Talk:United States Intelligence Community

Military members of the IC

For much of this page's history, it seems to have listed specific agencies within the services (ONI, 16AF, etc.) as specific services members of the intelligence community. In light of the Space Force's addition to the IC and reviewing the source here (https://www.dni.gov/index.php/what-we-do/members-of-the-ic), this assumption appears to have been incorrect. I'll go service by service:

• For the Space Force its contribution is the USSF ISR enterprise, not just Delta 7 (https://spacenews.com/space-force-stands-up-new-office-to-support-u-s-intelligence-community/)
• The Air Force takes an identical approach, having the USAF ISR Enterprise, which led by the Air Staff A2. The site links to 25 AF, now 16 AF, indicating they have a role, but the text states that A2 is the lead of USAF ISR (https://www.dni.gov/index.php/what-we-do/members-of-the-ic#usaf)
• For the Army, the site indicates that G-2 is the head of "U.S. Army Intelligence" as it is identified as on the DNI site (https://www.dni.gov/index.php/what-we-do/members-of-the-ic#usa)
• For the Marine Corps, the site links to the Deputy Commandant for Information Intelligence Division is the head of Marine Corps Intelligence and leads its IC component, not the Marine Corps Intelligence Activity. (https://www.dni.gov/index.php/what-we-do/members-of-the-ic#usmc and https://www.hqmc.marines.mil/intelligence//)
• For the Navy the IC site states that the Director of Naval Intelligence (not the Commander of the Office of Naval Intelligence - those two offices appear to be separate now) leads Navy Intelligence. (https://www.dni.gov/index.php/what-we-do/members-of-the-ic#usn and https://www.c4isrnet.com/information-warfare/2020/06/16/a-new-leader-for-naval-intelligence/)

This appears to be different than the other agencies, where they have specific offices that lead the IC elements. Rather here, the staff G/S/A/N-2 elements appear to be the lead for their service IC components while the specific field elements (including specific agencies) fall under them, but are not the IC components themselves. Garuda28 (talk) 21:57, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

I've noticed this flipping back and forth ever since the SF addition was announced (is it Delta 7? Is it the USSF ISR Enterprise?). Then a change was made to all the military branch members, all seemingly based on the same primary source; dni.gov. So now, it's these offices, the general/admiral and their staff being listed in a vague sense, "[branch] intelligence", but still linked to the actual agency (MI, ONI, MCIA, 16AF)...? That doesn't really make sense. I remember there was a similar issue issue awhile back when it was 16 agencies, but some ip kept changing it to 17 and wanted to treat the ODNI as a member agency as well. But the ODNI is administrative, it oversees the IC, the same way way the the N/A/G/S-2 staff oversees intel apparatus of their respective branches. But there are still specific agencies, multiple in some cases, operational agencies that are in the field collecting intel, whether it's humint, signit, ISR, etc., and just like the civilian counterparts, these agencies are the, while ultimately led by an (x)-2, are the representative members of the IC. That's how it's been, supported by multiple sources, both secondary and even primary in some cases with the .mil sites of each branch (ie: [1], [2], [3]). I just don't see the benefit of changing these member descriptions, especially since they link to the same agency anyway. - wolf 17:22, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

Ultimately, the sources don’t back up specific agencies being designated military members of the IC, but rather the entire intel community within a service being the service’s IC component (whith the exception of ONI it seems). In light of this, better to state verbatim what’s on the IC page unless directly contradicted by the services. Garuda28 (talk) 19:17, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

And yet you still link to those specific agencies... (What is it with you AF guys always wanting everything both ways?) 😉 You want to generalize the AF and SF as "ISR Enterpeises", but still link to 16AF and Delta 7, and you know that all the Army's intel groups were merged into the MIC, and while you link to that, you label it "Army Intelligence" (that all seems somewhat misleading). At least the Navy entry is correct. I think the list should be left as it was. It was straightforward and sourced and just as important, stable. - wolf 20:33, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

Just was trying to mirror the IC website's format of linking the largest entity within the service, while using the specific text provided. I would support leaving Navy as ONI (per the source you've provided), but the rest should mirror the IC websites. I'm open to switching Army Intelligence to the Military Intelligence Corps, since that's the internal term used within the Army for the whole of their intelligence. I strongly feel that USAF and USSF ISR need to be listed as such, since that's what the IC website states (and I am open to delinking Del 7 and 16 AF if you feel that is a contradiction). USMC Intel should be redirected to Marine Corps Intelligence, as the website does not support the Marine Corps Intelligence Activity being its IC entity. Thoughts? Garuda28 (talk) 22:09, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

WP doesn't need to mirror exactly what a primary source says (if it did, there would be no mention of infantry on the AFSF page). If you want to use the new "ISR Enterprise" description for AF and SF, you could, but then you either link to 16AF and Delta 7 anyway, which doesn't make all that much sense, or you leave them without links, as you suggested, which only takes away from the page and the available info for readers. As an alternative, how about leaving the table the way it was, but adding a note that 16AF and DEL7 are also known as ISR Ent? (ie: see the note added for NSA/CSS) You could further add to the prose that the military organizations listed in the table are further supported by their respective (x)-2 staff and any other elements you're aware of or can find in sourcing. I have no problem updating the article when needed, but I like to see changes that make sense. Cheers - wolf 03:47, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

We don’t have a source that supports 16 AF (and especially not DEL 7) being synonymous← with the ISR enterprise for their respective services, so I would rather leave them without links then unless there is a service source which directly states those organizations are the IC component (which I have been unable to find). How about listing the ISR Enterprises as the IC components for those services, mirroring the IC website, with a note that lists 16AF and DEL 7 are the primary Intel organizations for these two services? We should probably get a third perspective as well. Do you know of any users who would be good to provide an additional perspective in this area? Garuda28 (talk) 04:13, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

(break)

@Thewolfchild: The more I've researched into this topic, the clearer it has become to me that the services intelligence communities members aren't a single agency (like 16AF or Delta 7), but rather the totality of their intelligence components led by their G/A/S/N2 components. For instance the IC member page for the AF discusses the ISR Enterprise, with the A2 being the AF's senior intelligence officer (not 16 AF, which only includes some of the AF's intel orgs, with many left out). This situation is repeated for the SF (Maj Gen for ISR on space staff vs Col for Delta CC). For the Army this difference does not exist since the MIC is led by the G2, which includes all of its intel components. If the issue is the redirects, I have no problem with redirecting the AF/SF ISR Enterprise to the Air/Space Staffs if that is more clear. Garuda28 (talk) 01:04, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

Simple fact is the link for "USAF ISR Enterprise" is 16 AF, and the link for "USSF ISR Enterprise" is DEL 7. There is no mention of the word enterprise on the 16 AF page and enterprise is only mentioned once on the DEL 7 page, in the description of a source you added. Now you're trying to make changes, and reverts, based your research, which could be called original research. I left "ISR Enterprise" within each agency box as compromise, and still you revert, changing the names of the links, when all I did is leave them with the names of the actual articles. If you want to expand more on your research about the workings of the ISR agencies of these two branches, with sources, then those articles is the place to do so. I've left the the article at QUO, the way it was long before these changes. - wolf 02:51, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

@Thewolfchild: are you referring to the links on the wikipedia pages, because if that's the case that's likely because I made assumptions when linking them (for SF) that were wrong. Let's go back to the source material for a second: The DNI website (https://www.dni.gov/index.php/what-we-do/members-of-the-ic) lists the following as members of the intelligence community:

• • Army Intelligence: U.S. Army Intelligence (G-2) is responsible for policy formulation, planning, programming, budgeting, management, staff supervision, evaluation, and oversight for intelligence activities for the Department of the Army.
  • Marine Corps Intelligence: The department supports the commandant of the Marine Corps in his role as a member of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, represents the service in Joint and Intelligence Community matters, and exercises supervision over the Marine Corps Intelligence Activity. The department has service staff responsibility for geospatial intelligence, advanced geospatial intelligence, signals intelligence, human intelligence, counterintelligence, and ensures there is a single synchronized strategy for the development of the Marine Corps Intelligence, Surveillance, and Reconnaissance Enterprise. The Marine Corps' director of intelligence is the commandant's principal intelligence staff officer and the functional manager for intelligence, counterintelligence, and cryptologic matters.
  • Navy Intelligence: Under the direction of the Director of Naval Intelligence, the U.S. Navy’s intelligence team is the leading provider of maritime intelligence to Navy and joint/combined warfighting forces, as well as national decision makers and other partners/consumers in the U.S. National Intelligence Community.
  • Air Force Intelligence: U.S. Air Force Intelligence, Surveillance, and Reconnaissance (USAF ISR) Enterprise is America's leading provider of finished intelligence derived from airborne, space, and cyberspace sensors...The AF/A2 is the USAF's Senior Intelligence Officer and is responsible for functional management of all Air Force global integrated ISR capabilities, including oversight of planning, programming, and budgeting; developing and implementing the Air Force policies and guidance for managing Air Force global integrated ISR activities
  • Space Force Intelligence is listed as SF intelligence on the DNI website, but is further expanded on at (https://spacenews.com/space-force-stands-up-new-office-to-support-u-s-intelligence-community/) Chief of Space Operations Gen. John Raymond said the service stood up the U.S. Space Force Intelligence, Surveillance and Reconnaissance Enterprise to support the intelligence community. The new office will focus on providing technical intelligence to defend space systems from anti-satellite weapons such as those being developed by China and Russia.
  • Coast Guard Intelligence: Coast Guard Intelligence strives to create decision advantage to advance U.S. interests by providing timely, actionable, and relevant intelligence to shape Coast Guard operations, planning, and decision-making, and to support national and homeland security intelligence requirements.

Army: The DNI's website makes references to Army Intelligence and the G2 as the service's intelligence community component, not the Military Intelligence Corps (which is an internal Army branch). This is further supported by other military websites with the DIA (https://www.dia.mil/News/Articles/Article-View/Article/2295838/senate-confirms-berrier-as-next-dia-director/) directly referencing the G2 as Army Intelligence, not the Military Intelligence Corps. The G-2 seal further reinforces that it is referred to as Army Intelligence, specifically, by its seal (File:United States Army Intelligence Seal.gif)

Marine Corps: The DNI's website makes references to the Marine Corps Deputy Commandant for Information's Intelligence Division (the role of "the department" lines up exactly with DC/I), which serves as the Marine Corps' G2 entity. I don't believe this is a point of contention.

Navy: ONI's website says that it is the Navy's component of the intelligence community. Good enough for me.

Air Force The DNI website directly refers to the Air Force's intelligence component as the ISR Enterprise and that the senior intelligence officer is the A2, not 16 AF. Cannot find any references on 16 AF's website to it being the Air Force's component to the intelligence community. A2 is the focal point for all Air Force intelligence and policy documents relating to the AF ISR Enterprise are owned by the A2, not 16 AF (https://www.airuniversity.af.edu/Portals/10/ISR/documents/slideshow/AF-ISR_2023.pdf). I have found no sources which indicate that 16 AF and the AF ISR Enterprise are the same or synonymous (only those which state that 16 AF is part of the larger ISR Enterprise - and there are many more intel components outside 16 AF)

Space Force: Cannot find a single reference that Space Delta 7 is the Space Force's component to the intelligence community. However, there are many references (since it was just founded) to the SF ISR Enterprise being the Space Force's contribution (https://www.airforcetimes.com/news/your-air-force/2021/01/10/us-intel-community-expands-with-space-force-unit/). I have found no sources which indicate that DEL 7 and the SF ISR Enterprise are the same or synonymous (only those which state that Del 7 is part of the larger ISR Enterprise).

I apologize if the links I introduced led to any confusion; this is an area I have been learning more, the more I researched and I realized that I may have contributed to some of the confusion on it. The bottom line is that the ISR Enterprises are NOT the same as these two field units, but are rather much more encompassing. It would be original research (which I may have accidentally have been guilty of when I linked the ISR enterprise to those field units) to conflate the ISR Enterprise as the same thing as 16 AF and DEL 7. They are distinct entities. Garuda28 (talk) 04:08, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

For SF there is this, but let me ask you; I get that above 16 AF and Delta 7 there is a hierarchy involved, but what about laterally? Is there another NAF or Delta dedicated to intelligence? - wolf 00:42, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

@Thewolfchild: On the USSF article, it appears to say that Delta 7 is important because the USSF itself is now part of the intelligence community, but not that Delta 7 is the USSF's biggest contribution to the intelligence community. Other organizations relating to intelligence include the A/S2s, which as part of the services staffs rank senior to either the deltas and the NAF. For fielded units, the biggest one I can think of is National Air and Space Intelligence Center, which does both Air and Space intel, reports to the 2, and is not a apart of 16AF or Del 7. For USAF there are also tons of intelligence squadrons outside of 16 AF distributed through the various MAJCOMs. USSF is to new to see exactly how it will be structured, but it looks like it'll stand up a National Space Intelligence Center (https://www.airforcemag.com/national-space-intelligence-center-takes-shape/). So they are the major service intel units, but there are many that exist outside it (just not at the exact same organizational echelon, hence why they are the major ones), so the A/S2s are the unifying top level entity for their services intel components. Garuda28 (talk) 00:58, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

I came here from the main talk page. My thought would be to stop doing WP:OR to get the specifics of which exactly are which of the services' intelligence components, possibly just list the 2 staffs of all (six) services and say "technically controlled intelligence units, formations, and staff branches", and the most up to date official listing at the Under Secretary of Defense for Intelligence page for the agencies. I actually came here thinking the question was what were the agencies. Cheers Buckshot06 (talk) 09:56, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

@Buckshot06: Just so I understand what you're exactly saying, your suggestion is to just list the staffs from here (https://www.dni.gov/index.php/what-we-do/members-of-the-ic) verbatim and not list DEL 7/16AF since they are not mention on the IC page, correct?

Yes, follow that listing exactly -- because that follows the official reference exactly. That is DNI not USD-I, but DNI's a higher level organization so it's more authoritative. If editors really want a subject to spill pages of ink over, try the question of whether Coast Guard Intelligence should be listed. [Don't actually do that, just a footnote about CG Int joining DOD Int Community in wartime!!] Buckshot06 (talk) 19:38, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

No, don't. This is why I suggested the USD-I page. DNI lists four agencies, while USD-I lists five: the Defense Counterintelligence and Security Agency is missed off the DNI page. Use the USD-I page at https://ousdi.defense.gov/ as the authoritative source, would be my opinion. Buckshot06 (talk) 19:45, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

Okay, thank you for clarifying - I think I understand now. So to restate the services it would be (Pulled directly from https://www.dni.gov/index.php/what-we-do/members-of-the-ic and https://www.airforcetimes.com/news/your-air-force/2021/01/10/us-intel-community-expands-with-space-force-unit/ with synthesis): Air Force Intelligence, Surveillance, and Reconnaissance Enterprise, Army Intelligence, Office of Naval Intelligence, Coast Guard Intelligence, Marine Corps Intelligence, and the Space Force Intelligence, Surveillance, and Reconnaissance Enterprise. I don't think there's any dispute over the other DoD intel agencies at the moment (DIA, NGA, NRO, NSA). Garuda28 (talk) 20:11, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

Wait, what? You want to use the generic "ISR Ent" label and link to the main branch pages for AF and SF? And that helps readers... how? If they are here, and they want to know more about the DAF contributions to the IC, they will ultimately end up on the 16AF & DEL7 pages, but in that case only after some needless hunting. And all based on the generic wording of a single primary source. Well, as I indicated in my comment below, we know (via ref) that the 16AF's predecessor was reported as the AF member of the IC. As for SF, I think think this would be a disservice to readers, while we have a DEL7 article. As for the other branches, they seem on point (except possibly for some minor tweaks). - wolf 21:06, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict) This Overview of the IC for Congress is helpful, I believe. It's from 2009, so no mention of Space Force. It does note the x-2 Offices/Officers for each service branch that administrate the ISR agencies within each branch, but also specifically note each agency, that is listed on this page, such as ONI for Navy, MCIA for Marines, INSCOM for Army and, at the time, the AF ISR Agency (→ 25th AF → 16 AF) for Air Force. Obviously each of these entities reports to the hierarchy of their respective branches, while also being the main entity responsible for ISR. We also know there are others, such as the USN and USMC members of NSA/CSS I noted awhile back. This is why I asked of there are any other SF agencies/units/Deltas responsible for ISR. SF is new and so info is limited. I think the best we can do for now, is to expand the Delta 7 page (and this can apply to the other service branch agencies listed as well) to include content about the broader ISR Enterprise perspective right up to the x-2 level, and even the Secretariat level as Buckshot has suggested. This is just a list to direct readers to articles. Renaming links and adding parenthetical notations won't help these readers, and may only serve to confuse, once they click on the link. Expanding the articles being linked to, and then keeping them up to date as new information becomes available via sources, is (IMO) the best route to take. - wolf 20:40, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

@Thewolfchild: At the time the report was prepared, AFISR Agency was a field operating agency that directly reported to the A2. With 16 AF under ACC now, that very well could have changed its status within the service (NASIC is still directly under the A2). The source also wasn't clear that the ISR agency was the Air Force's component to the IC, just a primary operational intelligence force (the only one which it stated unambiguously was Army Military Intelligence). The table here is for the list of members of the intelligence community, which the IC has directly provided here: https://www.dni.gov/index.php/what-we-do/members-of-the-ic. I'm concerned that directly listing entities like 16 AF and Del 7, which have no confirmation of being their services components to the intelligence community would be OR. I am okay with using the names that the DNI uses in the table here (AF/SF ISR enterprises) with redirects to 16 AF/Delta 7, since we do have those pages and they appear to be the primary operational intelligence field forces within these services and we don't have an article for the A2/S2 for these services. @Buckshot06: what are your thoughts on this? Garuda28 (talk) 21:22, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

So jtbc, you're coming off the suggestion of labeling the links with "ISR Ent" and linking to the main service branch pages, and going back to the suggestion of labeling the links as "ISR Ent" and linking them to the 16AF & DEL7 pages? (sorry, there was a thread split here with the edit conflict). - wolf 00:37, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

Correct. My suggestion is labeling them as the ISR Enterprises and linking them to the 16AF/Del7. The reason for ISR enterprise is to mirror the exact usage on the IC page (and more recent SpaceNews article), while linking them to 16AF/Del7 goes back to your point that they’re the most relevant pages we have (since we don’t have dedicated pages for the A2/S2) to make it easier on the reader, even if they don’t perfectly match up. I’m sorry if I’m coming off as confusing – just trying to be as through as possible. Garuda28 (talk) 06:13, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

If you look at the way the list is now, table actually, under "Organization" you have "Space Delta 7", which links to DEL7, and next to it says "USSF ISR Enterprise" in parentheses. The next column, "Parent organization", has "United States Space Force" (linked), followed by "defense" (linked) under "Federal department".

So there's a lot there, without mislabelling any links. And from there, I think the best, and most thorough way to go would be to expand the DEL7 page, perhaps in the lead, to add more about it's role in the SF's whole ISR Enterprise, along with info about the staff x-2 officer, as well as any other SF-intel units, as more info about SF comes available. The table is set up the same for AF, and I would suggest the same for the 16AF page; more info on AF ISR Ent, A-2 and any other non-16AF AF-intel units.

Though I left the additional notations in as a compromise, I think this is the most informative route we can take right now, until (if/when) there are article(s) about the broader intelligence apparatus of each DAF branch, that expand on the meaning of "ISR Enterprise" and the hierarchy of each branch wrt staff officers, etc. - wolf 09:09, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

Use american english?

Does even the subject pertain only to United States? Does it do? There are mondial organisation with branches in many places. Even for those said to be focused "mostly" at the inside of the US. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A01:E34:EC12:36C0:F5DB:DCA0:6768:3790 (talk) 12:34, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

See MOS:ENGVAR, perhaps that will help. - wolf 17:38, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

Does the CIA have no parent organization, or is it the ODNI?

This page says that CIA has no parent organization, but the CIA page says that since 2004 it is under the Office of the Director of National Intelligence. The third paragraph goes as follows:

Since 2004, the CIA is organized under the Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI). Despite having had some of its powers transferred to the DNI, the CIA has grown in size as a response to the September 11 attacks. In 2013, The Washington Post reported that in the fiscal year 2010, the CIA had the largest budget of all IC agencies, exceeding previous estimates.

So, which is it? ~victorsouza (talk) 20:50, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

The DNI oversees all the agencies of the IC, but that doen't mean any of them are a part of the ODNI. All the IC agencies, with the exception of the CIA, have parental entities. The CIA is a stand-alone agency. If you click the link for "independent agency" in the Federal Department column, there is more infomation. - wolf 18:50, 23 February 2023 (UTC)