Essay Actionable Intelligence

The historical battle of Harpers Ferry was a pivotal point during the Civil War. While the battle was a clear victory on the Confederate front, Union forces could have changed the outcome with little efforts. This paper analyzes the battle with the intent of identifying how the application, utilization, or availability of intelligence assets could have resulted in an alternate outcome. With the proper use of All Source Intelligence analysis on the Union front, the Battle of Harpers Ferry would have played out completely different. While the results of this battle may not have changed the outcome of the Civil War, it would have affected the timeline of follow-on battles. The structure of this paper is simple, we cover the basics of the battle and follow up with relevant facts on how proper use of terrain analysis and troop capabilities affects the outcome of the battle.

The battle of Ap Bac was a small battle engaged between the Army of the Republic of Vietnam (ARVN) and the insurgents, or the People Liberation Armed Forces (Viet Cong AKA VC) with the assistance of American’s weapons and advice during the Vietnam War. It took place on 2 January, 1963, near a small village named Ap Bac which is located approximately 65 km southwest of Saigon in the Mekong Delta. (Starry, 2002). As a senior leader, it is important that we have to be technically and tactically proficient. In order to be proficient, we not only need to be trained, but also we have to know how to gain experience from past battles in history using battle assessment, and critical thinking process to study the battle. That way, we know what needs to be improved, how to sustain it, and how would we execute it better next time. Therefore, studying the history of the battle of Ap Bac will enhance the knowledge of how the commanders used the most effective and efficient method for applying decisive action on the battle field. It would be a successful outcome for the South Vietnamese ARVN, and Kennedy’s administration would have gained more trust from American people for the presence of American troops in Vietnam, if the American advisers and the ARVN’s commanders would have integrated intelligence preparation of the battlefield (ITP) throughout the operations process to identify the gaps of intelligence between human intelligence (HUMINT),

During our military careers we are faced with many different situations and problems. We will need to present solutions to these situations and problems. The Army has four types of military briefings for us to choose from to effectively communicate our solutions. These four military briefings are decision briefings, information briefings, mission briefings and staff briefings. Each situation will have a factor in determining which type of military briefing is needed. To know which military briefing is to be used, we must understand the purpose of each briefing. This paper will give a narrative on each of the four military briefs and the steps involved for the presentation of each brief. I will begin with decision briefings. Before I can begin with decision briefings, I must give a brief discussion on the Army’s problem solving process.

Intelligence gathering and collection in the United States has significantly increased over time. This paper examines how intelligence reporting and pre-mission planning was crucial to the success of the United Nations involvement at The Battle of Inchon during the Korean War. By examining how intelligence played a role in this battle, you will be able to understand why it is important to gather and collect intelligence prior to every mission executed. Intelligence collection should be the baseline for all military operations. Inchon Landing has an ample amount of actionable intelligence; collected and disseminated appropriately we will discuss how it played a role in a low probability mission accomplishment to the last great amphibious assault in history. This paper provides detailed explanations on why The Battle of Inchon was a success and what could have been the outcome had it gone the other way.

As leaders, Army officers need to be able to make decisions on a daily, even hourly basis. While the Military Decision Making Process (MDMP) is the typical method for operational decisions, routine issues often require less regimented methods such as Army Problem Solving . Our point of view, the information at hand, the concepts we base our views upon, our personal implications and assumptions, and the purposes that motivate our need for decisions are all critical in determining the ultimate effectiveness of this problem solving process. Drs. Paul and Elder enumerate the “Elements of Thought” which include and incorporate supporting traits and standards. Through proper integration of these accepted standards into our thought processes can and does significantly improve our overall use of the Army Problem Solving process by enhancing our critical thinking skills and our ability to think rationally.

Major General Burnside’s failure at the Battle of Fredericksburg could initially be attributed to the army not receiving the pontoon bridges in time to cross the river and sustain the army’s momentum. However, MG Burnside’s bigger issue can be linked back to his lack of mission planning. The issue of not receiving the pontoon bridges relates directly to the lack of Intelligence Preparation of the Battlefield (IPB). During IPB, the battlefield environment is defined, battlefield effects are described, the threat is evaluated, and threat courses of action are determined (Headquarters, Department of the Army, 1994). If MG Burnside had taken the time to conduct proper terrain analysis of the Rappahannock River

The United States Army’s shift to counterinsurgency over the last 15 years directed changes in all aspects of the service. This shift directed the Army’s emphasis away from the large conventional conflicts to counterinsurgency. During this shift counterintelligence spent the last 15 years mastering its role. Now the Army is adapting again due to the ever changing conflicts in the world. The 39th US Army Chief of Staff, General Milley, stated that the US Army needs to “re-focus on conventional training”. Since counterintelligence supports the maneuver it is continuing to adapt. Counterintelligence support to combined arms maneuver throughout unified land operations is not completely new to counterintelligence. Pre-counterinsurgency doctrine covers specific tasks and duties for counterintelligence personnel and are applicable today. Discussed below are the aspects of counterintelligence support to unified land operations in the offense and defense against the conventional threat of a hybrid force.

The Battle of Midway was a critical turning point of the war in the Pacific during World War II. Attribution to American success is in direct relation to their ability to conduct signal collection and crypto-analysis leading to the battle. The elimination of this capability from consideration during the preparation for this battle will drastically influence the outcome. Through critical reasoning and battle analysis, this paper will determine the level of effect of the capability. The analysis will also seek to understand the change in outcome as a result of this change in history. The product of this analysis will be a thorough understanding of the importance of intelligence capability to United States success during World War II.

The battle of Ap Bac was a small battle engaged between the Army of the Republic of Vietnam (ARVN) and the insurgents, or the People Liberation Armed Forces (Viet Cong AKA VC) with the assistance of American’s weapons and advice during the Vietnam War. It took place on 2 January, 1963, near a small village named Ap Bac which is located approximately 65 km southwest of Saigon in the Mekong Delta. (Starry, 2002). As a senior leader, it is important that we have to be technically and tactically proficient. In order to be proficient, we not only need to be trained, but also we have to know how to gain experience from past battles in history using battle assessment, and critical thinking process to study the battle. That way, we know what needs to be improved, how to sustain it, and how would we execute it better next time. Therefore, studying the history of the battle of Ap Bac will enhance the knowledge of how the commanders used the most effective and efficient method for applying decisive action on the battle field. It would be a successful outcome for the South Vietnamese ARVN, and Kennedy’s administration would have gained more trust from American people for the presence of American troops in Vietnam, if the American advisers and the ARVN’s commanders would have integrated intelligence preparation of the battlefield (ITP) throughout the operations process to identify the gaps of intelligence between human intelligence (HUMINT), outsourcing

The United States (US) Army states that the “purpose of intelligence is to support commanders and staffs in gaining situational understanding of threats, terrain and weather, and civil considerations. Intelligence supports the planning, preparing, execution, and assessment of operations” (Army, 2012). Accurate and non-biased intelligence is critical in developing a mission in the battlefield. However, inaccurate or biased intelligence reporting leads to failure. Intelligence failures have been an ongoing battle within the Department of Defense (DoD).

Knowledge accumulation and investigation fuel the world-changing choices of policymakers consistently. The pioneers of nations, their prompting staff, military pioneers, and government organizations all depend on auspicious, exact reports keeping in mind the end goal to choose the destiny of a military unit, a nation's military, or a nation itself. These policymakers need worldwide, national, and nearby occasions clarified in a way that inspects all ramifications and conceivable results of a situation. It is the Intelligence Community's business to gather, examines, and reports these occasions to the policymakers. So as to serve the nation most successfully, an insight examination report must Webb 2 be client engaged, tending to the client's

The final attribute of mission command for consideration is understanding. Understanding prepares leaders at all echelons with the vision and far-sightedness that is essential to make operative choices, manage risks, and consider second and third order effects (Mission Command White Paper, 3 April 2012, 5). Leaders who possess understanding have the mental capacity to grasp and appreciate any state of affairs which facilitates their capacity to make autonomous decisions. Conversely, leaders who lack understanding put their troops or others at risk.

Although good intelligence can come in many forms, the ability to see what is happening on the ground first hand cannot be over- emphasised and can be invaluable for C2. The available time between collections, analyse and exploitation will shorten as the operational tempo might increases.

There many steps that could have been taken to reduce the Japanese effectiveness in carrying out the attack on Pearl Harbor, but a good first that should have been taken by intelligence practitioners and policymakers during this period was to think critically. There are various methods to apply critical thinking but this case study will only explore a few. First, we will discuss the use of the analytical method, Joint Intelligence Preparation of the Operational Environment (JIPOE). The next analytic research technique explored will be the use of Analysis of Competing Hypotheses (ACH). Then the case study will wrap up thinking critically by discussing the affects of mirror imaging in the Pearl Harbor scenario.

The ISR efforts contribute to the creation of joint integrated intelligence preparation of tactical, operational and even strategic environment. This results in gaining the effect of situational awareness, and provides with the opportunity to dominate adversaries in the decision making at all levels of war – tactical, operational and strategic.