Intelligence Community Strategic Relationships & Organizational Culture

The points of alignment for the IS strategy and the FBI were having the VCF system connect agents around the world and sharing the case information worldwide between all agencies. This will allow the agents to review and act faster with leads and data. CIO team incorporated decentralized offices, FBI IT projects and established a portfolio management plan to help lay out the standards for a complete bureau IS strategy.

According to The Journal for Quality and Participation, "a company's culture is embedded in its DNA." With that being said, establishing a productive organizational culture is a crucial component to the success of the company, even before they are in business. In a nutshell, "organizational culture is a system of shared assumptions....which governs how people how people behave in a culture." When employees of a company are aware of what is expected and accepted, they are more likely to perform their jobs according to those set standards. Whether it be how they dress, speak, or respond to diversity, each area in an organization is highly affected by the culture. Due to the fact that organizational culture is what ultimately

The Intelligence Community is a cooperative federation of sixteen separate United States government agencies that worked separately and together on matters of foreign relations and national security. One of these agencies is the Central Intelligence Agency which is to collect, analyze, evaluate, disseminate foreign intelligence to assist the President and senior US government policymakers in making decisions relating to national security. Therefore this paper will discuss Central Intelligence Agency history and the role it plays in combating acts of terrorism.

Understanding the Director of National Intelligence (DNI) priorities are necessary to recommend any initiatives that will have the most value to the intelligence community (IC). The DNI fully identifies to the IC what his mission, vision, and goals are. The DNI uses the National Intelligence Strategy (NIS) to explain the objectives and the priorities for the IC. There are a few areas, which if made a priority would have a beneficial impact on the IC. These recommendations would not require a lot of resources. They include adapting one overall IC vision, enhancing current agency-to-agency communication, and furthering foreign relations within the IC.

The attack on the World Trade Center was not the first attack and was not the first time the US Intelligence Community had heard of Al-Qaeda or Osama Bin Laden. The role of counterintelligence from both sides the US and Al-Qaeda, lent to the information flow not only form the attackers but also to the ones who would ultimately respond. The FBI, the CIA, the DIA, have integral parts in these series of events from the information collection to the information flow. In a time where it was realized that Counterintelligence and Counterterrorism have a similar need, as well as information sharing across agencies, have led to the CI and IC we see today.

We deploy globally alongside war fighters and interagency partners to defend America’s national security interests.” [4] The Defense Intelligence Agency is always represented no matter where the military presence is located. They work side by side with military soldiers ensuring assisting with analysis and helping soldiers out in any way they are able to help out. The agency is often confused with law enforcement agencies, but they are not the only agencies this occurs too. Other foreign intelligence organizations have the same issue as well. The Department of Defense (DoD) who is over the Defense Intelligence Agency is in the public eye. Now that the public has much more awareness of their existence, the friction between the organizations is more prominently. “Defense Intelligence Agency is an all-source defense agency designed to prevent strategic surprise and deliver a decision advantage to war fighters, defense planners, and policymakers.” [5] The agency has multiple roles they are responsible for. Some of those roles include collection and analysis of defense-related foreign political, economic, industrial, geographic and medical and health intelligence. [6] Being able to be aggressive during the collection process and being analytically precise, it provides an advantage when making tough decisions for war fighters and the policymakers. This will allow the counter intelligence to be aggressive as well. By counter intelligence being aggressive policymakers along with the war fighters will be confident that the right decisions are being made on time and producing results. This is a critical part for the soldiers on the ground having to conduct these missions the Defense Intelligence Agency come up with and believe

Advising and providing recommendations to the U.S. Attorney General on issues like advanced usage of technology, requirements, and cooperation between intelligence agencies is charged to the Criminal Intelligence Coordinating Council (CICC) and the Global Intelligence Working Group (GIWG). Working in concert, the CICC and the GIWG advocates for local police force agencies in the development and communicating of criminal intelligence to promote public safety and our Nation’s security. The recognition by the National Criminal Intelligence Sharing Plan (NCISP) of the prominence of the state, local, and tribal law enforcement (SLTLE) are vital ingredients concerning our country’s intelligence process. In order to

With a newer organization, like the Department of Homeland Intelligence, a new hierarchical structure could be assembled to enable cooperation efforts between various IC agencies. Today, 15 of the 16 IC agencies lie under five executive branches aiding in the segregation of the agencies from one another (Zegart 2007). Bringing the intelligence agencies closer together may assist in easier dissemination of information. Indeed, intelligence agencies have fought to hold on to valued information or have been in competition with other agencies. Bringing the IC under one command, with an established chain of command, would help reduce competition efforts amongst agencies thereby boosting cooperation

As any other business, since their inception all the intelligence agencies have had interagency rivalry with each other and did not like to share information. September 11, 2001 changed all not only because we were attacked on home soil, but also because much of the blame fell on intelligence failure. Prior to these horrific events, FBI focused on domestic issues, CIA on issues abroad and the two rarely coordinated operations and shared information. The rest of the community stayed focused on their own mission sets and much like the CIA and FBI, the information collaboration was limited to none existent. Since the Intelligence Community has evolved for the better and now information is shared across the community at a much larger scale than ever before.

The National Security Strategy outlines the plan, intent and focus for the Intelligence Communities actions, direction and funding priorities (Clapper 2014). The strategy outlined by then Director of National Intelligence, James Clapper focused on numerous factors that have challenged the strategy of the United States, which demonstrates the consistent need to integrate intelligence across the Intelligence Community to face the ever changing threats (Clapper 2014). Many of the specific and specified threats discussed by Mr. Clapper have been carried on by the present Director of National Intelligence, Daniel Coats, who detailed many of these threats in his Worldwide Threat Assessment that was presented to the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence (Coats 2017). Faced with numerous threats from a variety of directions, the three to focus on are the threats from cyber-attacks, human security and terrorist

The United States national interests and national security policy have been subjected to numerous threats throughout history. The nature of these threats has changed the ways which the intelligence community (IC) supports national security policy. Tensions between intelligence analysts and policymakers have historically resulted in intelligence “failures.” As new threats emerge, national security policy identifies opportunities which the United States can act to combat these threats. The ability of the United States to effectively integrate intelligence into the policy process has often brought into question the role of intelligence analysts and their relationship with policymakers. Within this paper, I will explain both the “Kent” and “Gates” approach and discuss why intelligence analysts should align themselves more with the “Gates” approach through lessons learned throughout history.

There are any synergies of both intelligence institutions with the country’s diplomacy at the International level. As we know that the missions of CIA are collecting, evaluating and disseminating foreign intelligence information to assist the president and assisting US government policymakers in making decisions relating to national security. The CIA has no role in policy-making, but what they do is provide a reliable source of foreign intelligence information. The CIA is also involved in secret action with the president in accordance with applicable law.

“Intelligence can be divided into four broad activities: collection, analysis, convert action, and counterintelligence.” (Lowenthal, pg.14). These activities are used in different forms for example, collection is utilized on espionage, and counterintelligence is found in almost every agency for analysis. It also exists several major historical developments for example, creation of COI and OSS, Pearl Harbor, The National Security Act, and The terrorist attacks. The creation of COI and OSS were important because this organizations were influenced by British practices called covert actions, and because by 1940 the United Stated did not have a national intelligence establishment. OSS organization served as a training ground, and was used in a technical term; however, OSS had several difficulties with the U.S military because of their way to operate intelligence. During Pearl Harbor, United States’ intelligence system worked poorly, because they did not shared the necessary information with another agencies, and this caused a blind mirror between Tokyo and US. Major historical developments as the National Security Act, made the intelligence function permanent, even when some of their aspects did not work in a good way, and this act structure included a secretary of defense and National Security Council. The terrorist attacks on September 2001, changed United States’ Intelligence, and their organization. United States were not prepared for that kind of attacks, and these attacks had major legislative responses for example, the U.S.A PATRIOT ACT that took steps to improve domestic intelligence. According to James Burch, The area of domestic intelligence raises several issues. First, law enforcement and intelligence operate in different worlds – one seeks to prosecute, the other to gather information. 3 Second, with the development of multiple state fusion

However, small deviations from proven designs can lead to surprisingly unsuccessful results. (Bonabeau, 50) The external stakeholders NASA works with on a regular basis are addressed in all of the other managerial issues of collective intelligence. Control, expertise, engagement, policing, and intellectual property all need to be addressed in a clear agreement between the stakeholder organizations. Due to the nature of NASA’s work, many of the external organizations they work with are also competitors in innovation and exploration. The sensitive nature of the industry tends to make NASA’s partnerships a matter of national security, and adds an additional layer to the already complex information sharing processes.

Intelligence collection and apprehension of criminals have occurred for many years; however, with the exception of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, these actions were performed by different organizations. Nonetheless, roles and responsibilities have changed since the attacks on September 11, 2001. Intelligence-led policing and the National Criminal Intelligence Sharing program were incorporated, and fusion centers were established to help gather intelligence from different levels of the government. Although law enforcement at the local, state, and tribal levels aid in intelligence collection, it is important to ensure that intelligence gathered to protect national security and law enforcement