Intelligence: Military/GCHQ comparison

[Chris the Robot]

I was at Cranwell recently to sit the pilot aptitude test battery albeit not as part of an RAF application. Actually being on a military base overnight got me thinking, how come for intelligence roles the military and GCHQ et al seem to look for very different people? I have high-functioning autism which means I'd be ineligible for pretty much every military role going, yet GCHQ seems to recruit a lot of folks with autism/dyslexia/dyspraxia etc.

I know that the initial training phase in the military has a reputation for being pretty brutal but in the longer-term, what are the reasons which would make military intelligence off-limits for people with certainly some of the above conditions.

Incidentally, I scored 135/180 but because one of the categories was under the minimum stanine cutoff, I would technically have failed for pilot. Probably would have done well enough for a different role though.

[taxydual]

My undertanding is, that in any Military Armed Force you are a 'soldier' (ie carrier of weapon) first and a 'tradesman' (ie practionioner of your specialisation) second.

[izod tester]

Perhaps for GCHQ types intelligence is an attribute, whilst for military intelligence it is a job description.

[Courtney Mil]

I think Taxydual's answer is the point. Mil Int - fighting person first, Int analyst - the right type of mind first.

Good luck with the fascinating and very worthwhile career!

[MPN11]

I wouldn't call IOT brutal ... I found it a 'walk in the park' after Dartmouth :)

However, Taxydual is, in your case, sadly correct ... everyone, at every level, needs to be a soldier first and a specialist second: very different from my day!

And from my time in the Int world, albeit a while ago, being a 'soldier' was the least of the attributes. Functioning, analytical, intelligence was the prime requirement.

[Pontius Navigator]

For many years the RAF did not have an intelligence branch. It used aircrew only some of whom showed any aptitude for intelligence. A lot of what was done was based on their in-service knowledge. In other words, aircrew first. The analysis often resided within the 'civil service'.

[MPN11]

For many years the RAF did not have an intelligence branch. It used aircrew only some of whom showed any aptitude for intelligence. A lot of what was done was based on their in-service knowledge. In other words, aircrew first. The analysis often resided within the 'civil service'.A very accurate analysis!

The RAF eventually discovered they had a lot of highly-paid [= Flying Pay] aircrew filling a lot of ground appointments, including Int. Suddenly there was a rush of ATC officers [with brains ;)] replacing them, and saving money. I was amongst the first 5 to enter the Dark World. This eventually led, one way or another, to the present "Ops Support Branch". Our Civilian colleagues were, however, the real experts ... I recall one who had been on a particular 'desk' for some 15 years!

[barnstormer1968]

Chris the robot.

If we can talk average people or generalise for a while there are lots of reasons why GCHQ would welcome an applicant with autism, aspergers or dyslexia etc. The military on the other hand is not a good place for such conditions and especially autism. A soldier/sailor/airman may very often be completely out of their comfort zone quite often and even in normal everyday peacetime military life.

While dyslexia or dyspraxia can easily be accommodated in an I.T. Environment or with coloured paper etc the same does not apply in a military environment and especially so in combat or on operations.

As an example a soldier with Aspergers would be completely useless at almost all army tasks as he/she could not ascertain an opponents intent. If we consider that many people with aspergers have serious aversions to sudden noise or rapid changes in lighting then it's easy to see that the battlefield is not the place for them.

[MRAF]

I was at Cranwell recently to sit the pilot aptitude test battery albeit not as part of an RAF application. Actually being on a military base overnight got me thinking, how come for intelligence roles the military and GCHQ et al seem to look for very different people? I have high-functioning autism which means I'd be ineligible for pretty much every military role going, yet GCHQ seems to recruit a lot of folks with autism/dyslexia/dyspraxia etc.

I know that the initial training phase in the military has a reputation for being pretty brutal but in the longer-term, what are the reasons which would make military intelligence off-limits for people with certainly some of the above conditions.

Incidentally, I scored 135/180 but because one of the categories was under the minimum stanine cutoff, I would technically have failed for pilot. Probably would have done well enough for a different role though.
This is not a true statement having personally served for 20 years in the Int Branch and having been very open about being Dyslexic from the outset while going through OASC.
The key difference is that one of the primary functions a military intelligence professional's must be able to carry out is to disseminate the intelligence to the operators and commanders. As such, there needs to be a confidence to deliver complex information to a range of audiences from Private to 4*, even Ministers, rather than just being a deep thinking analyst. While some of the biggest brains and super intelligent can be fount in the Civil agencies, they can be more of the introverted 'shoe gazer' type and where as in military intelligence you need to be more extrovert.

Sorry for any spelling errors, but I AM dyslexic!

[Wander00]

Just read Max Hastings' book on wartime intelligence, spies, etc. Seems that most services treated service in "intelligence" as career limiting - especially true of the RN in the Operational Intelligence world

[Backinblack]

Just read Max hasting s' book on wartime intelligence, spies, etc.

Where can I buy it in the epub?

[Wander00]

I bought it from that popular S American river...................but hardback, not sure if it is available as an ebook


I grew up in Eastcote, W London, in the fifties and sixties - only knew later that what we knew as "Government Buildings" was where the later sets of "bombes" for Bletchley Park were set up, and even later that after the war was GCHQ. Now a vast housing estate.

[teeteringhead]

I bought it from that popular S American river...................but hardback, not sure if it is available as an ebook

It is! But - bizarrely? - the e-book is more expensive than the paperback :confused:

[ian16th]

Is it true that in the Army Intelligence Corps, the minimum rank is Sergeant, and they are known as 'The Eunuchs', because they have no privates?

[Toadstool]

Is it true that in the Army Intelligence Corps, the minimum rank is Sergeant, and they are known as 'The Eunuchs', because they have no privates?

Nope, totally untrue. I think someone maybe pulling your privates.

[Roadster280]

GCHQ types are quite different from military, in general.

Some individuals at Cheltenham wouldn't get past the AFCO "does your face fit?" test, yet are brilliant at what they do.

Conversely, some fairly senior people in the military would be run circles round elsewhere. Military leadership styles would get you precisely nowhere in short order in some circles.

Fundamentally different requirements. GCHQ conduct mathematical analyses of others' cyphers. That is not core INT CORPS business. The product of their work is an input into MI.

The guy who sells you a car is fundamentally different to the guy that designed its ABS system. Neither are likely to be any good at the other's job.

[barnstormer1968]

Ian 16th
The Intelligence Corps lowest rank is lance corporal once initial training is completed, but although they may not have privates they have a completely different nickname to the one you mention.

[ExAscoteer]

Green Slime.

[Royalistflyer]

Friend of mine started out in the Navy, went on through Navy Int to eventually head GCHQ ...... so it takes all types. OTOH I remember having my allocated six square feet in the flight hut was next to our "intelligence officer" who said he knew bugger all about intelligence but had simply been assigned.

[Haraka]

" Intelligence is the second oldest profession. It differs from the oldest in having a lower set of morals and a higher proportion of amateurs"

[Pontius Navigator]

Green Slime.
And oxymoron.

[teeteringhead]

Or in reference to the I Corps capbadge

http://tse1.mm.bing.net/th?id=OIP.M06078ee73757f33a8752328c0e66a771o0&w=230&h=170&rs=1&pcl=dddddd&pid=1.1

"Pansies resting on their laurels!"

[Pontius Navigator]

Or they wont tell you what you need to know until after you find out you needed to know it.

[barnstormer1968]

Teeteringhead

The cap badge you posted is just a little of of date :)
That one hasn't been in use since before I was born !

[MPN11]

This one? >>>> https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/e0/Int_corps_badge_6cm.jpg

[ValMORNA]

There have been several mentions of 'types' in reference to intelligence personnel. What, exactly, is the definition of a 'type'?

[MPN11]

There have been several mentions of 'types' in reference to intelligence personnel. What, exactly, is the definition of a 'type'?
Let's say 'Personal Skills', then.

Some are analytical, some are good with words. Others have a perceptive trait. Some are thoughtful, and well-read.

IME, there are few extroverts in the Int world, although they certainly exist.

[Melchett01]

IME, there are few extroverts in the Int world, although they certainly exist

How do you spot an extroverted Intelligence Officer? He stares at your shoes rather than his :p

Going back to the OP, from my occasional dabbling in the Dark Arts in the past, it's not too dissimilar from aircrew; there are certain core competencies which everybody needs, but those core competencies are then tweaked from platform type to type e.g. FJ vs RW. It's the same on the Int front; there are certain skills and aptitudes that are common to any IntO. Within those skill sets and certain individuals will be more suited to the more theoretical and investigative approach found in places like GCHQ where as the military side and its 'applied' focus definitely requires a more rounded individual with the ability to relate to others, communicate and read between lines. If you can't get the reporting across to the commanders and decision makers then it's pretty much pointless. A lot of the extroverted Int types I've met over the years all seem to have a common thread of some sort of front line service in their background e.g. SH, SF, FP etc. Whether they were extroverts because of their experiences or they were funneled into those areas because they were more extroverted I couldn't say; you'd hope it was the latter and individuals were posted on the basis of where they would do well.

Where individuals on the spectrum might have success is in the way their brains process the world around them, potentially giving a unique insight into tricky problems. Generalising a little, but some of the other personal characteristics found alongside those unique processing abilities such as the inability to communicate effectively will be a real show stopper in the military world where all Int staffs are 'customer facing' and must sell themselves and their product effectively. As MRAF noted, things like dyslexia shouldn't be an issue but dyscalculia most definitely would be as it may lead to mistakes when understanding and briefing threat systems

[msbbarratt]

RN
Bletchley Park was set up by Admiral Sir Hugh Sinclair (using his own money) and Commander Alastair Denniston, both of the Royal Navy. Visionary chaps! Churchill at the outset issued an instruction "leave no stone unturned in finding the people you need". During a visit later in the war, referring to the people working there he commented "I had no idea that you would take me quite so literally".

And let's not forget that the decrypt of the Zimmerman Telegram (a startling piece of work in World War One) was the work of Rm 40, Admiralty, also a blend of military and civilian staff.

Comms of all sorts were a big threat to naval operations, so it's not surprising the Navy took an early interest. There's a long tradition of sneakiness in the Grey Funnel line, dating back several hundred years when the Articles of War bred generations of commanders with a penchant for deviousness and drive (in lieu of adequate ships, manning and stores).

RAF
That deviousness showed up in other branches too. In WWII on Malta there was a primitive air defence radar that allowed the few fighters, fuel, and men that clung on there to have a far bigger impact than could ever be believed.

The Germans knew this, and so built a large jammer on Sicily. When they turned it on it jammed the Malta radar cold. However, keeping a calm head the RAF personnel running the radar simply left the now useless radar running.

Perplexed by this apparent failure of their jammer the Germans gave up after three days, turned it off and never tried again for the remainder of the war. A tremendous piece of bluff with an incalculable impact.

After the war RV Jones of the Air Scientific Intelligence Branch who'd been involved in this bluff interrogated the German commander behind the jammer. This poor guy actually asked what was so special about the Maltese radar that made it invulnerable to jamming. Imagine how he felt when Jones said, "Well old chap, nothing!". There's being led up the garden path, but really that was something else entirely.

USN
Casting one's eye further afield, the USN hasn't exactly been shy to engage in sneakiness either. They did a few operations tapping undersea cables in the Sea of Okhotsk under the very noses of the Soviets. Ok, so not the same type of intellect required as cracking someone else's codes, but still needed a ton of ambition and out-of-the-box thinking to carry it out. There's an excellent book Blind Man's Bluff which has a good write up about it.

[BEagle]

A post-Cold War tale I once heard was the conversation between a Russian naval officer and his RN counterpart at some embassy party. The RN officer remarked that he liked having been stationed at Devonport, whereupon the Russian agreed "Yes, Devon is a very nice part of your country".

"How would you know that?", replied the RN chap, "Surely you weren't allowed down there?"

"Ah", replied the Russian, "But I was in submarines.....".

The most miserable bunch of sneaky-beaks I ever came across were the "I can neither confirm nor deny" USN people who worked at Brawdy in what we termed 'The Biscuit Factory' as it was commanded by a Cdr Jacobs. We weren't supposed to know what they did, but having punched off my tanks into St. Bride's Bay one day I said to one of them at lunch "Hope I didn't blow your eardrums off"..... She went red, mumbled something and left...:hmm:

[Pontius Navigator]

Remember Int also includes interrogation.

On extroverts, the Colonel when I did the course at Ashford was extrovert. The RAF type who briefed us was too; told us he was a Harrier pilot.

I suspect introversion comes from discretion and need to know.

And remember that other 'type' the secret squirrel. Someone I know ☺ did a work experience visit to a secret air base in Lincolnshire. The SqnIntO bigged his job up, told some things then clammed up. Next a visit to the WOC and SIntO, an ex-AEO, who gave a much fuller in-depth brief while remaining the right side of the OSA.

The student then applied for Int but was recommended to accept Supply as Into slots, in comparison were so few. I think the secret squirrel was also an influence. That person is now a Sqn Ldr Loggie.

[Innominate]

It would appear from page 4 of https://www.raf.mod.uk/recruitment/media/1652/medical-conditions-that-preclude-entry.pdf that autism is a bar to entry. Whether there is any leeway (the OP is apparently at the high-functioning end of the spectrum) is another question...