FM 34-52 INTELLIGENCE INTERROGATION -- SEPTEMBER 28, 1992

"In no other profession are the penalties for employing untrained personnel so appalling or so irrevocable as in the military." -- General Douglas MacArthur.

Interrogator employment during OPERATION DESERT STORM demonstrated that units whose mission training plans (MTPs) were battle focused and based on the principles of training outlined in FM 25100 and FM 25-101, accomplished the EPW and DOCEX mission more efficiently and timely.

The commander bears the ultimate responsibility for training his soldiers to fight and win. This appendix is designed to make the interrogation unit commander aware of aspects to consider when developing unit training programs.

There are no commissioned interrogation officers. The commissioned interrogation specialty was eliminated in 1970. The interrogation Warrant Officer (351E), and the Senior Enlisted Interrogator (97E4L) advise the commander on the training and employment of interrogators. They provide the technical expertise required to develop the unit mission-essential task list (METL) and training plans and exercises to support that METL.

MISSION•ESSENTIAL TASK LIST

To train interrogators in the areas critical to the unit's mission accomplishment, the commander (CI/Interrogation Company or I&S Company) develops a complete and accurate METL. During the METL development process, the commander --

• Analyzes the MI battalion commander's restated wartime mission and approved METL; identifies specified and implied tasks.
• Uses situation training exercises (STXs) and field training exercises (FTXs) in ARTEP 34-298-10-MTP to determine collective tasks in support of critical wartime missions.
• Sequences collective tasks as he expects them to occur during the execution of the company's wartime mission.
• Obtains battalion commander's approval of the company METL.
• Briefs company leadership (officers and NCOs); uses soldiers training publications, soldiers manuals, and MTPs to identify leader and soldier tasks to support the collective critical tasks which comprise the METL.

When developing the METL, the commander keeps in mind, regardless of echelon, that interrogators have a mission to perform at the next lower echelon as GS or DS. For this reason, they must train and practice performing their mission at the assigned and lower echelon, and deploy with both echelons.

In addition to understanding the METL of your unit, you must be familiar with the METL of supported staffs and units. Other unit METLs to consider are --

• Supported S2s and the maneuver brigade and battalion staffs to which they belong. Train with these staffs during FTXs and command post exercises (CPXs) to facilitate team cohesiveness for combat. The S2 should know and train with his interrogation support team to prepare for wartime operations.
• Train and deploy with CI personnel. Interrogation and CI personnel should cross-train on each others respective wartime critical tasks.
• Train with combat arms units. Interrogators should train and emphasize the importance of tagging and evacuating EPWs and CEDs. Stress that EPWs and CEDs provide information that saves lives.

JOINT MILITARY INTELLIGENCE AND MILITARY POLICE TRAINING

OPERATIONS URGENT FURY, JUST CAUSE, and DESERT STORM demonstrated the need for interrogators and MP to conduct integrated training with regard to EPW and civilian internee operations.

For effective, meaningful training to occur, commanders must plan, develop, and coordinate many tasks. Interrogators must be familiar with the METL of the MP unit assigned to your echelon with regard to EPW operations. Without integrating the two METLs, you cannot develop scenarios that allow soldiers to train in a battle-focused environment. The two units must learn to work together and understand the requirements and functions each unit will have to perform in wartime. Members of the band are trained and may be employed as augmentees to the holding area perimeter security force.

EXERCISE REQUIREMENTS

In addition to normal personnel and equipment required of any unit exercise, the following must be planned for and considered.

SCENARIO

The most time consuming and complicated portion of an interrogation exercise is scenario development. Included in the scenario must be reasonable actions of enemy and friendly forces.

Stories must be developed for EPWs and civilian internees; for example, as in the technical support packages and interrogator comprehensive evaluation. These stories should be entered into an automated HUMINT data base, and should interact with each other at least minimally. For example:

• Units should cross match.
• Missions should fit together.
• Some degree of personality (names of leaders and soldiers) should be shared by personnel.

It is not necessary that all EPWs and civilian internees have stories that include information of intelligence value or that stories be complete in all aspects. There should be enough material in the stories to provide a realistic 'skeleton' on which role players can build.

If possible, interrogators should develop or assist with story development. The stories should tie into real world exercise play and provide indicators of enemy COAs to the G2. Tying EPW and CI stories to exercise play facilitates incorporating EPW play into G2 exercise planning and execution. This will help identify and fix many shortcomings in the stories.

PERSONNEL

Additional personnel must be employed to make an interrogation exercise successful. Personnel will be needed to serve as EPWs, civilian internees, medical personnel, interpreters, CI teams, and EPW civilian internee guards for lower echelon units. The numbers of personnel needed can be varied and personnel may be reinserted any number of times, in any number of roles.

The minimum number of personnel serving as EPWs and civilian internees at any one time should not be allowed to go below 10 to 15. Personnel should be able to speak a foreign language; preferably, languages of assigned interrogators. This allows for optimum training and practice in performing the actual job of an interrogator.

Possible sources for linguistically capable EPW and civilian internee role players include --

• Other interrogation units.
• EW and CI personnel.
• PYSOP personnel.
• MP personnel.
• CA personnel.

Linguistically capable personnel may also be in other MOSs and units not normally associated with foreign language capabilities.

Another source of linguistic support is the US Army Reserve (USAR) and the Army National Guard (ARNG) units for AC units and vice versa. A few personnel with languages not indigenous to the unit should be included so interpreters can be trained when used.

If possible, at least one insertion of mass numbers of EPWs and civilian internees should occur. The number of personnel should be at least double the number of available interrogators. One way of simulating this is to --

• Insert a large quantity of individuals.
• Allow a short time for MP and interrogator personnel to work with this.
• Remove a portion of the personnel.
• Immediately reinsert them as new EPWs and civilian internees. The knowledgeability and cooperativeness of the sources should be mixed; for example, some may be of CI interest, some may have no information, and a few may refuse to break.

DOCUMENTS

Documents present another time consuming and difficult consideration for interrogation operation exercises. Documents should be in foreign languages; numerous documents should be relevant to scenario documents which are developed to interact with the EPWs and civilian internees and as stand-alone intelligence sources.

The number of documents used during an exercise should be excessive; large quantities of documents should be input into the scenario at the same time EPWs are being inputted. This allows simulation of EPWs and civilian internees, and documents arriving on the same sources of transportation.

MULTIPLE EXERCISE LOCATIONS

In order to exercise evacuation of EPWs and civilian internees, support to lower echelons' multiple exercise locations is necessary. These locations do not need to be drastically separated, but should not be within sight of each other.

For example, location to simulate a medical aid station should also be included along with personnel to simulate medical personnel. This allows personnel to practice interrogating EPWs and civilian internees in the medical evacuation system. Having multiple locations serves several purposes.

• Both Interrogation and MP units have functions that must be performed at a lower echelon.
• Interrogators must be able to support the lower echelons with interrogations. This means teams must be able to deploy and act without normal unit leadership.
• Coordination must be affected with the supported lower echelon unit.
• Reports must be transmitted to the supported unit and accompany EPWs being evacuated.
• MP must receipt and receive EPW and civilian internees from lower echelons and guard them during the evacuation process from lower echelon to assigned echelon.

There is also a need to practice having multiple EPW and civilian internee facilities at the assigned echelon. When these are established, MP and interrogation assets must be divided in order to operate the additional facilities.

An additional aspect of using additional locations is training of interrogation and MP units to function with reduced staffing necessitated by performing multiple missions simultaneously.

OTHER SUPPORT

For corps interrogation platoon exercises, a food services section of the HHS company should be deployed in support of the exercise. This allows the food service section to practice operating two separate mess facilities required by doctrine.

Go to Next Page