The Usa 's Act Of 2015

The progression of military intelligence through the years is traced back to the Revolutionary War in 1775, courtesy of George Washington. “Through various re-incarnations, intelligence has played a key role in how the United States shaped their policies towards the armed forces and other countries” (The Evolution of the U.S. Intelligence Community-An Historical Overview). Intelligence collection often waned during peacetime, but made drastic increases during wartime.

The DNI has modestly more power than the old Directors of Central Intelligence (DCIs), but not enough to give the ODNI/AIS real clout. “Herding cats” remains a decent description of the ODNI’s basic role. The DNI has several duties and responsibilities, but for the subject of improving intelligence information sharing the focus will be directed towards: Improving Analytics, Improving Information Security, Improving Foreign Liaison Relationships, and the end state of Improving Information Sharing.

Contrary to popular belief, the art of intelligence and counterintelligence is not really all that new to the United States, but goes all the way back to the days of The American Revolution. Had it not been for the bravery of men and women alike, and the utter will to be free from the British rule, our military leaders would not have been so well prepared to engage the enemy and win in decisive battles.

The 1776 united States of America Declaration of Independence contain the words that succinctly describe our national objective, strategy, and message, “We hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness.” In today’s United States of America, the world acknowledges American’s as the preeminent owner of individual freedoms, holding and promoting these three basic principles for some 240 years. During these years, the U.S. has employed the use of intelligence to shape its objectives and strategies, and then in times of war used the same intelligence to shape strategic messages against foreign powers. However, as hostilities decline and give way to the restoration of relative peace, the use of intelligence for strategic messages against foreign powers ceases. Under these circumstances, the void created by secession of U.S. messages, provides a communication opportunity to foreign powers for transmission of anti-U.S. messages. Attempts have been made to reinstate the offices that during war countered these anti-U.S. messages to a comprehensive reorganization of the U.S Government intelligence community. This paper does not support creation of a new agency or department to utilize existing strategic intelligence.

Prior to 9/11 the security of the United States was “across more than 40 federal agencies and an estimated 2,000 separate Congressional appropriations accounts”. (DHS History Office ,2017, p.4). This was a huge issue when it came to sharing intelligence. This was perhaps one of the many reasons that the terrorist of 9/11 were so successful. Shortly after 9/11, the United States found its self in need of an all-encompassing organization that shared information under one roof that enabled better protection of its infrastructure and its people at home, not just abroad. Shortly over a year later, in November 2002, Congress passed the “Homeland Security Act” (DHS.gov, 2017, para.2). With the creation of homeland security came conflict

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.

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

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 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,

Intelligence in this day in age is a vital component of a countries security. The newest proposal increases intelligence spending between 2 and 3 billion dollars, a total adding to nearly $35 billion. In addition to military enhancement, the FBI and other law enforcement/intelligence agencies will also be included in this proposal. A new system has been proposed by President Bush that all information be shared among all agencies. DoD, FBI, and the Department of Counterterrorist Center have drawn closer together to create a Terrorist Threat Integration Center to evaluate information blended from all sources associated with terrorism and to act upon those findings accordingly.

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.

According to the Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI), the DNI’s duties consist of establishing objectives and priorities for collection, analysis, production, and dissemination of national intelligence; Ensuring maximum availability of and access to intelligence information with the IC; Overseeing coordination of relationships with the intelligence and security services of foreign governments as well as international organizations; Ensuring the most accurate analysis of intelligence is derived from all sources to support national security needs; Developing personnel policies to enhance joint operations and to facilitate staffing of community management functions; Ensuring that timely and objective national intelligence is

intelligence, he briefs the President, has authority to develop the budget for the national intelligence effort and manage appropriations made by Congress, and, to some extent, can transfer personnel and funds from one agency to another.3 I believe that the creation of the DNI position had been on the table for a few years, but the intelligence failures of communication between the agencies and being able to connect the dots to see the events leading up to 9/11 was the last drop in the bucket. I do not think that this organization has worked out all there kinks along with the other organizations in the Intelligence Community completely being open with them, however, I do feel that their roles and placement in the chain is a much needed

Let’s focus on the structured methodology and intuition of the ODNI, you must first understand its leader, the Director of National Intelligence (DNI). The position of the DNI, was created under the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004 (IRTPA). The position of DNI replaced the Director of the Central Intelligence (DCI) as the senior intelligence official, head of the intelligence community’s 16 agencies, and principal intelligence advisor to the President of the United States (POTUS) and the National Security Council (NSC). The IRTPA of 2004, also established the ODNI as an independent agency to assist the DNI. The

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