Title 10 And Tile 50: A Case Study

In the intelligence community, there are some collection challenges, redundancy is one of the issues always to be mentioned. Redundancy can affect the core of the intelligence work ethics, resources management, budging, work force, future planning, and development methods. Also, the capability of the intelligence agencies and departments to predict attacks, analyze the indications and warning (I&W). The congress oversight of the intelligence community and the operations of the sixteen agencies imbedded in the community, to regulate the funds and allocate proper budget, also to monitor that the rights of US person are not violated in any collection method.

Congress built upon the reforms of the 1970s by passing the Intelligence Oversight Act in 1980. This Act was an amendment to the Hughes-Ryan Act and obligated the IC to report covert actions to both the SSCI and the HPSCI prior to their implementation, unlike the ambiguous previous requirement of a timely manner. The Intelligence Oversight Act was noteworthy in that it constrained the intelligence community more than any previous legislation (Riley 2010). The two biggest shortfalls I see to the system is the number of contributors there are to the system on such a large scale. When I think about all of the redundancy built within the system, I think about all of the possible breakdown in communications that could take place. The second shortfall I see is the legislative leverage that is held over the Intelligence community. I personally believe this to be a mistake because this power could be held in a negative manner and to gain a political stance or agenda. The Congress can withhold money and resources, can leak information to the media and which could cause a mission or operation to

The United States have been sending numerous military units to different parts of the world to sustain survivability of other nations that are American allies. Countries that are part of United Nations have been combined force that if there is a situation around the world, all the nations including the United States will meet up and decide what the corrective action to resolve the issue is. The United States military has been in so many conflicts with other countries that to the point that many of them becomes our allies. Many agencies ae trying to continue to gather information on potential terrorist or attacks before they can happen and without the proper relationships between the federal agencies, this will continue to be a complete failure.

The intelligence community has undergone some major changes in the past thirty years. During the cold war this section of defense had massive funding. There needed to be an ability to predict what the Soviet Union was planning to do and what they were actually doing in order to prevent a nuclear war. After this period in time ended there was again large changes. The budget to the intelligence community was cut astronomically because there was perceived to be less of a threat to the United States (“9/11 Intelligence Failures Report”, 2002). This misperception was actually due to a lack of ability to shift to a new changing threat. This mind set allowed many unwelcomed risks to enter into the United States.

The “need to know” system is an outdated and inefficient way of sharing information, both within a single agency and when it comes to interagency cooperation. The “need to share” system is a much more logical way to go about disseminating intelligence of all variations. The “need to share” system theoretically mandates the interagency sharing of information that is pertinent to national security , and operational success, thus paving the way for much more efficient operations between the Department of Defense, Department of Homeland Security (DHS), as well as other federal law enforcement and intelligence agencies. If I were in charge of the DHS I would put into effect a long term interagency liaison program, that would be aimed at the sharing

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

Additionally, would streamlining the sharing of this information both vertically and horizontally at the federal, state and local levels improve efficiencies, effectiveness, and operability? There are almost 50 agencies from the President down to the local level that have “fingers in the pie” so to speak in the domestic intelligence gathering community. This paper will examine the complexity and inherent barriers within the domestic intelligence community from the federal to the state, local, tribal, and territorial (SLTT) levels, then analyze the Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI) and what appears to be a lack of unity amongst the disparate organizations at both the federal and SLTT levels, and finally assess the levels of training and operational effectiveness to evaluate the overall performance efficiency of the intelligence community at the enterprise level. A way forward is also presented at the end of each section to provide suggested

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.

Intelligence has also failed. During World War II the United States had its first intelligence catastrophe when the Japanese bombed Pearl Harbor. The failure was, in part, a result of gaps in collection, misunderstanding analysis, and governmental confusion. Despite this breakdown, it was also the reason for the

I want to address Mazzetti’s assertion that there is an extreme competing rivalry between the CIA and the pentagon - A rivalry of ego, resources, etc that is caused by interagency conflict. Though correct in the statement that their may have been competition in early years. Mazzetti fails to really recognize that as of today there really isn’t a rivalry and that tension that was found between the two agencies from the past shouldn’t be attributed to the combative egos/personalities in the CIA, pentagon, or even executive branch, but attributed to the lack of oversight by the legislative branch that would eventually in time help define the roles and missions of each.

Throughout the years, the intelligence community in the United States have worked diligently to provide a sense of security for the millions of Americans living in our great nation today. From the FBI to the CIA, these government agencies work around the clock to find and eliminate threats that maybe detrimental to our country. However, one event that took place 14 years ago reshaped not only the way Americans think of the intelligence community, it also reshaped the policies and procedures of institutions such as the CIA, FBI, DOD, etc. The event that caused the remodeling of our government agencies was the event that took place on September 11, 2001 or known throughout the U.S. as “9/11.” A total of 2,977 Americans lost their lives to a

The FBI and the CIA are the go to agencies when it comes to counterintelligence within the country, but all of those agencies play a part in ensuring the information gets to their customers. One way to look at this is the DoD; the DoD has their own way of conducting CI missions. There agencies, the CID, NCIS, AFOSI, G-2 (intelligence) conduct business not only state side (CID), but they also conduct business in a combat environment. They are mostly intertwined within the military units and make hasty decisions

Currently there are state and local fusion centers that are tasked with information and intelligence sharing. This is not a one way path, but multidirectional. Intelligence is collected and shared between federal, state, local, tribal, and private organizations. These centers have become increasingly important to local and state law enforcement and federal counter terrorism intelligence collections. “In 2006 there were 6 state pilot programs, by 2008, the HS SLIC had grown to 45 states; Washington, D.C.; as well as seven federal agencies.” (Logan 2010). The rapid spread of fusion centers can also indicate that there was an intelligence sharing gap. The fusion centers should be filling that important information and intelligence sharing requirement.

I chose the Rep-Tiles project because it looked like the most interesting project and I want to enjoy what I’m working on. In part one, subdividing shapes into congruent parts, I estimated and put lines in places where it would look like it could be a Rep-Tile. Once I divided four shapes, I used a ruler to measure out all of the parts to see if I estimated correctly and they were all congruent. If I did, I would redraw the shapes on a separate sheet of paper and divide them the same way. If all of the sides were not congruent I would go back and try again. I repeated this process until I had four shapes that were all subdivided into congruent parts. After that I went on to part two, forming my own Rep-Tile. First I created my own shape