Military Intelligence Professional Bulletin - Federation of American ...

we should have in mind when we develop our senior captains,
majors, and lieutenant colonels. The senior intelligence
officer at each level should assess his subordinate
officers to identify strengths and weaknesses, establish a
blueprint for continued development, and then work with
the officer to build a history of success.
The Officer Evaluation Report (OER) Support Form (DA
Form 67-9-1) is also an excellent tool that leaders have at
their disposal to work with their officers and address these
issues. Unfortunately, rather than being an active document,
intended to be revisited no less than four times per
year to assess and revise, the OER Support Form has
become a passive document, outlining initial goals and
then, when an OER is due, retroactively capturing whatever
successes occurred through the normal course of
the year. We, as leaders, need to emphasize the OER
Support Form as a living document and a significant tool
for us to use as we develop our subordinate officers. The
proper use of the OER Support Form will provide regular
intervals for formal sit-down counseling which we can
then augment through the normal course of business with
informal counseling.
MI Islands
However, the point of this article is not to emphasize the
senior rater to ratee relationship. While this relationship is
the cornerstone of the intelligence professional development
system, we have a large number of MI officers who
do not have an intelligence leader in their rating chain.
These officers, a majority of which make up the MI Corps,
need to be brought into the MI “fold.” Consider this, who
is working on the professional intelligence development
of an Infantry Battalion S2? If you answered the Brigade
S2, assisted by the Division G2, that’s great—if it is occurring.
But in reality, the major professional development
that the Battalion S2 receives will be from his maneuver
battalion commander, who may or may not know how
to develop an intelligence officer. The fact is we have to
look up above our “organizational cubicles” and see who
else is out there who can use some mentoring, coaching,
and intelligence leadership. If we don’t, then our legacy
will not be in our hands. Look around, there are more
folks out there in need of intelligence leadership than you
would expect: the brigade S2 of the separate brigade at
the corps level who rarely interacts with other organizations,
an MI captain serving in a recruiter command position,
or the MI company commander in a BCT. While
no one needs permission to connect with these “islands,”
care and finesse should be exercised when reaching out
to an Intelligence officer in an established organization
and chain of command. Military courtesies should not be
overlooked.
Conversely, as intelligence leaders look around for officers
in need of guidance and leadership, younger officers
have the responsibility to likewise search for intelligence
leaders around them and identify potential mentors. Mentorship
is not a given practice within the Army; officers
should seek out senior leaders and begin to develop a
professional relationship with them which may in turn become
a mentorship experience. Regardless of whether a
mentor relationship evolves, as younger officers seek out
mentors, they will develop networks within their own intelligence
community which will, at the minimum, provide a
great deal of professional support and development.
Conclusion
The Army faces a long-term challenge to recruit and retain
officers; MI is no exception. New initiatives are under
consideration to entice our newest officers to remain in
the Army longer and in a more stabilized fashion. These
initiatives are in most part the result of trying to stem the
flow out of the Army. What we need to do as intelligence
leaders is care enough to develop our officers into our future
leaders who will stay for the long-term. We must take
time to build our younger leaders; to acknowledge our responsibilities
and take action, providing insightful guidance
and recommendations to subordinate officers that
personalize professional and personal goals in the midst
of great uncertainty. However, in order for our efforts to
be successful, the younger officers must mirror our active
participation; taking the initiative to seek out mentors they
identify with and soliciting their guidance. They must show
as much interest in their own development as we do. Dedication
on behalf of both elements will undoubtedly pay
long-term dividends for the Army as a whole.
Colonel Geiger is the Commander of the 504 th Military Intelligence
Brigade, Fort Hood, Texas. Previous to command, he served as the
Chief, Counterintelligence Section, Supreme Headquarters Allied
Powers Europe (SHAPE), Allied Command Operations, Mons,
Belgium. While there, he also served as the C2X for CJTF-7 and
Multi-National Corps and Force-Iraq, Operation Iraqi Freedom.
The former 82d Airborne Division G2 and Commander of the 313 th
Military Intelligence Battalion graduated from Washington State
University in 1982 and holds an MA in International Relations from
the University of Belgrano, Buenos Aires, Argentina, and an MS
in Strategic Studies from the US Army War College. His military
July - September 2005 21