1. General

This publication is one of the six keystone doctrine publications designated by the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. The other joint keystone publications are personnel and administration (1-0); operations (3-0); logistics (4-0); plans (5-0); and command, control, communications, and computers systems (6-0). Joint Pub 2-0 provides the overarching principles for intelligence support to joint operations.

a. Joint intelligence doctrine offers two perspectives. The first is the joint force commander's (JFC's) perspective of the uses of intelligence and the responsibilities and capabilities of J-2 and supporting intelligence organizations. Second is the J-2's perspective of the end toward which intelligence must work.

b. From the moment joint operations are contemplated, the JFC launches a continuing, interactive process to develop and refine the commander's estimate of the situation. The J-2 and J-2 staff have pivotal responsibilities in this process, both in direct support of the commander and in interactions with the other J-staffs. At all stages, the J-2 and J-2 staff must contribute not only relevant intelligence but also a sophisticated understanding of how the adversary thinks.

c. Critical to operational success is gaining intelligence dominance of the battlespace. All sides will attempt to determine adversary capabilities, objectives, and operational concepts. All sides will deploy their collection and analysis capabilities and will endeavor to conduct successful deceptions in attempts to gain surprise and provide operational security. Gaining and maintaining this intelligence dominance enhances the JFC's flexibility by opening additional operational options.

d. Intelligence requirements are identified based on the JFC's guidance and direction, estimate of the situation, and objectives. The commander's requirements must be the principal driver of intelligence system components, organization, services, and products. Ultimately, satisfying these requirements will depend on the ability of each J-2 and their intelligence staffs at all levels of command to (1) employ joint force organic intelligence resources; (2) identify and, when assigned, integrate additional intelligence resources such as the joint intelligence center (JIC) (see Chapter VII, "The Joint Intelligence Architecture"); and (3) apply national intelligence capabilities.

e. The J-2 must integrate efforts to develop and refin warfighting intelligence support capabilities into the commander's operation plans. The JFC's J-2 must work with other affected senior intelligence officers (G-2, N-2, IN, and J-2) to develop a concept of intelligence operations tailored to the commander's operation plans. The intelligence annex must provide enough specific information for subordinate, lateral, and supporting commands to start doing what is expected without an extensive exchange of message traffic.

2. Supporting Doctrine

This document provides intelligence doctrine for joint operations. More detailed implementing methodology is under development in a joint intelligence publication hierarchy that includes:

a. Joint Pub 2-01, "Joint Intelligence Support to Operations."

b. Joint Pub 2-01.1, "Joint Tactics, Techniques, and Procedures (JTTP) for Intelligence Support to Targeting."

c. Joint Pub 2-01.2, "Joint Doctrine, Tactics, Techniques, and Procedures for Counterintelligence Support to Operations."

d. Joint Pub 2-02, "National Intelligence Support to Joint Operations."

e. Joint Pub 2-03, "JTTP for Mapping, Charting, and Geodesy Support."

Intelligence doctrine provides principles of intelligence for effective support of JFCs and heir forces. A common doctrine, shared by all elements of a joint force and supporting organizations, increases the probability that responsive intelligence systems will provide JFCs with accurate, timely, relevant, and adequate intelligence. The doctrine also includes what must be considered and what generally should be done. Its application requires an understanding of the situation and judgment. The doctrine provides a framework within which intelligence should be developed and used to support the JFC's conduct of military operations.

4. Sources and Methodology

a. The principles of war (Joint Pub 3-0, "Doctrine for Joint Operations") are the basis for the principles of intelligence for joint operations. The principles of intelligence were developed from joint and Service doctrines, theory, history, and the lessons learned from the successes and failures of wars and operations.

b. In keeping with the Joint Pub 1-02, "DOD Dictionary of Military and Associated Terms," doctrine definition and intelligence principles are provided to transcend individual command, Service, and theater perspectives. The principles are presented in terms of military operations to avoid the error of addressing either operations or intelligence as having distinctly separate wartime and peacetime concepts. These principles apply across the range of military operations.

Frederick the Great instructed his generals over two hundred years ago, "If you know the enemy's plans beforehand you will always be more than a match for him..." Seldom this century has this maxim proven more true than during the period 1939-1945 with ULTRA, the code name under which highly sensitive intelligence resulting from the solution of high grade codes and cyphers was passed between selected Allied individuals.

A decisive event in breaking the German cyphers and the subsequent evolution of ULTRA occurred when pre-war (1939) Polish intelligence officers, in concert with their government's attempts at defending against a German attack and therefore contributing to the cause of an Allied victory over Germany, turned over to the French and British duplicates of the German Enigma machine used for encoding messages.

Although the procurement of the German Enigma machine proved to be the most noted event in the development of special intelligence, other factors contributed as well. Material seized from German submarines and weather/supply ship, material taken from Italian submarines and documents captured in the North African desert war proved valuable as did German diplomatic material provided to the OSS by individuals involved in the internal opposition to Hitler. In fact, by 1943 British cryptographers had also broken into the German "secret writing machine," (the geheimschreiter) a different encoding system from Enigma.

The specifics of the evolution of the special intelligence system notwithstanding, the ULTRA network proved highly reliable giving those trusted with the secret a clear view of the enemy's operations and intentions. Such capability was unprecedented in military history! -- but also presented special problems. The historian, John Winton, summarizes this problem aptly;

"When one player consistently knows which cards his opponent holds, how much and how often dare he go on winning before his opponent begins to suspect and changes the cards or the game?"

Such was the dilemma of those read into the ULTRA secret. Consequently, their actions, at least in the early days, were fraught with caution. "Too much success could be dangerous," Winton's account surmises, "Too many U-boats sunk, for instance, at their remote refueling rendezvous might arouse the enemy's suspicions and cause him to change cyphers which had been only broken after much labour over a long period of time. Worse, it might even cause him to doubt the inviolability of the Enigma coding machine."

But, in spite of numerous events where the Allies felt certain that ULTRA would be compromised, Nazi planners stubbornly refused to doubt the inviolability of Enigma. Indeed, years passed before some German participants learned of the extent the Allies knew of their operations and intentions. Gerhardt Weinberg, in his general history of World War II, cites an international conference on signals intelligence held in the fall of 1978, where a number of participants who had played active roles in these events still found it hard to believe that their machine codes had been read by the Allies. Of course, it is possible that a signals officer within the Reich, in view of the uncanny "luck" the Allies seemed to hold in thwarting some German campaign plans, might have become suspicious of the security of German secrets. However, if true, none was so convinced to compile the evidence and report it. Weinberg, somewhat insightfully, offers this explanation:

"...in the intellectual climate of Nazi Germany, and more particularly in the Byzantine atmosphere of intrigue and jealousy in Hitler's court, it would have been an exceptionally bold man who went to the Fuhrer's bunker and, like he who drew aside Praim's tent curtain at dead of night and told him half Troy was burned, informed Hitler that the Third Reich's communications system for all three services, world-wide, must now be considered insecure and should be entirely reconstituted, from the basic essential upwards, with fresh codes and procedures...a gross breach of security by the Allies would be needed to convince Hitler and the many intelligence officers whose careers (to say nothing of their lives) depended upon the continuing belief that the Enigma was invulnerable."

Hence, the ULTRA secret remained so. In fact by the end of the war, the information became so complete and comprehensive--not merely of military significance, but also political and economic--that the enemy could scarcely make a move without the Allies knowing of it and thereby enjoying the advantage of meeting him at a controlled time and place. Indeed, without Special Intelligence the war most certainly would have been much more costly in terms of lives lost in the defense of freedom.

_____________________________
SOURCES:
Winton, John, Ultra at Sea, New York: Morrow & Co., 1988.
Weinberg, Gerhard L., A World at Arms, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1994.

07-16-1996; 09:09:42