Strengthen the Military-Rhetorical Complex
One of the six goals stated in the National Intelligence Strategy is to recruit, develop, and retain a talented and diverse workforce that operates as a united community. The U.S. military and the intelligence community at large are constantly seeking the right talent pool of candidates ready to take on the intelligence problems of the modern era.
There is a stream of practiced critical thinkers, talented speakers, and proficient writers graduating from high schools and colleges every year going largely untapped by the Department of Defense. I know, because as a high school and collegiate debater, I was part of it. In 2007, with a new child and a struggling income, I walked into a U.S. Air Force recruiting center. I shared my research, speechwriting, and public speaking skills in the hopes that the service had a place for me.
The recruiter had no recommendation for what jobs fit the skills of a practiced critical thinker and vocal communicator. As a result, I signed up for an “open general” slot for basic training, which left me at the mercy of the “needs of the Air Force.” I was fortunate enough to volunteer and be selected for the Air Force Honor Guard in Washington, DC, where I spent my first years as an enlisted airman. But it wasn’t until I attended the Air Force’s foundational noncommissioned officer training that I met an intelligence analyst and discovered an Air Force career for which I felt custom-built.
I signed up to retrain into the operations intelligence career field in 2013 and began working as an analyst with Air Force Special Operations Command at Hurlburt Field, Florida. By June 2023, I had graduated from National Intelligence University with a master of science degree in strategic intelligence, written a thesis on U.S. intelligence community measurements of whole-of-society defense preparedness, and had the opportunity to brief multiple generals, combatant commanders, and the secretary of the Air Force.
My background is not unique, and my career trajectory shouldn’t be either. By making a concerted effort to engage with high school and college debaters, military recruiters can help more people follow it.
Unrealized Potential
The National Speech and Debate Association counts 134,000 speech and debate participants across 2,863 member high schools. These speech and debate teams engage in thoughtful, serious argumentation on topics of national and international importance. U.S. Code currently mandates that the Library of Congress prepare materials related to the National University Extension Association’s national high school policy debate topic and the American Speech Association’s national college debate topic. The 2022–23 high school topic centered on the U.S. government increasing security cooperation with NATO in one or more of the areas of AI, biotechnology, or cybersecurity. Topics in previous years included water resources and foreign arms sales from the United States. Simply put, thousands of America’s high school students are engaged in serious policy argumentation and debate over some of the most pertinent and pressing issues facing the intelligence community.
Debaters are not beholden to only one idea or one side of an argument. Indeed, at every tournament, debaters will be placed in both “affirmative” and “negative” positions, arguing for their case in some rounds and against any number of cases in other rounds. Formulating arguments is a key intellectual exercise for intelligence analysis, and these kids are doing it on a daily basis, often as an extracurricular activity outside of school hours. Every year, U.S. high school and collegiate speech and debate programs produce diverse individuals able to critically think, understand complex ideas and structures, and communicate them to warfighters and decisionmakers.
My interviews with representatives of the National Speech and Debate Association and multiple debate organizations across the country revealed no evidence of intelligence community or military recruitment at the high school debate levels. That is not to say the potential hasn’t been noticed. A representative from the National Speech and Debate Association explained that “speech and debate lays a strong foundation of transferable skills. Individuals who have participated in speech and debate are often well-equipped to excel in roles that involve research, analysis, communication, and critical thinking. Additionally, involvement in speech and debate can demonstrate a commitment to intellectual pursuits and ethical conduct, qualities highly valued in the intelligence community.”
Better Recruiting
The military, and indeed the intelligence community at large, would do well to institutionalize better practices in bringing these individuals into service for the United States, particularly in uniform. There are two paths the Department of Defense should pursue to meet this end.
First, military recruiters should form relationships with local speech and debate organizations and visit area tournaments for direct recruiting. The increasing gap in culture and familiarity between civilian and military worlds has left a vast majority of students unaware of the basics of military service. This gap also leads to students walking by recruiting tables and driving past recruiting offices completely unaware of the career paths that utilize their speech and debate skills.
The military has for decades pursued high school athletes as a source for healthy, fit recruits who are likely to succeed in enlisting and complete basic training courses. As the force has diversified its talent base, it has altered many physical training requirements to accommodate more potential students. To be sure, there are still far too many students that will not qualify for military service, but the responsibility of recruiters to maximize opportunity for the right talent pool has not diminished.
Second, local intelligence units should take up the opportunity to form regular relationships with speech and debate teams. This includes volunteering to support the teams, coach speakers, and judge at speech and debate competitions. Establishing these relationships serves multiple purposes. It builds familiarity for high school students with military service. It offers those same students more opportunities to grow in their speaking and thinking skills. For the servicemembers, stepping into training, coaching, and evaluation roles is hugely beneficial for individual growth.
At my intelligence squadron on Nellis Air Force Base, we have been instituting something of a pilot program for the second initiative. We have solicited volunteers to attend the fall and winter tournaments of the Golden Desert Speech and Debate League, the confederation of speech and debate programs across the Las Vegas area. Fewer than a dozen members, most of them airmen, have so far volunteered, but those few airmen have already contributed well over 100 hours of judging to three tournaments and filled critical gaps for the programs desperate for well-informed adults to judge their students and provide valuable feedback for growth.
On a grander scale, this may provide a potential avenue for reaching students the Department of Defense can’t reach in many U.S. schools. Military recruiters have cited lack of access to high schools as a foundational hurdle to recruitment for years. But that problem grew exponentially during the Zoom era, brought about by the COVID-19 pandemic. As students have returned, high schools have had to relearn how to integrate with guests, including military recruiters. Some high schools, not to mention colleges and universities, have administrations that oppose military recruitment in their spaces for a plethora of reasons. Some have student bodies or parents that oppose seeing uniforms in their schools. Whatever the reason, recruiters are now faced with developing novel ways for getting their messages to students. Tournaments and partnerships with some of America’s best and brightest are one way to work with administrations, teachers, students, and parents in a previously unexplored way.
Of course, recruiting students from speech and debate teams in high schools will not address shortfalls among many combat-focused specialties such as infantry, armor, artillery, and security forces. Speech and debate teach intellectual and communicative skills and do not prepare the participating students with any specialized talents for combat. To be sure, there are myriad programs offered in high schools across the United States that can. Speech and debate just aren’t among them. The strategy proposed in this article is aimed toward raising the initial, base talent pool for military intelligence recruits. It ensures that instructors will be spending less time struggling through concepts of spoken and written communication and critical thinking with students arriving at technical training. It would help ensure that the youngest soldiers, sailors, marines, airmen, and guardians coming into the intelligence community are ready to deal with complexity.
The United States does not need to recruit unprecedented numbers of new recruits to accomplish this task. It only needs to focus its sights on the best qualified talent. Despite the relatively small impact on the quantity of recruits, this plan will almost certainly have a drastically outsized impact on quality of intelligence recruits, and therefore the quality of intelligence produced throughout the Department of Defense.
Conclusion
While little to no polling has been done on this question, most participants will tell you that the average speech and debate participant will lean further to the left on the political spectrum than the average high school student. Attend any tournament in the nation, and you are likely to hear more speeches advocating for left-leaning than conservative political initiatives and ideas. But this does not mean recruiters will necessarily face a hostile audience. For the pilot program I mentioned earlier, the reception from students and coaches has been overwhelmingly positive. In fact, by pure chance, the coach with whom we have been working to facilitate airmen judging at debate tournaments is a former all-source intelligence analyst. On the occasions where students and judges may interact — for example, while waiting for the next speaker to arrive from another event — the students always seem to be fascinated by intelligence work.
Ultimately, debate offers an opportunity for U.S. schools and the military to work together in order to raise the level of thinking, inquisitiveness, and talent in their institutions. Both organizations should cooperate so that more debaters can have the opportunity to serve their country that I did.
Master Sgt. Andrew Bary is an analysis flight chief at the 547th Intelligence Squadron on Nellis Air Force Base, NV, and a 2023 graduate of National Intelligence University’s Master of Science in Strategic Intelligence program.
Image: U.S. Navy photo by Chief Mass Communication Specialist Brandie Nix
