Military Intelligence

[KafirChobee]

In my day in the military "MI" was an oxymoron, left over from the Korean conflict and WWII ("the Germans are beaten, and then they attack - ref. "Battle of the Bulge"). But, atleast in Korea (by 1967) there were spies that did give real intelligence - to both sides.

Regardless, from May 67' on the loud speakers on the DMZ from the North began a repetition of "When snow comes Joe comes" (Joe is what we called the commies). Now for those of us that spent time on the D, we pretty much believed them. MI called it psychological warfare - which it was, and it was working (2-5% of infantry personel hid in the ville rather than go to the line, of course most ended up there within a few days - but, it was worth the try). So, the top guys ignored it, 'til ROK (Prez Park) MI said maybe.

In May 67' a quancit hut of 13th Engineers was blown up - killing 7-10 and 15 wounding more. In July a fire fight between 1/17th, 7th MP and guerillas ended with them finding a cashe of rockets, mortars, etc - all above Camp Casey. In Nov. a troop picking up wood was ambushed near the DMZ - 3 purple hearts, one Btonze star. In early Dec. a patrol of the 1/31 (or was it 32nd?) was ambushed and killed - except for a 17 y.o. kid that played dead while one of the Joes cut up his finger to get his ring (think about it - meh).
By then there had been over a thousand "incidents". (btw a ROK cruiser was sunk some time during that time line ... or was it earlier?)

Well, someone decided that maybe it might be a good idea to increase the number of GI's on the ROK - so to the chagrin of those derosing versus terminating service - everyone stays. The US ROK army went from 60K (30K today) to 100,000 in a matter of weeks.

In January 68', Tet went off with a major bang. In Korea, the Pueblo was stolen - because we had absolutely zero air support. So, did the increase in troops deter an invasion? Or, was it a diversion to turn our MI away from 'nam?

Thing is, Military Intelligence is still an oxymoron. Only now we think spys in the sky are.

[Vladimir]

Clearly you've never met a Marine MI.

[Banquo's Ghost]

Thing is, Military Intelligence is still an oxymoron. Only now we think spys in the sky are.

I'm not at all sure what your point is? Would you prefer being in warfare without any military intelligence?

Intelligence often gets it in the neck, but all they can do is gather information. It is politicians and senior commanders that interpret that intelligence.

The worst situation to have is where intelligencers are trying to second guess what is wanted, because they have been politicised and its more than their job's worth to dissent.

That's actually worse than having no intelligence at all. In both meanings of the word.

[Redleg]

Sound Military Intelligence lead the collation to defeat Saddam in 1990 during Desert Storm. Poor intelligence gathering allowed for mistakes to happen in the initial phases of the recent conflict.

Now bad military intelligence has done harm to our forces, but that does not equate that military intelligence is something to be avoided.

In other words Kafir, I am not really sure of the point that you are attempting to make.

Unless its this bad military intelligence leads to problems that should/could of been prevented. The piece that is missing is that its often the human being attempting to analysis the data that makes the mistake, not the system itself.

Information has to be gathered and analysised to help protect the force, can it be wrong, or the wrong conclusions made - yes, but it still needs to be done.

[Bijo]

In my day in the military "MI" was an oxymoron, left over from the Korean conflict and WWII ("the Germans are beaten, and then they attack - ref. "Battle of the Bulge"). But, atleast in Korea (by 1967) there were spies that did give real intelligence - to both sides.

Regardless, from May 67' on the loud speakers on the DMZ from the North began a repetition of "When snow comes Joe comes" (Joe is what we called the commies). Now for those of us that spent time on the D, we pretty much believed them. MI called it psychological warfare - which it was, and it was working (2-5% of infantry personel hid in the ville rather than go to the line, of course most ended up there within a few days - but, it was worth the try). So, the top guys ignored it, 'til ROK (Prez Park) MI said maybe.

In May 67' a quancit hut of 13th Engineers was blown up - killing 7-10 and 15 wounding more. In July a fire fight between 1/17th, 7th MP and guerillas ended with them finding a cashe of rockets, mortars, etc - all above Camp Casey. In Nov. a troop picking up wood was ambushed near the DMZ - 3 purple hearts, one Btonze star. In early Dec. a patrol of the 1/31 (or was it 32nd?) was ambushed and killed - except for a 17 y.o. kid that played dead while one of the Joes cut up his finger to get his ring (think about it - meh).
By then there had been over a thousand "incidents". (btw a ROK cruiser was sunk some time during that time line ... or was it earlier?)

Well, someone decided that maybe it might be a good idea to increase the number of GI's on the ROK - so to the chagrin of those derosing versus terminating service - everyone stays. The US ROK army went from 60K (30K today) to 100,000 in a matter of weeks.

In January 68', Tet went off with a major bang. In Korea, the Pueblo was stolen - because we had absolutely zero air support. So, did the increase in troops deter an invasion? Or, was it a diversion to turn our MI away from 'nam?

Thing is, Military Intelligence is still an oxymoron. Only now we think spys in the sky are.
Kafir, I still don't get your point :sweatdrop: Maybe it's because you use many abbreviations that confuse me, and words I don't know like Pueblo. What is ROK? Where is Camp Casey? And what is... I mean... like... where's the... I mean....! :dizzy2:

[Husar]

Kafir, I still don't get your point :sweatdrop: Maybe it's because you use many abbreviations that confuse me, and words I don't know like Pueblo. What is ROK? Where is Camp Casey? And what is... I mean... like... where's the... I mean....! :dizzy2:
I had a very similar problem, I think one needs to have served in some(the US?) military to understand what he wrote.:sweatdrop:

[Crazed Rabbit]

He's talking about the Republic of Korea and De-Militarized Zone (the real oxymoron here) and I don't quite get the point of his rant. Seems just to be grousing about military intelligence failures of 40 years ago, or something.

Crazed Rabbit

[Redleg]

Kafir, I still don't get your point :sweatdrop: Maybe it's because you use many abbreviations that confuse me, and words I don't know like Pueblo. What is ROK? Where is Camp Casey? And what is... I mean... like... where's the... I mean....! :dizzy2:

The USS Pueblo was a ship seized by North Korea, North Korea accused the United States of spying using this ship.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Pueblo_(AGER-2)

Camp Casey is the forward base of the United States Army, 2nd Infantry Division in South Korea. During the 1960-1970's it was the hub of United States Army activity to the posts that the United States was responsible for on the DMZ. Sometime in the late 1980's the United States removed all personal from active patrols and guard posts along the DMZ and turned the responsiblity over to the South Korean Army.

[Tribesman]

The USS Pueblo was a ship seized by North Korea, North Korea accused the United States of spying using this ship.

or more accrately the North Koreans accused the US ship of spying while inside its territorial waters .

[Redleg]

Nm -

[Tribesman]

Neither side came to agreement about that particuler subject.
They did , and they apologised for it to get the crew back .
Its funny isn't it , when the Pueblo was attacked the US said it only recognises the 12 mile limit not the 50 miles that N.Korea claims so since it was boarded 15 miles out it must be in international waters .
Yet when the Maddox was 8 miles out the US says it only recognises the 3 mile limit not the 12 miles that N.Vietnam claims , so it must be in international waters .
Wierd thing these territorial waters , as the Royal Navy found out yet again .:shrug:

[Adrian II]

Since this is a Korea trivia thread, I have three things to contribute:

1. In 2002 the DPRK claimed to be the first in the world able to clone rabbits. I am not surprised. From an economic point of view, rabbits are the most useless animals to clone. If anything there are too many of them already. But then the DPRK itself is useless. And the DPRK itself is, in fact, one DPRK too many.

2. The DPRK has a Committee for Solidarity with the World People. They either help us, you see, or they make sure we know they are there for us should we need them.

3. The name. How on earth did they come up with that in 1948? I suppose Kim wanted to call it 'Me-state of Korea'. The Russians then advised him that 'Republic' would cut a better figure among folks liable to fall for the trick. Since that applied only to semi-literates, Kim insisted to add the term 'People's'. The Russians then told him that two wrongs don't make a right, whereas three wrongs do! Hence it became 'Democratic People's Republic of Korea'.

[Husar]

:laugh4:

That's hilarious Adrian.:2thumbsup:

And Tribesman, isn't that the same with mostly anything political that it only works as long as others accept(or have to accept) it?
Think of Belgium, they were neutral before WW1, yet we simply invaded them because our plan was more important to us than their neutrality.
It's just like alliances, there is no universal power forcing you to stick to them, but breaking them makes you look like a big liar, then again some people just don't care.
So states can only claim territorial waters if they have the navy to force them down someone else's throat and other navies can only tell them to have less territorial waters if they can manage to enter them without having their ships taken over, I think that's the way it usually works.:sweatdrop:

[Tribesman]

Think of Belgium, they were neutral before WW1, yet we simply invaded them because our plan was more important to us than their neutrality.
It's just like alliances, there is no universal power forcing you to stick to them, but breaking them makes you look like a big liar, then again some people just don't care.

Yep but the simply invading them swung the tide didn't it . Britain would have a hardtime selling the war on the basis of activating its alliance on the trigger of Serbia not handing over the terrorists , but Germany triggered another alliance and with the combination of the Rules of engagement it drew up to avoid the problems it had encountered years before in France which meant it slaughtered civilians just in case they might decide to take up arms they really gave the brits a propoganda cause celebre to go to war on .

Anyhow , I knew I should have quoted the whole post before Red removed it .
But yes Red from a purely American point of view its an open and shut case , no agreements were reached and it was definately all the N.Koreans , the Pueblo was only maritime research vessel studying the migratory habits of the lesser spotted red herring .
Though to address the point Kafir was making (I think????) yep , the intelligence really screwed up there , what sort of muppet sends the spy ship the latest sports results , but doesn't send them reports on important events right next to them that are very relevant to their job?????:thumbsdown:

[KafirChobee]

True enough, I was not as specific about the problems with our MI as I had intended. And, by using a 40 years old example may have been to obscure for some. I used it because I was there. Point is, not much has changed.

MI tends to begin with a premise or preconception and build on it, ignoring info that doesnot conform to it, or twisting it to suit their purpose. If there is no original precept, then the information is catagorized by its importance to previous assumptions and filed or ignored accordingly.

Today, as in years gone by the MI groups work on a one upmanship basis and rarely share information. They also have no problem giving up foreign personell that are of no further or future value. That is, they tend not to protect those that were once assets by getting them out of the hostile country (sending them to the US or another friendly country). This was SOP in 'nam, and it is SOP in Iraq.

Examples of this today are the original Iraqi interpretors our military used, once disgarded we thanked them and ignored that their families (as well as themselves) were on target lists of our enemies. By operating in this manner, we discourage cooperation and impair the ability to gather useful information; we alienate rather than encourage support. The US policy of promising rewards (i.e. info on Saddam's where abouts is worth $X millions) and then finding excuses not to pay up (the guy that gave up Saddam worked for him and he had been captured prior to giving up Saddam, ergo no reward), pretty much reinforces that our word means nothing. We may as well make the reward for Osama Bin Laden a $billion$ - 'cause they already know we'll never pay it.

To rebuild our MI communitys integrity and expand its information gathering networking - we must first create an atmosphere of trust. That is, those willing to risk their lives for us must know we won't give them up and will protect them if they are discovered. At the moment we do not have that trust, and have only succeeded in alienating the vast majority of Iraqis with our arrogance and ignoring those that did trust us. So how does one go about creating a comprehensive intelligence gathering network, when those needed to do so trust you less than they fear the enemy? That is the point.



BTW, the 7th INf. Div. (the Bayonet Division) was based at Camp Casey 'til they were withdrawn from Korea in the early 80's and disbanded soon there after. Still, it is of little importance, just a clarification.

[IrishArmenian]

I think he's commenting on the Iraq fiasco.

[Bijo]

If that is true, the thing about MI being so dirty, it's not good. But I personally wouldn't expect too much "good" from an empi-- eh, I mean country, like America.

[Husar]

Well, you can see it in all the spy movies like the Bourne Identity and if this is the way they work in reality(kill/abandon everyone who is not of much use anymore), then it's no surprise that they don't get any support. I'd rather host Osama in my appartement then because as a muslim believer he might be more grateful for that than some agency would be for the information I could provide.

weopfj,.dngiln, sorry, I told him not to type on my keyboard, but he won't listen to me...:sweatdrop:

[Redleg]

They did , and they apologised for it to get the crew back .

LOL your stuck on attempting to one-up manship. :laugh4:

The United States apologized for spying, not for the disagreement over the boundary of the international waters.

From the Wikipedia article alreadly linked.

"Following a written admission by the US that Pueblo had been spying, an apology and an assurance that the US would not spy in the future, the North Korean government decided to release the 82 remaining crew members. On 23 December 1968 the crew was taken by buses to the DMZ border with South Korea and ordered to walk south across the "Bridge of No Return". Exactly 11 months after being taken prisoner, the Captain led the long line of crewmen, followed at the end by the Executive Officer, Lieutenant Ed Murphy, the last man across the bridge. The US then verbally retracted the ransom admission, apology, and assurance. Meanwhile the North Koreans blanked out the paragraph above the signature which read: "and this hereby receipts for 82 crewmen and one dead body". Commander Lloyd M. Bucher, Commanding Officer of the Pueblo and all the officers and crew appeared before a Navy Court of Inquiry. A court martial was recommended for the CO and the Officer in Charge of the Research Department, Lt Steve Harris. But the Secretary of the Navy, John H. Chafee, rejected the recommendation, stating, "They have suffered enough." Commander Bucher was never found guilty of any indiscretions and continued his Navy career until retirement."

[Redleg]

BTW, the 7th INf. Div. (the Bayonet Division) was based at Camp Casey 'til they were withdrawn from Korea in the early 80's and disbanded soon there after. Still, it is of little importance, just a clarification.

The 7th Infanty was sent to Fort Ord, CA I believe where they performed duty in Panama and Los Angeles to quell the riots. The Division was disbanded sometime around 1994-1995.

[KafirChobee]

The 7th Infanty was sent to Fort Ord, CA I believe where they performed duty in Panama and Los Angeles to quell the riots. The Division was disbanded sometime around 1994-1995.

True enough, but the 7th was first disbanned in the 80's. Then reformed around 1994 as the 7th Light Infantry with a Black Widow accompanyment to their original patch of an hourglass (which actually symbolized 2 crossed 7's), and again disbanned a short time later. Still, their history is a strong one - pity the patch wasn't prettier. Like the 2nds' big Indian patch - without them stayig with and covering old Chestys withdrawal from the Chosen Reservoir (after First Cav and a few other divisions fled) the losses could have been horrendous. Oh, well. That to was a MI fubar.

[Vladimir]

I had a very similar problem, I think one needs to have served in some(the US?) military to understand what he wrote.:sweatdrop:

One needs to serve some time on the pipe as well.

[Tribesman]

LOL your stuck on attempting to one-up manship.

In that case repost the information which you deleted since the reply was a response to that post :yes:

[Redleg]

In that case repost the information which you deleted since the reply was a response to that post :yes:

You should of noticed the edit and the comment of NM. Your comment would still be incorrect in regards to that post also. The United States talked about spying not the coastal limits of terroritial waters.

Again your stuck on one upmanship has steered you wrong, I find it rather amusing. :laugh4:

[Redleg]

True enough, but the 7th was first disbanned in the 80's. Then reformed around 1994 as the 7th Light Infantry with a Black Widow accompanyment to their original patch of an hourglass (which actually symbolized 2 crossed 7's), and again disbanned a short time later. Still, their history is a strong one - pity the patch wasn't prettier. Like the 2nds' big Indian patch - without them stayig with and covering old Chestys withdrawal from the Chosen Reservoir (after First Cav and a few other divisions fled) the losses could have been horrendous. Oh, well. That to was a MI fubar.

Your version just doesn't follow the time line of the history of the division.


http://www.7id.us/history.asp

[KafirChobee]

By now, one would think that I might know better than to argue some military areas with Red. Gah! Not sure how I missed that link though, so thanks.

I think I misread the 80's history. So, me bad. Also, an old Army buddy of mine said he thought the 7th Div. spent time at Ft. Riley after they left Korea - maybe it was a unit there for training. Or, he could have been mistaken - though he knows the patch as well as I do. Go figure.

[Tribesman]

You should of noticed the edit and the comment of NM.
"NM" is that shorthand for ":oops: the post made no sense " ?

[Louis VI the Fat]

MI tends to begin with a premise or preconception and build on it, ignoring info that does not conform to it, or twisting it to suit their purpose. If there is no original precept, then the information is catagorized by its importance to previous assumptions and filed or ignored accordingly.Well put! It's the best and most concise explanation of tunnel vision I've ever read.

And thanks for your informative post. Alas, MI and other intelligence agencies have not proven themselves a worthwhile asset in America's recent conflicts. It's all the more frustrating when one believes that counter-terrorism is to a large extent the gathering and analyzing of intelligence.

[BDC]

Well put! It's the best and most concise explanation of tunnel vision I've ever read.

And thanks for your informative post. Alas, MI and other intelligence agencies have not proven themselves a worthwhile asset in America's recent conflicts. It's all the more frustrating when one believes that counter-terrorism is to a large extent the gathering and analyzing of intelligence.
It might be it's only obvious when they do a bad job.

But they also might be useless.

[KafirChobee]

It might be it's only obvious when they do a bad job.

But they also might be useless.

Some units are useful, for internal investigations. But, even then they are controlled by superiors that can disrupt or force them to stop any investigation that doesnot please them. I know of more than a few cases that this has been the case, and we all know of how the Abu Graib investigations were handled - no truely senior Regular Army Officers were held accountable, even though there was evidence that the enlisted personel were in fact following orders or given direction to conduct the methods of humiliation employed.

In the early 80' (or was it late 70's, been along time) a case that involved 2 US AF Generals and an Admiral in Taiwan (investigation by AF OSI and Navy personel) had these men using military resources to send furniture (mahagony mostly) and rare artifacts back to the States for their wives 'furniture and antiques' shops. When the case was presented to the investigators superiors? The men were instantly reassigned. The criminals continued their operation for a short time and then were also reassigned - no charges were ever brought, nor further investigation allowed.

So, the limitations to MI are basically intentional.

[Redleg]

"NM" is that shorthand for ":oops: the post made no sense " ?

short for never mind because the comment wasn't worth arguing about. However it seems that you missed that point in your rush to one - upmanship. I have been rather amused by the exchange. So have you realized yet that the United States never agreed to the point about terroritial water limits of 50 miles as claimed by North Korea? That it was solely based upon the spy claim and was resended as soon as the prisoners were released.

[Tribesman]

So have you realized yet that the United States never agreed to the point about terroritial water limits of 50 miles as claimed by North Korea? That it was solely based upon the spy claim and was resended as soon as the prisoners were released.
Ah but that wasn't the claim was it :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4:
So for both your amusement and your education ......they claimed they acted bcause it was inside the internationally agreed 12 mile limit , they claimed they chased it past the 12 mile limit and boarded it 15 miles out which is within their unilaterally declared 50 mile military zone .:book:

Now then Red amonst the gripes that the crew of that vessel had about lack of armament , not getting a radio call telling them about the changes to the situation in Korea , the bad general state of the vessel , the navy not backing them up (and even recalling the back up) they wouldn't happen to also moan about a faulty navigation system would they :yes:

[KafirChobee]

What back up to the Pueblo are you refering to? They were literally on their own. The nearest US air squadron was in Japan, and the ROK navy was uninformed about the ships activity. They were orphaned. Some of us on the ground in the ROK thought (at the time) it was a set up and war was eminent, of course Tet went off, and then it seemed just another coordinated diversion by the Commies. I know this, a divided front in Korea and 'nam would not have been practicle or even possible.:balloon2:

[Tribesman]

What back up to the Pueblo are you refering to?
What was the last radio message recieved by the Pueblo from the NSG in Kamiseya ?

[Redleg]

Ah but that wasn't the claim was it :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4:

So for both your amusement and your education ......they claimed they acted bcause it was inside the internationally agreed 12 mile limit , they claimed they chased it past the 12 mile limit and boarded it 15 miles out which is within their unilaterally declared 50 mile military zone .:book:


Shall we go back to your fist statement after the NM edit.

The United States only stated it was spying, wrote an apology for spying and then withdrew said apology as soon as the sailors were return, nothing was ever agreed concerning the terroritial limits- which is exactly what I stated earlier and is historially correct. It seems your having difficultly understanding, what I stated because of your own desire to argue over something I never stated. If you read the actual history the United States wrote a written statement about spying, not about terrorial waters or violating those same waters.

Now where did I argue that the United States was not within the terrorial limits of North Korea? It seems your arguing up the wrong tree once again, all I have stated is that the United States did not agree about being within the terrorial waters of North Korea, nor did they agree with the declared 50 mile zone. It seems your looking to make me look foolish from your own inability to read what was actually stated.


I am rather amused from your effort. It seems your attempting to pick a fight over words that were never stated. :laugh4: :laugh4:



Now then Red amonst the gripes that the crew of that vessel had about lack of armament , not getting a radio call telling them about the changes to the situation in Korea , the bad general state of the vessel , the navy not backing them up (and even recalling the back up) they wouldn't happen to also moan about a faulty navigation system would they :yes:

Tsk tsk - again I never made such an arguement. Your effort to troll for a fight is rather disconnected from the reality of my statements. :oops:

[Tribesman]

I am rather amused from your effort. It seem your attempting to pick a fight over words that were never stated.
A valuable lesson has been learned , quote peoples posts in full before they delete them and pretend they didn't write nonsense .:thumbsdown:

[Redleg]

A valuable lesson has been learned , quote peoples posts in full before they delete them and pretend they didn't write nonsense .:thumbsdown:

Removing a comment because I decided it wasn't worth arguing with you, is what was done. Your failure to probably read, or pay attention that I removed the post before you posted, does not equate to any falsehood on my part.