves in the situation in
Iraq, that we have today.
Irwin, Robert wrote:
>I found the posting pertaining to HUMINT and CI very interesting. Ft.
>Huachuca is currently going through the process of merging the two
>specialties for basic INTEL courses. A soldier will go through a basic
>course and be assigned the HUMINT specialty. Once that soldier reaches the
>rank of SGT (E-5) the soldier will be given the option of remaining in the
>HUMINT field and acquiring language training or going to the CI training and
>becoming a CI agent. CI and HUMINT have worked hand in hand in many
>situations and will so in the future. This merger has been anticipated for
>the better part of 20 years.
>Robert C. Irwin
Intelligence Forum (http://www.intelforum.org) is sponsored by Intelligence
and National Security, a Frank Cass journal (http://www.frankcass.com/jnls/ins.htm)
More information about the IntelForum