Talk:Military intelligence

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 21 August 2019 and 4 December 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Mreynolds12.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 04:09, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Requested move

• This article is about military intelligence, of which espionage is one minor aspect.
• Support This is my move request. —Michael Z. 2005-05-31 00:04 Z

This article has been renamed as the result of a move request. violet/riga (t) 23:35, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

==difference between processing and analysis what is it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 147.142.37.31 (talk) 10:01, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Discussion

Maybe i'm confused, but i thot espionage was simply one source of military intelligence, contrary to the article Military espionage which says

Military espionage, or military intelligence

as if they were synonomous. (Evidently this is not a UK/US difference.) --Jerzy 00:09, 2004 Feb 2 (UTC)

Yup, this is a bit of a mess. Espionage is just one method of intelligence gathering, alongside tactical reconnaissance, radio intercept, satellites, etc. The subject of military intelligence also includes intelligence analysis, cryptography, counterintelligence, communications, etc.

I'm moving this article to Military intelligence for starters. It need lots of work. —Michael Z. 2005-05-30 23:57 Z

As the saying goes, Military intelligence is an oxymoron. Nobs01 00:29, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

You have obviously never been in the army, there is also a saying, "Military Precision" -True Patriot

Hey, I changed this line "The term is also commonly used to describe examples of extreme incompetence, and is often used rhetorically as an oxymoron." to the shorter "The term is often used rhetorically as an oxymoron."

A section about military intelligence blunders might be interesting but seemed like it should have citations and so on.

classified surname

Is it true that people in the Intelligence Corps have their surnames classified? (But they can reveal their first names and tell other they are in Intelligence?)

This topic and discussion should be redefined, preferrable as a task group. The methodologies are too many, The number of specialties, whether as collectors, analysts, staff members and technical support are way too many to be limited within the scope of just one article.Radical man 7 (talk) 22:24, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

MI numbers

MI5 is UK, MI6 is foreign: Airey Neave worked for MI9 - being what?

According to the MI9 Article, it was responsible for "aiding resistance fighters in enemy occupied territory and recovering Allied troops who found themselves behind enemy lines". 58.7.171.182 08:02, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

If 1 to 3 are air land and sea, what is 4 etc.

Similarly, MI4 was the Mapping department, MI7 was set up to look after propaganda and censorship, MI8 was a signals intelligence group tracking radio broadcasts about German bombers during The Blitz, MI10 was responsible for weapons and technical analysis during World War II, [[MI11] acted as Field Intelligence Police (protecting British troops against the enemy agents amongst civilian populations), MI12 handle military censorship and to liase with censorship organizations within the Ministry of Information, MI13 didnt seem to exist, MI14 was split from MI3 and specialised in intelligence about Germany, MI15 was set up to handle aerial photography, MI16 was set up to handle scientific intelligence, MI17 was the secretariat to the other MI departments, there doesnt seem to have been a MI18, and finally MI19 was responsible for obtaining information from enemy prisoners of war. MI1 was actually Codebreaking in the Great War, MI2 not Navy intelligence, it was set up to handle Russian and Scandinavian intelligence in WW2, and MI3 was not Air Force Intelligence, rather it was responsible for intelligence in Eastern Europe (excluding Scandinavia and Russia). No, i did not know any of this before checking out the articles. Does that answer the question? ;) 58.7.171.182 08:02, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps a sub page might be useful for those of us who are curious about the subject (g).

Check the MI6 web site. The names and numbers changed all the time and are not all MI1, MI2, MI3... E.G. at one point there was an MI1a, MI1b and MI1c. N.B. In current use MI5 and MI6 both have national and international remits. There true names tell you more. MI5 being calld "secruity service" and MI6 "Secret Intelegnce Service"

Hope this helps —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 62.232.65.170 (talk) 15:39, 11 January 2007 (UTC). Strictly, MI5 is not UK and MI6 foreign. Five is concerned with security and Six are the Secret Intelligence Service. Usually, Five operate in the UK (though they co-operate with overseas security agencies and can conduct operations abroad in support of their remit). Six operate in the UK and abroad, mostly abroad. Jas 23:57, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Enlisted conducting Air Force Intelligence

A user at 153.29.32.34 wrote a comment inside the article under the United States Air Force section. I'm moving it here. -- Mike Wilson 04:24, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

"For whoever wrote this... there are also enlisted members that conduct Air Force Intelligence."

Who ever wrote this article is an idiot

Many so called facts in this article are wrong. Its obvious that this article was written by an incompetent Army MI Officer, most likely a CPT, who has completed the CCC, yet is still oblivious to the workings of his own branch. Additionally, various OPSEC violations are blatant throughout out this entire article.

I shake with fear as i watch the world torn asunder.

The French DGSE quoted here is not a military intelligence agency but a civil one which depends of Ministry of Defence. France has two military intelligence agencies : the DRM (direction du renseignement militaire - directorate for military intelligence) and the DPSD (direction de la protection et de la sûreté de la Défense - directorate for protection and savety of the Defense, an agency specialized on counter-spy within France's MoD).

Czar —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.7.243.56 (talk) 22:45, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

czar <smalll>pendig alh and tank arjun are conducted in 2011 we shall be regard to indian goverment to bring us

czar <large> top secret china will conduct their large amount of army and their heavy petroling in pok border i need to be their for important document presentaiopn of china secret

czar<utc>cia the top secret agencie will get their best result so we can also contuct them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.200.153.222 (talk) 10:35, 27 May 2011 (UTC) [Template: top secret- indian goverment need to purchase new fighter and jets which are most stronger than mig are sukhoi and we also pucrshase4 b7 fighter plane that never seen any radar and no won can see them < — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.200.153.222 (talk) 11:32, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

The US and Intelligence?

It might be just me, but in my opinion the length of the article dedicated to the US military (in particular, the US Army and its 'active intelligence division') seems far too specific for an article which describes most things in general terms; especially comprared with the three lines dedicated to the UK's military intelligence and the total lack of any mention of French, German, Russian, Chinese, Brazillian et al countries. ECHELON isnt mentioned (specifically) either. Would it worth making (or finding) a specific article on Intelligence in the US Army/Military and moving the bulk of that there, and then leaving the rest more in accordance with the start of the article? I'll leave it for a while before doing anything myself to allow for some comment. 58.7.171.182 07:42, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree. Move the US stuff, and expand on a more genral theam of MI, perhaps only noting the UK MI branches as a short point of interes, and giving links to various specific articals on specific organisations around the world.

Dividing up this article

I would support the notion that it is appropriate to move the US Army specific MI information in this article to a separate article on US Army Military Intelligence, and that the general concept of "Military Intelligence" covers a far broader topic, spanning nearly all countries and a rich history in the time line.

I agree - it differs somewhat from the concept in British Military Intelligence

Commentary moved from article

A few suggestions:Contrary to the good intentions of many authors, your article, and mine(Imagery Analysis), would benefit from the testimonies of those (myself included) who actually participated in collection, analysis and dissemination. Your article is based on open-sources, The real-world is a very different environment, tactical and strategic intel are worlds apart. Believe it or not, you can provide a limited amount of detail about mostly historic collection and analysis, for that you need eye-witnesses. A potential source of information is the Army's FM series of field manuals. If I remember correctly, the 34 series. The reason is that it shows the actual tactical doctrine. Another source of official information is the Army's official MOS regulation that shows a very detailed description of each MOS, the qualifications needed, and actual work related staffing tables. Tactical intelligence needs to be expounded on. It's the nuts & bolts of the intel community. Again, you can go into some basic detail, just consult someone in the intel community to not divulge any secrets. If you want to make use of details from my articles, Imagery Analysis and Analisis de Imagenes, I don't mind, it's for the greater good.Radical man 7 21:08, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Merge Proposal

The stub "Process of Intelligence" has little information and is significantly better handled here, I rec simply making that article a redirect here. --Joe Decker 15:28, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

I'd support that, although the current article needs to be globalised, at the moment it's US secific.ALR 15:37, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Agreed that the current article needs to become globalized.--Joe Decker 15:56, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

This entire page needs to be revamped.

This entire page needs to be revamped. I would comment in this post on the gross discrepancies, but I do not have the time. The worst being information relating to Marine Corps intelligence. I can tell you that USMC intelligence is not based on US Army organizational models and Marine Analysts are taught by Marines, not the US Navy.

That being said, I feel the article and subject is valid. The article should be categorized by (1) describing Intelligence basics:

Information + Analysis = Intelligence , etc.

followed by (2) brief descriptions of the different intelligence disciplines:

Human Intelligence Imagery Intelligence Open Source Intelligence Measure and Signals Intelligence and so on and so forth.

Lastly, a section needs to be dedicated to the (3) differences between the levels of military intelligence:

Strategic Operational Tactical

Intelligence as performed by individual services from US and various countries should be separate articles with the proper links to this article.

None of this information is classified, nor does it breach any IO procedures. Sourcing for this article should be easy enough, I'll need time to compile. However, to follow military SOP, anyone within the Intelligence industry who does work on this article should first submit the material to the proper authorities for review. Personally, I doubt any official would be concerned with the depth and information in this article.

Because of the reserved nature of the Intelligence industry, anyone outside of the field who updates this article will lack the credibility to properly write this article. I hope the rest of us can all work on this together to correct and finalize it quickly.

Semper Fi, Wincy BigWincy 19:31, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Open Source is not an intelligence discipline —Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.190.32.72 (talk) 02:27, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Strategic Intelligence

I made some additions to the section on SI, but need to understand the original text. I don't understand the use of the word "changes". Would the author help us out? Thanks! Jas 00:06, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Processing

The Processing section is two sentences, and they practically contradict each other. DanielDPeterson (talk) 07:17, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Why does TIARA redirect here?

There's no mention of it in the article. 95.150.81.189 (talk) 11:32, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Military intelligence. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120123164032/http://www.ni-u.edu/pdf/NIU_Catalog_2011.pdf to http://www.ni-u.edu/pdf/NIU_Catalog_2011.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080121002221/http://www.fas.org/main/content.jsp?formAction=325&projectId=6 to https://fas.org/main/content.jsp?formAction=325&projectId=6

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:34, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Circular reporting

According to the artice circular reporting,
Circular reporting, or false confirmation, is a situation in source criticism where a piece of information appears to come from multiple independent sources, but in reality comes from only one source.

I don't understand how that can be called 'circular', though the article has two supporting citations - each is about that usage in Military Intelligence. If any editor can help clarify, comments are invited at talk:Circular reporting#This article confuses two concepts?. Thank you. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 19:23, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

Lack of history

This article lacks any historical perspective on the development of military intelligence. --Tysto (talk) 05:13, 1 May 2022 (UTC)