An officer of the Bangladesh Army is rarely just one thing. In the morning he may be appointed at Trust Bank Limited, signing off on financial instruments with the prudence of a career financier. In the afternoon he may oversee a welfare enterprise – Sena Kalyan Sangstha (SKS), negotiating contracts and managing supply chains like a seasoned businessman. On another day he may be airborne, piloting sophisticated aircraft with the calm precision of an aviator. From logistics to leadership, from engineering to administration, the modern officer is trained to adapt, to perform, and to deliver measurable results.

This institutional versatility is not accidental. It is the product of a system that demands competence across domains. The Bangladesh Army has long cultivated officers who can transition from field command to corporate management without losing discipline or focus. In recent years, many of these officers have demonstrated that they can protect assets, grow investments, and manage complex organizations while maintaining operational readiness. Their performance, whether in peacekeeping missions abroad or in domestic administrative roles, has generally reflected dedication and a high standard of professionalism.

Yet competence in a structured military environment does not automatically translate into mastery of intelligence leadership. That distinction becomes particularly important when we examine the role of Directorate General of Forces Intelligence (DGFI), one of the country’s most sensitive and consequential institutions.

DGFI occupies a unique space in Bangladesh’s security architecture. It is not merely an extension of the army; it is a national intelligence apparatus tasked with navigating the murky intersections of geopolitics, counterintelligence, counterterrorism, and strategic analysis. Its Director General (DG) is typically appointed from the army for a fixed tenure of two to three years. On paper, this rotation appears logical: it ensures fresh leadership and prevents institutional stagnation. In practice, however, it creates structural limitations.

Military command operates by doctrine. It follows established playbooks, clear chains of command, codified procedures, and measurable objectives. Intelligence, by contrast, is a realm of ambiguity. It rewards intuition as much as regulation, improvisation as much as instruction. An intelligence chief must be comfortable operating in grey zones where outcomes are uncertain and failures are inevitable stepping stones to success.

By the time a DGFI chief begins to fully grasp the subtleties of tradecraft—human source cultivation, strategic deception, psychological operations, inter-agency liaison, and geopolitical forecasting—his tenure often approaches its end. The learning curve is steep; the institutional memory, limited. Compare this with agencies such as Mossad, Research and Analysis Wing (RAW), or Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI). While leadership structures differ, these organizations do not operate under rigidly short command tenures in the same manner. Continuity of expertise often strengthens strategic depth.

The position of Director General in an intelligence agency is not simply administrative; it is deeply intellectual and strategic. The DG must possess comprehensive awareness of domestic dynamics—political fault lines, economic vulnerabilities, social unrest—as well as global currents that may ripple into Bangladesh. From Washington to Beijing, from New Delhi to Ankara, he must understand how policy shifts could affect national security. In a world where cyber threats, disinformation campaigns, and proxy conflicts evolve rapidly, the intelligence chief must be both scholar and strategist.

There is another misconception that needs correction. DGFI is fundamentally an espionage agency, not a crude instrument of spying for political convenience. Espionage involves systematic intelligence collection, analysis, and sometimes covert action in pursuit of national interests. It is not synonymous with repression.

During the tenure of Sheikh Hasina, allegations emerged in public discourse regarding enforced disappearances and extrajudicial actions carried out under the broader security umbrella. Whether substantiated in courts or debated in political arenas, such accusations inevitably narrow the perceived scope of an intelligence agency. When intelligence bodies are seen as tools of domestic coercion rather than guardians of sovereignty, their strategic credibility erodes—both at home and abroad.

An effective intelligence chief must think like a chess player and, at times, like a calculated gambler or mafia. He must anticipate moves before they materialize. He must cultivate networks quietly, disrupt threats discreetly, and measure risks with cold realism. Operations, when necessary, should serve clearly defined national objectives, not partisan expediency. Covert action may be justified in exceptional circumstances, but it must align with the broader doctrine of safeguarding sovereignty and stability.

As a defense analyst, I would argue that many of our past DGs were undoubtedly capable officers. They were efficient in their assigned responsibilities and loyal to institutional mandates. Yet capability does not always equal optimal utilization. The demands of intelligence leadership require a cosmopolitan outlook. An intelligence chief should be conversant with the leadership structures of peer agencies worldwide. He should track major international headlines—not out of curiosity, but because global narratives shape diplomatic realities.

If an intelligence chief cannot readily identify key counterparts in major global agencies or remains detached from significant international developments affecting Bangladesh’s image and interests, that represents not incompetence, but underexposure. Intelligence today is networked. Liaison relationships, information-sharing protocols, and strategic dialogues form the backbone of modern security cooperation.

Consider agencies such as Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) or Mossad. Their mandates extend beyond passive information gathering. They conduct overt diplomacy, covert operations, technological innovation, and strategic influence campaigns. Above all, they operate with one guiding principle: national sovereignty is paramount. Political administrations change: strategic interests endure.

Bangladesh deserves an intelligence framework that reflects this philosophy. The current DG, newly transferred into the role, inherits both opportunity and responsibility. Opportunity—because reform is possible when institutions are evolving. Responsibility—because missteps in intelligence can carry profound national consequences.

He must prioritize sovereignty above factional alignment. Budget allocations should be used proportionately and transparently within classified frameworks, ensuring operational efficiency without waste. Investment in cyber capabilities, linguistic expertise, regional studies, and technological surveillance must increase. Training programs should extend beyond military doctrine into specialized intelligence tradecraft. Institutional memory must be preserved, perhaps through longer tenures or structured advisory councils comprising former intelligence professionals.

Most importantly, the DG must resist the temptation to allow political inferiority or partisan pressures to dilute organizational effectiveness. Intelligence agencies cannot afford to become reactive instruments. They must be proactive guardians.

The Bangladesh Army has proven that its officers can adapt—from banking halls to boardrooms to battlefields. The next evolution is to ensure that when one of those officers steps into the intelligence arena, he is equipped not only with discipline, but with strategic longevity, intellectual breadth, and operational independence.

In the end, sovereignty is not defended only by tanks or aircraft. It is defended by information—accurate, timely, and wisely used. If the current leadership of DGFI can internalize that truth, Bangladesh’s security architecture will be stronger for it.

Please follow Blitz on Google News Channel

© Blitz