Q&A: Major General Barbara G. Fast
Intelligence Leader:
Technology for Timely and Relevant Intelligence
Major General Barbara G. Fast
Commanding General
United States Army
Intelligence Center and Fort Huachuca
Major General Barbara G. Fast received her commission through a direct appointment on February 8, 1976.
During her 30 years of commissioned service, Fast has held command and staff intelligence assignments that include: assistant operations officer for training and education, 66th Military Intelligence Group, Munich, Germany; officer-in-charge, Soviet Orientation Team, 5th Military Intelligence Company, Munich, Germany; assistant S3 (Operations), 18th Military Intelligence Battalion, Munich, Germany; commander, Headquarters and Headquarters Company, 18th Military Intelligence Battalion, Munich, Germany; chief, Intelligence Production Section, 303rd Military Intelligence Battalion, Fort Hood, Texas; aide-de-camp to the deputy commanding general, III Corps, Fort Hood, Texas; professional development officer/assignment officer/personnel manager, Army Military Personnel Center, Alexandria, Virginia; chief, Advanced Systems Section, J2, U.S. European Command, Germany; executive officer, 18th Military Intelligence Battalion, Munich, Germany; deputy and chief, Intelligence Division, 66th Military Intelligence Brigade, Munich, Germany; commander, 163rd Military Intelligence Battalion, Fort Hood, Texas; G2 (Intelligence), 2nd Armored Division, Fort Hood, Texas; commander, 66th Military Intelligence Group (Provisional), Augsburg, Germany; associate deputy director for operations/deputy chief, Central Security Service, National Security Agency, Fort Meade, Maryland; director of Intelligence, J2, U.S. European Command, Germany; assistant commandant, Army Intelligence Center and Fort Huachuca, Ari.; and C2 Multi-National Force-Iraq, Operation Iraqi Freedom.
Fast is a graduate of the Military Intelligence Officer Basic and Advanced Courses, the Armed Forces Staff College and the Army War College. She holds Bachelor of Science degrees in German and Spanish from the University of Missouri, a Master of Science degree in Business Administration from Boston University, and an honorary Doctorate of Laws from Central Missouri State University.
Fast was interviewed by MIT Editor Harrison Donnelly.
Q. In broad terms, how would you describe the role of information technology in the work of Army Intelligence?
A. Information technology is a key enabler to both Army and joint military intelligence operations. The myriad systems, analyst tools, data repositories and communications networks that we use are essential in assisting our analysts and leaders. This technology provides commanders and decision makers with timely and relevant actionable intelligence.
Q. You have spoken of the need to get the right “tools in the toolkit” of military intelligence. What do you see as the key IT tools today and what new technologies would you like to see developed in the future?
A. Our systems and networks are very important tools in our operations and enable us to quickly sift through enormous amounts of data to get the right information at the right time to decision makers. It is important that our kit has the right mix of tools to enable our intelligence professionals to make accurate and timely assessments. Secure communications networks are, and will continue to be, the backbone of our trade, especially in today’s information age.
In the future, these networks will require more available and increasingly more efficient use of bandwidth down to the lowest tactical levels. Secure wireless technology will become available to the individual soldier, allowing access to information and the ability to inject data into our intelligence processing and tactical systems. Processing systems that help our analysts visualize the data, in the context of their current battlespace and the problem set they are working, are crucial. It is important that these tools be very powerful, yet easy to use and intuitive.
Data mining tools like Pathfinder and the suite of applications in systems like Joint Intelligence Operational Capability-Iraq [JIOC-I] and Distributed Common Ground System-Army [DCGS-A] are emerging as the new crop of analytic tools. They already are proving successful in ongoing operations. We describe the network as being flattened when it comes to immediate and equal data access by organizations at all levels versus a hierarchical system. Other tools like the Biometric Automated Toolset [BAT] and Analyst Notebook are helping our analysts break terrorist cells and track and capture the enemy. I see these tools getting better and smarter as newer technologies emerge and are introduced into our systems.
Q. What are some of the key technology initiatives, in training/simulation and other areas, currently underway at the U.S. Army Intelligence Center (USAIC)?
A. We at the Intelligence Center are building an operational environment for training that closely mirrors the intelligence communications and systems architecture currently used in ongoing operations. We have extended connectivity from our main academic complex to key remote field training exercise sites. We have integrated new tools, systems and capabilities into our training, such as Pathfinder, JIOC-I, BAT and Analyst Notebook, among others. We have also stood up a facility, called the Joint Intelligence Combat Training Center [JI-CTC], to drive and control our training exercises. This facility will become the focal point for training at the Intelligence Center and serves as the culmination training event for many of the courses here.
The JI-CTC has an exercise control and battle simulation capability, and the communications infrastructure that affords us the opportunity to integrate training across all ranks (from private through warrant officer to captain) and across multiple intelligence military occupational specialties, all in one single training scenario. Students attending courses at the center must go through a five-to-seven-day JICTC exercise rotation as a key part of their course curriculum. Each rotation integrates students from various courses. Exercises are interactive and focused on the same type of complex problems they will encounter. The synergy achieved from this type of training is very powerful, and places our students in an environment where they are performing the same roles they will be performing when they deploy into ongoing operations, with similar physical environment and rank structures, and solving the same type of complex, conflicting hypothesis problem sets they will find themselves solving in a theater of operations. The network and systems architecture we are building to support this environment is a key enabler to making this training possible.
Finally, in the area of unmanned aircraft simulation and training, we have worked closely over the past year with the Army Aviation Warfighting Center, and in April we will transfer the responsibility for unmanned aircraft systems and training located here at Fort Huachuca to the Aviation Warfighting Center. On April 19, an unmanned aircraft systems training battalion will be activated on Fort Huachuca.
Q. Some years ago, you wrote about the need for interoperability between intelligence 8and non-intelligence assets. Do you think progress has been made in this area?
A. We continue to make progress every day, and the future of interoperability looks very promising. There has been great progress in our capabilities to visualize red/blue situation in systems such as the Command Post of the Future [CPOF], ASAS and JIOC-I. Infusion of combat patrol reports into JIOC-I has increased the volume and richness of soldier reporting. As HUMINT collection teams operate on the battlefield, the display and messaging capability we have given them on PDAs has been critical to their success. Our continued capability to downlink imagery from unmanned aircraft into TOCs, which is then used for targeting, remains vital to battlefield commanders. There has been significant advancement in the area of biometrics, and its development into a forensics capability that provides intelligence and non-intelligence organizations with critical information. I believe the most important progress has been in intelligence-driving operations and the way our intelligence personnel and operations personnel are working together. I recently visited the HQs of 3ID in Iraq, where I saw first hand the side-by-side work of the intelligence and operations personnel as they integrated intelligence and non-intelligence assets in protecting forces on the ground while pursuing the enemy. One can also see other examples of the progress in interoperability when viewing the operations of Brigade Combat Teams in the field to EUCOM’s standing Joint Task Force.
Q. What do you see as the most promising developments in automatic language translation?
A. First, let me say that there will always be a need for linguists, but it will always be a challenge to have enough of them trained in the right language at the right time. Using automated language technologies supports the mission. The Army Intelligence Center is the lead for the Department of Defense in automated language technologies. One-way language translation systems have gained a great deal of acceptance. As an example, to fix the immediate need, we fielded individual language translation devices on PDAs. A soldier manning a checkpoint can select from a menu of subjects, select basic phrases in the correct language, and the device will assist the soldier in issuing directions, orders and gathering force protection related information in a foreign language.
Two-way translation systems are still in their infancy. In development is the Iraqi speech-to-speech software-based program that can aid an interrogator and/or translator and can be loaded on a laptop. The initial prototype of this tactical translation system was demonstrated this January, and was met with a great deal of interest by the Multi-National Security Transition Command in Iraq. Its success rate was nearly 90 percent accuracy in a controlled environment. The USAIC Battle Lab is currently working to issue approximately 30 of these systems to Joint Forces Command.
Automatic language translating technologies give an Army soldier tools to support him in completing his day-today routine tasks and allow linguists to focus on a commander’s most critical tasks requiring a foreign language. The USAIC Battle Lab is also working on the Global Autonomous Language Exploitation system. The goal of this system is to develop and apply computer software technologies to absorb, analyze and interpret sizeable volumes of speech and text in multiple languages.
Q. The Aerial Common Sensor (ACS) was envisioned as a key element of future Army intelligence collection, but the program has run into problems. What is your assessment of the current state and future role of the ACS?
A. On Jan. 12, 2006, the Army decided to terminate the $879 million System Development and Demonstration [SDD] contract with Lockheed Martin for convenience, due to the program’s inability to meet schedule milestones and cost thresholds as stated in the Acquisition Program Baseline. This termination was in large part a result of ongoing issues involving the contractor’s system payload design being unable to meet weight allocations.
The ACS program itself was not terminated, but only the existing SDD contract. The Army remains committed to developing and fielding the next-generation ACS system, and is aiming to re-compete the contract in the FY09 timeframe, with the first unit equipped in the FY16 timeframe.
At the direction of the Office of the Secretary of Defense, the Army and Navy are co-leading a six-month joint intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance study with Air Force and OSD participation. This study will look at manned and unmanned airborne ISR systems across DoD and conduct a 2015-focused gap analysis to revalidate the need for ACS as the replacement system for the aging Guardrail Common Sensor, Aerial Reconnaissance-Low [ARL] and EP-3 fleets. Once completed, the Army and Navy will use the results of the study to review and further define ACS requirements and acquisition strategy, update the ACS requirements and program documentation, and work towards restarting the ACS development contract in FY09.
The delay in the ACS program is forcing the Army to look at ways to keep the Guardrail and ARL fleets relevant longer by modernizing their sensor payloads and either extending the useful life of the aircraft or replacing them entirely. The oldest of the Guardrail aircraft are approaching the end of useful life. To maximize its usefulness, the Army is currently modernizing the system’s core capabilities, based upon feedback from commanders in the field, so they are better able to support the war on terror and warfighters in OIF/OEF. Additionally, the Army is baselining the ARL fleet with a modern signals intelligence payload that will help prosecute highpriority targets in Iraq and help relieve some of the burden on the Guardrail fleet. In fact, we have just recently deployed the first ARL aircraft to the Iraq Theater, where it is providing much-needed force protection support to troops on the ground.
Q. The Army is updating its All Source Analysis System (ASAS) battlefield intelligence system. What improvements do you think are needed to improve its effectiveness in the fight against terrorism?
A. The All Source Analysis System continues to serve the Army well. In the future we will merge ASAS and JIOC-I into DCGS-A. Incorporating the good aspects of ASAS into the flattened network of JIOC-I with common standards, databases and tools levels the analytic playing field and is the first step to the objective net-centric capability. JIOC-I will increase situational awareness and provide dynamic tipping and cueing for theater and national sensors, as well as a historical context and linkage for operational planning. This is a joint program with each service having a component. DCGS-A is the flagship intelligence processing system for the future force receiving input from sensors, providing common tools for all analysts and providing access to all users through the Battle Command System.
Q. What do you see as the key lessons of the Iraq war in terms of intelligence collection and analysis technology?
A. There have been a number of key lessons learned from OIF/OEF that have caused the intelligence community to change. We have learned that collection of biometric data associated with a rocket attack, an ambush or an IED attack is key to developing a better picture of the enemy and the insurgent effort. We have revitalized document exploitation and the importance of that capability in storing, prioritizing, moving and cataloging exploited media. Open source intelligence is playing a greater role than before.
Another key lesson learned has been the criticality of making intelligence available to the lowest levels of forces, particularly when the distinction between what historically were considered tactical and strategic forces and operations has been blurred. We have seen the importance of analytic applications that provide linkages and pattern analysis, which help intelligence analysts sift through large volume of data. We understand the criticality of and have developed visualization tools to help portray the relevant information. Once the information is sorted, analysts are better able to execute the art of our business, which is intelligence analysis and answering the commander’s questions. In doing so, we have essentially flattened the joint integrated network.
Across the Army, technology is better enabling every soldier to become a sensor, whether he or she is a military police officer on patrol in Iraq or a transporter moving supplies through a village in Afghanistan. Our ability to conduct intelligence preparation of the battlefield in the complex and urban environments where those U.S. soldiers are operating continues to improve through intelligence technology. We identified shortfalls in the equipment needed by HUMINT Collection Teams [HCT] operating in OIF/OEF theaters. We then assembled and distributed HCT kitbags with critical communications and data entry devices improving their capabilities. Most importantly, we are seeing success through the advancement of technology and analyst capability as part of an Armywide aggressive counter-IED program.
Q. What is your role as commander of the Army Intelligence Center?
A. First and foremost, my role is to ensure that the USAIC school trains and sends to the force technically and tactically sound intelligence professionals imbued with Army values and the warrior ethos. Military intelligence [MI] soldiers who train and graduate from USAIC today are better able to collect and produce timely and accurate intelligence for use by combatant commanders. I remain greatly impressed by the professionalism and dedication of our soldiers, civilians and contractors in the Intelligence Center. Together, we identify and validate intelligence and electronic warfaremateriel requirements for the Army and develop viable warfighting concepts, doctrine and organizational structures. Ensuring the future structure of intelligence organizations is particularly important as the Army and MI continue to move to the modular force. I am particularly focused on what do modularity and technology cause and/or allow MI to do differently. I am working hard to ensure the Intelligence Center is aligned to support ARFORGEN.
As other school commanders do for their respective branches, I serve as the proponent for the Military Intelligence Branch. In that role, I focus on the health of MI by looking at MI soldiers from their recruitment and accession into the Army, the MI specialties in which soldiers, warrant officers and officers will serve, and finally keeping great MI soldiers in the force through targeted retention efforts. Our teaming with DA G1 and HRC has been instrumental in our success in building an MI force. We are now assuming that role with the 09L Translator MOS. Equally important to me and the success of military intelligence is the capabilities and contributions of our DA civilian work force, which serves alongside MI soldiers everywhere.
Q. What do you see as the chief accomplishments of your office under your command so far?
A. The number-one accomplishment USAIC achieves every day is preparing soldiers, civilians and units to go to war, survive, provide timely and relevant intelligence, and conduct intelligence operations in concert with their command. We have done this by developing a complete partnership between TRADOC, INSCOM, DA G2 and USAIC, with further extension into the joint community. As you know, we have dedicated men and women serving in MI. We owe it to them to aggressively gather, validate and incorporate critical lessons learned from OIF/OEF into everything we do—training, concept development, doctrine development, designing the MI force and developing IEW systems.
As a result of lessons learned, our initial entry training is more rigorous through longer FTXs, which place a new soldier in an environment, both tactically and technically, that represents what they will see in the next unit. We have established and are extending a SIPR architecture and environment for use in training of soldiers. We are mirroring scenarios and technology now being used in the field. I believe it is extremely important to lessen the steep learning curve young soldiers face when reporting to their very first unit—a unit that likely is on it way to OIF/OEF—by replicating here in USAIC what that MI soldier will see in the force and in the field. Additionally, we have MI officers and NCOs with battlefield experience coming back to USAIC to instruct. In doing so, they share their insights and lessons learned with soldiers who are new to the Army.
In FY05, USAIC saw the greatest single increase in the number of soldiers trained. Approximately 12,000 MI soldiers and civilians graduated from intelligence training last year. As part of that 12,000, we trained personnel from the Navy and Air Force, as well from individuals from other government agencies and foreign officers from approximately 80 different countries.
I am proud of the way we have found innovative ways to meet the Army’s growing need for trained intelligence soldiers by integrating into USAIC the invaluable capabilities of National Guard and reserve soldiers. From instructors and staff on the platform to drill sergeants on the trail, National Guard and reserve soldiers are crucial to our mission success here in USAIC and in the field. Outside of USAIC and MI, we are teaching and training soldiers and leaders on intelligence and the employment and use of intelligence assets. Mobile training teams have trained approximately 20,000 soldiers in the past 18 months on topics such as tactical questioning, HUMINT and cultural awareness. We also have senior intelligence officers teaching future brigade commanders of other branches on intelligence matters.
We are also revitalizing SIGINT-related efforts such as doctrine and equipment development through a close partnering with the National Security Agency.
Another milestone was achieved when the Intelligence Center was designated the Army proponent for cultural awareness training. We just officially opened the doors on the TRADODC Culture Center. Leaders everywhere appreciate the importance of understanding the complex and diverse social fabric of other cultures. A better understanding of the local culture and society assists immensely in gathering actionable intelligence. The TRADOC Culture Center designs and develops cultural awareness programs that are used to train soldiers and leaders through mobile training teams, professional military education and the USAIC instructor training course. I believe we must understand the character of the irregular warfare we now face and continue to adapt accordingly.
I am excited to command the USAIC during a time when military intelligence skills are increasingly relevant to prosecuting the global war on terrorism. Commanding the USAIC is definitely a high point in my 30-year Army career. I truly enjoy working with our professional soldiers, civilians and contractors along with Training and Doctrine Command leaders and the commanders at the other TRADOC schools. Always Out Front! ♦
