Intelligence: Military/GCHQ comparison
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: UK
Posts: 292
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Intelligence: Military/GCHQ comparison
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.
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.
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Well, Lincolnshire
Age: 69
Posts: 1,101
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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!
Good luck with the fascinating and very worthwhile career!
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Often in Jersey, but mainly in the past.
Age: 79
Posts: 7,813
Received 141 Likes
on
65 Posts
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.
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.
I don't own this space under my name. I should have leased it while I still could
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'.
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Often in Jersey, but mainly in the past.
Age: 79
Posts: 7,813
Received 141 Likes
on
65 Posts
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'.
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!
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: bristol
Age: 56
Posts: 1,051
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Join Date: May 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 34
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
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!
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
Last edited by Wander00; 31st Mar 2016 at 09:17. Reason: fingers/brain interface
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.
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.
Gentleman Aviator
I bought it from that popular S American river...................but hardback, not sure if it is available as an ebook
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?
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Tennessee - Smoky Mountains
Age: 55
Posts: 1,602
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
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.
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.
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: bristol
Age: 56
Posts: 1,051
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: UK on a crosswind
Posts: 262
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.