Intelligence Core Competencies

Since 2010, integration has been the vanguard initiative of the Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI). This initiative has been successful in several areas to include: the creation of National Intelligence Managers (NIM) for all primary geographic regions and functional areas; enhanced transparency; and the focus on the negative impacts of over classifying documents. However, not all efforts to integrate the intelligence community (IC) have been successful. For instance, the ODNI did not succeed at creating a comprehensive sharing environment, and has not fully integrated federal, state, local, and tribal law enforcement agencies. Although, these failed areas of integration can be mitigated in the future through the appropriate initiatives taken by the ODNI.

Since 9/11, the intelligence community has improved greatly. It is not that they have been reconstructed from the ground up, or that their mission has completely changed, it is, in the community’s eye anyway, that they now all share information, no matter how important or how small. This information sharing now even includes all the way down to local and tribal authorities. The reasoning is that, even if it might be small or seem insignificant to you at your level, it may be the piece someone somewhere else in the country needs.

The three great conflicts of the twentieth century: World Wars I and II and the Cold War impacted the progression of the intelligence revolution. During these conflict the United States leadership “looked to intelligence as a weapon of defense and as an aid to victory. ”1 Further, it was the pressures of these wars that the intelligence community expanded, moving closer to the inner circle of the government.2 Furthermore, as the intelligence community expanded, and intelligence professionals developed their skills in conducting threat assessment. In view of, a need to expand the intelligence community it began the rise of the intelligence community in the 20th century.3

The 9/11 commission clearly identified a problem with communication between the Intelligence Community and State and Local Law Enforcement which resulted in a new edict (from the IRTPA) of Information Sharing yet clearance levels and accesses quickly became an issue in disseminating information to those with a need to know. To help bridge this gap, the Homeland Security Act of 2002 was passed to crate the DHS by bringing 22 under its umbrella with a primary mission of protecting the homeland from terrorism (Blum, 2010). To do so, DHS’s key mission is to collect, analyze, and disseminate key/related information and share it with the IC and nontraditional partners (state/local governments as well as the private sector) (Blum, 2010). Likewise,

In my opinion, one of the main intelligence failures of 9/11 was the lack of information sharing, an issue that has plagued the Intelligence Community (IC) for years; federal agencies chose when and with whom they shared collected intelligence all under the umbrella of ‘secrecy’ and the ‘need-to-know.’ The 9/11 Commission Report found that there were two weaknesses in the IC and operational capabilities during the conduction of counter terrorism.

Perhaps the most important change in how the federal government was reorganized after September 11th is the creation of both the Director of National Intelligence (DNI) position and the Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI) in 2004 with the passage of the same IRTPA that created TSA. This concept had been first suggested in 1955 after a study by Congress then and was recommended time and again but only became a reality after the September 11th attacks drove the need for major intelligence reform home and the 9/11 Commission continued the push for the creation of such a position (ODNI, n.d., paras. 1-5). As one can see from the mission and vision of the ODNI, the importance cannot be overstated. The mission includes leading intelligence integration while having the IC produce the most insightful intelligence products possible and the vision is fully integrating the IC thus making the nation more secure (ODNI, n.d., paras. 1-2).

The 9/11 attacks opened the avenue for a scrutiny of the performance and ability of the intelligence community to detect any threats to the safety of the United States. The media, politicians, reformists and other interested parties would not comprehend how such an attack would happen without the knowledge of the intelligence community. However, it is important to consider the fact that the attack was one of its kind and could not be approached with the resources and expertise used in other initiative such as the cold war. Therefore, the need to restructure the intelligence community arose from the view that it was still operating in the mindset and spirit of the cold war even in the modern era that had seen a revolutionary change of warfare

The attack on 9/11 brought many of the mentioned possible shortcomings of the intelligence community to light. Immediately after the attacks on 9/11, which resulted in radical Islamic terrorists using planes as weapons, many questions aimed at the intelligence community came forward. One of the main questions regarded the lack of communication between intelligence community members. Another question raised was about the community’s main budget and had it been restricted to a dangerous low.

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

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

Upon analyzing 9/11 it was clear to focus on the limitations that the Federal Bureau of Investigations and the Central Intelligence Agency had faced. Security breaches and poor intelligence sharing were just some of the critical failures that were encountered. Moreover, the main focus is pointed towards the miscommunication between these two agencies. Evidently, the execution and tactical strategies went unnoticed despite the apparent red flags that presented themselves, in addition to the Federal Bureau of Investigations and the Central Intelligence Agency failure to pursue threats and establish a baseline of security resulted in the disaster of 9/11. In conjunction to these mistakes, the restriction of shared information

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.

The issue that I discussed in my progress assignment was the effective communication and information collaboration within the Intelligence Community. This issues has

It is eminent to the Intelligence community (IC) to have strategic relationships with partners such as local law enforcement, policy-makers and the private sector. Strategic relationships are vital to the overall mission of the IC. What is a strategic relationship? According to the Business Dictionary it is an agreement between two or more entities to conduct specified activities or processes, to achieve specified objectives such as product development or distribution. According to Cambridge Dictionaries Online, it is the arrangement between two companies or organizations to help each other or work together, to make it easier for each of them to achieve the things they want to achieve. A Strategic relationship for the IC is collaborating with two or more law enforcement, contractors or private sector agencies to assist one another with intelligence and information in support of a strategic goal. Without strategic relationships valuable intelligence would be missed. The IC cannot ascertain all adversary’s iniquitous attempts to bring harm to the United States. The IC cannot do it all by itself and therefore need external assistance in protecting national security.

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