By Dr. James Burch | 06/04/2024
Understanding intelligence management begins with understanding how the U.S. Intelligence Community (IC) is structured and how it evolved. Since its formal establishment with the passage of the National Security Act of 1947, the Intelligence Community has grown significantly.
In the late 1940s, the original Intelligence Community members largely resided under the Justice Department and the Department of State’s intelligence functions. IC members came from the newly formed Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), military services (including the Army, Navy, and the newly established Air Force), and other preexisting intelligence agencies, such as the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI).
Establishing New Intelligence Agencies
As the Intelligence Community met new challenges, several other agencies were established to address specific functions of intelligence. The establishment of the National Security Agency (NSA) in 1952 – after perceived shortfalls in the Signals Intelligence (SIGINT) community and the strategic surprise of the Korean War – ushered in an era of growth.
As a result of that growth, the Intelligence Community today spans 18 different agencies under the Director of National Intelligence (DNI), an organization established in 2004.
The sprawling nature of the Intelligence Community gives rise to two key questions:
- What is intelligence management?
- Can intelligence activities be effectively managed, given the wide range of intelligence activities that occur every day within the Intelligence Community's various agencies?
The central function of intelligence is to assess adversary intentions and capabilities requiring complex functions of collection, planning, and targeting. Focusing on only one of these functions, while necessary to the accomplishment of everyday duties, misses the broader discussion on how to synchronize and effectively implement intelligence management strategies.
The Role of the DNI in Intelligence Management
Interestingly, the establishment of the Director of National Intelligence (DNI) as the executive head of the Intelligence Community was inspired by the perceived intelligence shortfalls brought to light after the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks.
A key finding from the 9/11 Commission Report called for the establishment of a “National Intelligence Director” capable of overseeing the various activities across the Intelligence Community. In effect, the establishment of the DNI stemmed from the need for intelligence management across the structural complexities of this community.
It is under the auspices of the DNI that the term “integrated mission management” has come into the everyday parlance of the IC. The integrated mission management of intelligence activities calls for the alignment of several interdependent functions, including:
- Intelligence collection
- Threat data analysis
- Counterintelligence
- Planning
- Programming and program execution
- Budgeting
Essentially, intelligence management calls for security teams and other professionals to operate outside the narrow confines of their intelligence duties or career fields. Instead, these professionals are instructed to operate at a broader level to ensure that key intelligence management activities are effectively synchronized across the Intelligence Community.
Structural and Mission Challenges of the Intelligence Community
While the Intelligence Community is led by the DNI in terms of structure, the Intelligence Community is not integrated. The Director of National Intelligence exercises authority over key intelligence management functions. The various organizations and agencies that constitute the intelligence landscape also fall under several other U.S. government departments that report to their cabinet-level Secretaries.
In essence, the various intelligence agencies share responsibility with different lines of authority. As a result, there are inherent friction points that can hamper various agency functions and processes.
The classic example of differing lines of authority between the DNI acting as the head of the Intelligence Community and a service-level department lies in the relationship with the U.S. Department of Defense (DoD). For instance, the major funding lines for the Intelligence Community are a part of the National Intelligence Program (NIP) and Military Intelligence Program (MIP).
Funding for the NIP and MIP
The total NIP/MIP requested budget for FY2023 was $93.7 billion, with $67.1 billion allocated to the NIP and $26.6 billion to the MIP. NIP funding constitutes the sole funding source for the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) and the Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI). It also funds the strategic intelligence activities associated with several Department of Defense intelligence agencies, such as the Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA), the National Security Agency (NSA), and the National Geospatial Agency (NGA).
Additionally, MIP funding solely exists to fund DoD intelligence activities that are unique to the Department and its warfighting mission. Consequently, the influence of the DoD over the intelligence budget is inordinately high, and differences over resource planning, programming, and budgeting can lead to several structural friction points.
Organizations’ Missions and Motivations
An organization or agency’s mission may also blur its lines of authority. The classic example in this case is the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI). Is the FBI a law enforcement agency or intelligence agency? The answer is: both.
In addition to focusing on criminal investigations and law enforcement activities, the FBI also has a long history of conducting intelligence activities. This history can be traced back to World War I, when the FBI focused on gathering information on anarchists and Communist sympathizers.
Over the ensuing decades, other intelligence activities expanded to include efforts dedicated to national security and counterintelligence, international criminal organizations, and counterterrorism. In terms of organizational culture, however, the FBI has long maintained its focus on law enforcement and investigations, as opposed to true intelligence activities like assessing threat data.
In other words, the FBI has traditionally conducted intelligence activities to gather data and support investigations for prosecutorial reasons. It has not focused so much on conducting broader threat intelligence management activities focused on identifying threats and preventing them from manifesting themselves.
While both these missions are closely related, different underlying motivations can lead to friction within government organizations. These differences in missions exist in many of the organizations that constitute the Intelligence Community.
The Need to Further Refine Intelligence Management to Lessen Conflict and Improve US Security
There are inherent complexities and challenges that define the Intelligence Community, in terms of resourcing, budgeting, and mission accomplishment. The lines of authority are not always clear, and this ambiguity often creates friction points between various intelligence agencies and within those same agencies.
The DNI is the official head of the Intelligence Community. However, the DNI functions more as an orchestrator or synchronizer of intelligence activities, where a broad set of often-competing priorities need reconciliation. While the establishment of the DNI was probably necessary post-9/11 organizational initiative to bring more coherence to intelligence organizations and intelligence management, the reality is that the role of the ODNI is a continuous process that evolves within a set of complex challenges.
Also, threats are continuing to evolve due to technology and the changing nature of threat actors. As a result, maintaining an effective security posture has become more challenging and a quicker and more agile response to threats is needed.
In terms of technological growth, more cyber threats allow a broad range of hackers to gain access to sensitive data. These cyber threat actors have appeared globally, and artificial intelligence (AI) tools are being used by malicious actors for scams and other crimes. As a result, technical specialists with the right kind of expert knowledge are needed to help federal organizations to handle these threats.
Intelligence Studies Degrees at American Military University
For adult learners who are interested in improving their knowledge of intelligence management, intelligence analysis, threat analysis, and other similar topics, American Military University (AMU) offers both an online bachelor’s degree in intelligence studies and an online master’s degree in intelligence studies.
Courses in these academic programs also cover the U.S. Intelligence Community, intelligence collection, national security, geospatial intelligence, and weapons of mass destruction. There are also several certificates and NanoCerts available in geospatial intelligence, open-source intelligence (OSINT), and terrorism. For more details regarding AMU’s degree, certificates, and NanoCerts, visit our program page.
