Military Intelligence: differences in starting earlier or later?

Good afternoon,

As a bit of background, I have always had an interest in the intelligence community and as a current ROTC cadet near the end of his third year, I have been interested in branching MI. I already understand that there are no guarantees about whether or not I will get MI as my branch. There is a lot that goes into accessions after I complete LDAC and when I initially scribble MI as my number one choice at the start of my fourth year. I have just kept it on my mind and one particular question arose that's been in my head for the past week or two.

I had a discussion with a professor on my campus that is familiar with many cadets that went on to become successful Army officers and many of which went MI. During our discussion, he asked me if I wanted to do MI and I said that I do. He then went on to tell me of his experience talking with other cadets interested in MI in his some fifteen years at our university and pointed out something peculiar about many of the cadets: many of them chose not to enter MI straight out of college, but begin MI after having experience in another branch.

His explanation was that with the nature of intelligence, it may be best to understand intelligence from the receiving end of those that use it out in the field rather than begin MI early without that experience. That made me curious and I've looked around to try and grasp the difference between starting a career in MI early and starting with a few years of another branch under one's belt. I am reaching out to the community of MI professionals here in Shadowspear and asking on your opinions on this. Who among you all began MI early and who entered MI from another branch? Are there any significant differences and what is beneficial/problematic with choosing to do one or the other?

For the class of seniors in my school prepared to commission in one month, there are four going MI and one among them that is branch detailing with MI beginning during his fourth year in the Army. The other three are starting MI straight out of college, so we have cadets doing both approaches of starting early and starting later in their careers.

Again, this has only been a thought for the past week or so. I wanted to read some insight directly from you all within the intelligence community.

Best Regards,
PM

Speaking from the enlisted standpoint, and IMHO only......I think you bring more to the table in the MI field when you have had a prior MOS. You get to see how MI can help or hurt from the other side of the table.

I can't speak for the US Army so I'll talk in generalities using my own experience.

Years ago in my old organisation, they used to hire intel analysts directly. This has benefits because it means you can poach- I mean, hire- people directly that have experience. However I found it meant a disconnect between those analysts and the people who had started working the actual job because those analysts didn't know what it was like, say, to tip out a 3000kg Tongan godzilla who only wants to rip your throat out and rip down the walls of the building. This then results in some bad blood when they ask stupid questions that they'd know the answer to if they'd worked the floor beforehand.

IMO, time spent doing anything other than MI is time that could have been used to sharpen the MI toolset. Hell, I've been doing grinding away since '89 and I'm far from being sharp (so much to learn, so little time).

I've seen this from 18-series guys and would add that, while I believe this an advantage over non-tabbed MI guys, it can be a distractor too in that all the "bling" is seen vice the technical background.

"My job is to find the enemy so you don't have to."

I MUST concur. Speaking from the enlisted side I do not care for what happens when some NCO comes to MI into a leadership position straight from reclass school. They are really behind the 8 ball and those under them look at them and shake their head at a lot of things. Everyone expects an MI LT. to be deep in the learning process but their job is different as managers. NCOs need to KNOW how to DO the job and that takes time.

That would be what worries me if I were to branch detail, should I choose that option next September. My question would go out to someone like Marauder06 who was detailed infantry and then went MI. Sir, how far behind the 8 ball do you think you were? Lately, I've been hearing that MI just doesn't take a whole lot of 2LTs, but like to branch detail their guys because there are more open spots at the CPT level than anything else.

" intel work can be exceedingly mentally difficult sometimes"

...despite all the military intelligence jokes floating around this is very much true. Its also a job that can make you/intel the turd in the punch bowl very easily if you dont have your stuff together as we have seen in recent years due to a few critical errors made by the National Intelligence Community.

MI is very enlisted/warrant-centric. I think a lot of O's that branch directly into MI get disenchanted when they report to a unit and end up the battalion maintenance officer or the S-2 of an Air Defense Artillery unit that literally does nothing.

The vast majority of intel jobs for officers involve a lot of briefing other people's work. There are exceptions that aren't really up for discussion.

Hours of sheer boredom with the occasional "oh shit" moments of total terror knowing that if you f' up, someone could die because of something you did or didn't do.

Good points Mara. I was getting ready to Early Commission before I withdrew from USAR Control Group - I was going to get Infantry with an initial detail to FA for 2 years... but I got religion and an SF contract and became an NCO.

I seriously do not understand why anyone would want to become an officer. No offense intended, but I personally do enjoy watching an inexperienced sailor/solider learn his trade and then become a proficient intel bubba. Teaching, coaching, and mentoring is the BEST part of my job. It's like a mustache with titties...only different.