• Choose a category
• All
• Classic-Fiction

By Root 668 0

of images or signals that are collected and the amount that are processed and exploited. This reflects, in part, the sheer amount that is collected. It also reflects years of budget choices by the intelligence community and Congress that have favored new collection systems over improving P&E capabilities. According to DOD, for example, the National Security Agency (NSA) records 650 million events daily, which culminates in ten thousand reports. Although methodologies are in place to ensure that the most important intelligence is processed and exploited, an important image or message could be overlooked. DOD considered posting all collected intelligence in a single repository and then processing those items selected by analysts. This would, in theory, ensure that only the intelligence that was needed would be processed and analyzed, but it would also increase the burden on analysts to find the intelligence they needed instead of having it sent to them. The Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) is evaluating technology that would automatically examine digital images or video clips to look for details (such as a car) that are the same as those stored in an imagery library. Neither of these suggestions gets at the central issue—that P&E requires more manpower and more funding if it is to have a better chance of getting the necessary intelligence out of the vast amount of information that is collected.

The P&E imbalance has become a political issue when Congress makes budget decisions. As noted, the intelligence committees find it difficult to put money into new collection systems when they are told that only as many images or signals will be processed and exploited as was the case for the previous generations of collectors. Although there may be valid explanations for this outcome. Congress—as might be imagined—would rather see increasingly expensive systems result in more collected intelligence that can be used by analysts.

COMPETING COLLECTION PRIORITIES. Given that the number of collection platforms, or spies, is limited, policy makers must make choices among competing collection requirements. They use various systems to set priorities, but some issues inevitably get shorter shrift, or may be ignored altogether, in favor of those that are seen as more pressing.

Both policy makers and the intelligence officers acting on their behalf request increased collection on certain issues. However, their requests are made within a system that is inelastic in terms of both technical and human collectors. Every collection request that is fulfilled means another collection issue or request goes wanting; it is a zero-sum game. That is why a priority system is necessary in the first place. Moreover, the system has little or no surge capacity: few collection systems (airplanes, drones, and ship-based systems) or spies are waiting in reserve for an emergency. Even if additional satellites have already been built, launching them requires a ready rocket of the appropriate size, an available launch pad, and other resources. (The Soviet Union used a different collection model. Soviet satellites lacked the life spans of their U.S. counterparts. During crises, the Soviets supplemented current collection assets with additional, usually short-lived, satellites, which were kept on hand with launch vehicles ready.) Similarly, one does not simply tap a spy and send him or her off to a new assignment. Cover stories need to be created, along with the inevitable paraphernalia; training may be necessary; and a host of other preparations must be made. Inelasticity of resources makes the priorities system difficult at best.

The shifting—or nonshifting—of collection resources in the face of novel situations or emergencies is always subject to 20/20 hindsight. For example, in May 1998 the newly elected government of India resumed testing nuclear weapons, as it had promised in its election campaign. The U.S. intelligence community had not detected the test preparations. As a result, Director of Central Intelligence (DCI) George J. Tenet (1997-2004) asked