Intelligence_ From Secrets to Policy - Mark M. Lowenthal [27]
ALTERNATIVE WAYS OF LOOKING AT THE INTELLIGENCE COMMUNITY
Before examining further the structure of the intelligence community, it is useful to look at its basic functions.
The intelligence community has, in effect, two broad functional areas: management and execution. Within each of them are many specific tasks. Management covers requirements, resources, collection, and production. Execution covers the development of collection systems, the collection and production of intelligence, and the maintenance of the infrastructure support base. In Figure 3-2 a horizontal rule divides management and execution, but one function straddles the rule: evaluation. Evaluation (assessing how well one is meeting one’s goals) is not one of the strongest functions of the intelligence community. Relating intelligence means (resources: budgets, people) to intelligence ends (outcomes: analyses, operations) is a difficult task and is not undertaken with great relish. However, it is an important task and one that could yield dividends to intelligence managers if done more systematically and broadly. Although all agencies make an effort to evaluate their performance, the broadest evaluation activity in the intelligence community has been carried out within the National Intelligence Priorities Framework, created under DCI George Tenet in 2003 and now part of the DNI’s office.
Figure 3-2 Alternative Ways of Looking at the Intelligence Community: A Functional Flow View
Source: U.S. House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, IC21: The Intelligence Community in the 21st Century, 104th Congress, 2d session. 1966.
Note HUMINT = human intelligence; GEOINT = geospatial intelligence; MASINT = measurement and signatures intelligence; OSINT = open source intelligence; SIGINT = signals intelligence.
The flow suggested by Figure 3-2 is idealized, but it shows how the main managerial and execution concerns relate to one another. The flow is circular, going in endless loops. If one were to suggest starting at a particular point, it would be requirements. Without them, little that happens afterward makes sense. Given their proper role, requirements should drive everything else.
The various aspects of collection—systems development and collection itself—occupy much more of the figure than does analysis. This reflects the realities of the intelligence community, whether desirable or not.
THE MANY DIFFERENT INTELLIGENCE COMMUNITIES
Within the broader U.S. intelligence community are many different intelligence communities. (See box, “The Simplicity of Intelligence. Figure 3-3 gives a better sense of what they are by showing what each agency or subagency component does, while preserving the sense of hierarchy. The vertical lines should be viewed as flowing from the topmost organizations through each of the agencies or components below, not subordinating each successive box to the one above it.
At the top of the hierarchy are the entities that are major intelligence managers, major clients, or both. The president is the major client but is not an intelligence manager. The secretaries of defense, state, commerce, and energy and the attorney general are clients, and three of them—the secretaries of defense and state and the attorney general—control significant intelligence assets. State has INR; DOD has numerous defense intelligence organizations, which respond to a broad range of needs. The attorney general oversees the FBI.
THE SIMPLICITY OF INTELLIGENCE
In the baseball movie Bull Durham, a manager tries to explain to his hapless players the simplicity of the game they are supposed to be playing: “You throw the ball; you hit the ball; you catch the ball.”
Intelligence has a similar deceptive simplicity: You ask a question; you collect information; you answer the question
In both cases, many devils are in the details.
Figure 3-3 Alternative Ways of Looking at the Intelligence Community: A Functional View
DOD