• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

Int to CSIS?

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'.

CSE might be related to the CF and DND. BUt it is not run by the military, nor is it run by the military, nor does it act like it, period. The civvies there who provide support to the CF are just that, civvies. Believe me. As for the "you really don't understand the way things are". Ah! If you think I'm some think of stupid kid reading books in my basement, you got it wrong. Intelligence is what I do every day of the week. It's my job. So explain to me now what I don't understand.

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

Well my apologies, I took this
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.
to mean that DEO's couldn't perform the military intelligence job because CDI's tasks were so much more complex. Was I so off? Tailored doesn't mean simple? Then what does it mean? More narrow? More focused? If so, then you clearly don't understand the business of many GoC agencies.

Anyway, I see that this argument is going nowhere... Not respectfully anyway.

As for the Acronym Soup comment by PMedMoe: That's true! But it is a little bit like that in other places still... and again, I say that this could be learned.
 
TimBit said:
As for the Acronym Soup comment by PMedMoe: That's true! But it is a little bit like that in other places still... and again, I say that this could be learned.

Never said it couldn't be learned, but military personnel would already know it.
But, you can't teach someone experience (e.g. operational), right?
 
Just putting it out there... Perhaps it is not a good idea
To put your day job out there. This is NOT a secure forum...
 
When I said tailored, I meant that their main focus is domestic. At least that`s their official mandate. As for CSE, from their web site: The Communications Security Establishment Canada (CSEC) is Canada's national cryptologic agency.

We provide the Government of Canada with two key services: foreign signals intelligence in support of defence and foreign policy, and the protection of electronic information and communication.

I`m pretty sure that Leitrim takes care of foreign signals intelligence, and guess who runs that show?
 
Bah well... putting my day job out there is not such a biggie. It's left to us really. Plus, I haven't used my own name nor put out my address on purpose. Thanks for the reminder though.

And meni0n... Leitrim does not "take care" of signals intelligence. It is much more complicated than that. ANd CSE runs the show. A bit of open source info, the DG of Military Sig, a BGEn, works for CSE. Guess that tells you who runs the show. To those doubting the unclassified nature, http://www.cmp-cpm.forces.gc.ca/dsa-dns/sa-ns/ab/sobv-vbos-eng.asp?mAction=View&mBiographyID=510

CFIOG is a partner, just like CSS is a partner to NSA, hence NSA/CSS. Anyway guess I'd better zip it :)
 
So you want to say that the civilians at CSE are the main source of foreign signint? Even though when you check out CSE careers web site and the main personnel that are hired are analysts, mathematicians, engineers and programmers. You want to tell me CSE can function without Leitrim?

Leitrim's mission is to:

* Operate and maintain signals intelligence collection and geolocation facilities in support of the Canadian cryptologic program. interception, decrypting and processing of communications for the Communications Security Establishment
* Operate and maintain radio frequency direction finding facilities in support of search and rescue and other programs.
* Maintain an operationally ready Cryptologic Direct Support Element in support of military operations.
* Provide technical and logistic support to other units of the Canadian Forces Information Operations Group.

Since Leitrim is part of CFIOG, and you yourself says that they are like a partner, I don`t see how CSE "runs the show" alone. I don't see anywhere that CSE does its own sigint gathering.

 
I never said "alone". But it remains a fact, the senior SIGINT person in Canada is a civilian.
Analysts at CSE write foreign intelligence reports. So says the website.

Collection, as you know, is classified. The missions of both organizations are quite complementary., but leitrim has about 500 personnel while CSE has 1800+. You can look at CSE's partner as well, i.e. NSA and GCHQ. While NSA is more a mixed mil/civ agency, GCHQ clearly is civ.

In short it is a partnership, but all these agencies are civilian.
 
Anytime I've dealt with CSE, they were a headache and a roadblock to anything we did with the military, but seem to have been given control of everything in the SIGINT world in Canada. I think we're swinging off the original topic though.

I worked with a CSIS guy once, he was a really down to earth guy, and definately didn't have a chip on his shoulder about the military.
 
TimBit said:
......... As an example, Leitrim currently has around 500 personel. CSE has 1800+.


::)    So what?  Have you looked at other installations besides Leitrim?  I suppose you remember a place called Shelburne, or perhaps Alert, or several other lesser know places, installations and CF establishments, warships and aircraft. 

As for those CSE 1800, how many are actually ex-military who jumped the fence for better wages in a CS job, not requiring an annual BFT/CF Expres or IBTS?  Just start at the top with; Chief of CSEC: John Adams, who was a Cbt Engr and retired a MGen.  How many others are currently Reservists?   

But we are wandering way off the sidetracked discussion as to whether or not it is wise to hire 'people off the street' into the INT Branch rather than encourage promising candidates from the Combat Trades. 

 
LONG-WINDED RESPONSE FOLLOWS -- YOU MAY WANT TO GET A COFFEE FIRST

Every now that then, a thread develops which reaffirms "never wrestle with a pig -- you'll both get dirty, and only the pig will enjoy it."

As to the sidetracked discussion of hiring off the street versus internal recruiting..... hey, I've got some opinions (imagine that  ;D )

As a strategic analyst, will insights learned studying international relations, economics, nuclear policies, languages, etc be more useful than the skills learned commanding a rifle platoon? Yes. Also, the networking ability will likely be stronger since the analyst will be possibly interacting with other government department peers, hired from the same Carleton/York/Queen's/McGill gene pool. While one may wish to employ infantry skills when dealing with the Eye of Mordor, er, the Privy Council Office, it's not allowed, so no real benefit there.

At the tactical level, will a civie hire face a steeper learning curve than someone military? Yes, absolutely. But even this comes with a caveat. Is the former 'number 3 rifleman' going to have any sort of edge when memorizing Sovremmenyy-class destroyers or Blackjack bombers? Possibly not.

Tactical-level credibilty. Mixed response here. Former service, but unknown to the command and staff: A new IO, with a couple of deployments, has a degree of cred over the civie-hire with nothing on his tunic, even if he has a StFX ring. Now here's where the theory of 'must have prior service' gets a little shakey.

On paper, having previously spent time at sea, or in an armd regiment, is excellent for providing knowledge of how the military really operates; if there are reports of two enemy battalions forward, the IO unthinkingly knows that there's a third in reserve somewhere (yes, simplistic example; everyone and his dog should see that).

However....we also know that INT doesn't always get "promising candidates from the Combat Trades." I've heard it said quite openly that "PAffO and Trg Dev O keeps INT from getting all the cast-offs." And yes, I obviously acknowledge that that is clearly not the case -- there are a multitude of very well qualified and respected officers and NCMs going into your Branch. But INT can be a very personality-driven world, and when Capt Thud gets ushered out of the 1st Battalion's A/Adjt line serial, only to return as their IO....

Now, turning to CF/CSE/CSIS......again, don't discount the personality-driven aspect. While "culturally," I think CSIS tends to be distainful of military intelligence (no less so than DFAIT or several other players at PCO/IAC). Individually, however, and harkening back to Puck Chaser's 'one time at band camp' response, individually most play nicely with DND. No one group has a monopoly on arrogance. And CSE...well, believe it or not young Jimmies, there's more to CSE than a 291er linkage. I do have to say though, CSIS folks dress a whole lot nicer.

Bottom line: Hires off of the street face a steep learning curve (beyond having to learn acronyms), and sometimes the time/effort to bring them to a 'common military understanding' have been problematic; sometimes the student is the weak link, sometimes the time simply isn't available. Once in their line serials as INT officers or NCMs, their initial credibility may vary depending on their background and the supported command/staff mindset. It soon becomes obvious, however, who is capable and who is not...and that will have little to do with previous abilities at the mortar baseplate.
 
I have been enjoying this debate immensely.  It's great to see democracy in action.

George and the pro OT side, I understand your bias, in that you want Int Ops / Int Os with combat experience working on providing the info that informs the commanders decisions.  It makes sense to me from your perspective that these people will have a better understanding of what CF is all about, and the language that members use.

What also makes sense to me is that the training one receives will largely determine the quality of work that one will provide.  As a civvy hoping to become an Int Op, I am prepared to do my time in combat arms, if necessary but would much prefer to start my CF career as an Int Op.

What advice would you give a civilian to better prepare them for the role of Int Op should the come in off the street.  What knowledge can a civvy arm themselves with beforehand so as too decrease the learning curves incline?

Tanks

B



 
George Wallace said:
Guess that about sums it up.  I'll go for a beer now.  NCIS is on.

Sweet! Gibs shot down a helicopter with one shot.     
 
BradCon said:
I have been enjoying this debate immensely.  It's great to see democracy in action.

George and the pro OT side, I understand your bias, in that you want Int Ops / Int Os with combat experience working on providing the info that informs the commanders decisions.  It makes sense to me from your perspective that these people will have a better understanding of what CF is all about, and the language that members use.

What also makes sense to me is that the training one receives will largely determine the quality of work that one will provide.  As a civvy hoping to become an Int Op, I am prepared to do my time in combat arms, if necessary but would much prefer to start my CF career as an Int Op.

What advice would you give a civilian to better prepare them for the role of Int Op should the come in off the street.  What knowledge can a civvy arm themselves with beforehand so as too decrease the learning curves incline?

Tanks

B

There probably is not a whole hell of alot you can do to get a leg up in the tactical intelligence area.  Former service really does help with that, but its not the be all end all.  The fact of the matter is, weather you are a seasoned combat veteran or a bright promissing university graduate, the learning curve for this job is VERY steep, and its only getting more steep and the military starts to understand that they cant wait until after the war in Afghanistan is over to update their training.

Ive seen former combat arms soldiers come over as Int Ops and do a terrible job of it.  There is nothing worse then an infanteer running around playing army with a pen in his hand.  Ive also seen civies come in and be completely incompetant and useless as well.  Ive also seen former combat arms types come in and prove to be amazing Int Ops and ive also seen some civies do the same thing.

Former military experience helps a little bit, but it doesnt help enough to justify the exclusion of others. 

With that in mind, if you really want to prepare yourself, try to focus on the things that you have in your control.  For example, stay extremely up to date with news from around the world of all different shapes and sizes.  Ask questions here and see what people have to say.  Dont take it as law, take it as a very small sample as to how some CF members communicate with each other.  Practice your public speaking skills.  Also practice writing very brief, short and do the point prose.  You have to be a good writer to succeed in this job, but it cant be the academic good kind.  You have to speak in simple terms, easy to understand, that dont take more time then available, or more space then available to make your point.

Communication is everything.  It doesnt matter how much experience you have, if you cannot communicate your so called brilliance or experience then what good are you?

Read lots of books.  Study Canadian military history meticulously.  Short of combat arms experience, its the best education out there on military matters.  Read books on intelligence as well, it will also help give you a breadth of depth going into the trade.

Make sure when reading this books, you are mindful of what kind of author is writing them.  Is it a journalist or other form of "popular" writer?  Or is it a scholarly or academic work?  Being able to understand the differences there will help you evaluate these works as sources and take them for what they are.  Which source is better?  I dont think the answer matters here, what matters is that you understand how they both work and come to their conclusions so you can make your own assessments.

Take news with a grain of salt.

Stay active on the forums, read the combat stuff, ask questions, and dont get discouraged when you get rebuked.

Thats the best you can do, and even after all of that, you still wont be ready.

You will be well trained, by the time you get to Int given that the training is now changing.  After you are done that, you still wont be ready.  You are going to have to take all of that, put it together, and try your best, and roll with what comes your way.  There is only so much that any of us can do.  Just make sure what you do is your best, take opinions with a grain of salt, form your OWN opinions, and then strap in and see what fate has to say about it  ;D
 
Too late to jump in as the debate seems to have gone off fairly well.

ltmaverick25 said:
Ive seen former combat arms soldiers come over as Int Ops and do a terrible job of it.  There is nothing worse then an infanteer running around playing army with a pen in his hand.  Ive also seen civies come in and be completely incompetant and useless as well.  Ive also seen former combat arms types come in and prove to be amazing Int Ops and ive also seen some civies do the same thing.

That about sums it up...

Edit:

George Wallace said:
Guess that about sums it up.  I'll go for a beer now.  NCIS is on.

Sorry George, looks like I copied your line there...

 
Greymatters said:
That about sums it up...

I think I said the same thing just a few posts ago, yet it keeps on going.  Oh well?



One important point, and one that many that have been posting on this topic haven't clued into  yet;  "Check your ego at the door."  This is a job that requires complete honesty and dedication.  Anyone with an ego, inability to admit that they don't know, or think that they know more than everyone else and can BS their way through, will land up giving themselves and the Branch a bad name.  As the Branch is still fairly well 'personalities' this could be a 'career stopper'....
 
As far as the same things being said a few posts ago.  Sure, I touched on some things that were already said, but I was also answering someone elses question about what he could do to prepare for a career within Int.  I phrased my responce within the context of answering his question, while at the same time weighing in on the debate which I think is entirely legitimate.

Besides, I didnt see anyone else rushing off to answer the question.
 
I realize this is a very old post, however there's something here that I don't think anyone has mentioned.

Enlisted members of the US military have the option of going directly into Intelligence. After an 8-12-week Intelligence School (depending on branch) they get their first posting.

If the US does it on a regular basis, what's to stop the CF from doing it as well? It seems to work for them, or they would have curbed the practice.
 
Neo Cortex said:
I realize this is a very old post, however there's something here that I don't think anyone has mentioned.

Enlisted members of the US military have the option of going directly into Intelligence. After an 8-12-week Intelligence School (depending on branch) they get their first posting.

If the US does it on a regular basis, what's to stop the CF from doing it as well? It seems to work for them, or they would have curbed the practice.

The also have a Marine Corps, and Army Aviation! Maybe we should start emulating those practices too?

The CF is slowly opening up opportunities for direct entry Int O and Int Ops. The results are varied, and although the Branch has produced some fine DEO and DE Int Ops... I for one am NOT convinced of the practice. That being said I've worked with 1 Int Op that's a direct entry and he's bang on. Then again... he's got a LE background too, and is used to thinking like a bad guy.
 
Back
Top