With a new Congress about to be sworn in and the balance of power shifting in the House, this list of issues is worth examining by anyone interested in the direction of the US national security intelligence community.
For those of you unfamiliar with the CRS, it is one of the most reputable sources of information and informed analysis currently available on the planet.
Unfortunately, it is exclusively for the use of members of Congress and, unless a member of Congress releases a report, the CRS's analysis does not see the light of day. Organizations like the Federation Of American Scientists and OpenCRS.org pick up on any reports that are made public and host them (which is how Docuticker got this one).
Below is my edited version of the summary (You can download the full PDF here). I cut out the stuff that I thought would be familiar to SAM's readers and have highlighted those parts (in bold) that I thought would most interesting. Other than that, the words below are direct quotes:
- Making cooperation effective presents substantial leadership and managerial challenges. The needs of intelligence “consumers”—ranging from the White House to Cabinet agencies to military commanders—must all be met, using the same systems and personnel. Intelligence collection systems are expensive and some critics suggest there have been elements of waste and unneeded duplication of effort while some intelligence “targets” have been neglected.
- The DNI has substantial statutory authorities to address these issues, but the organizational relationships remain complex, especially for Defense Department agencies. Members of Congress will be seeking to observe the extent to which effective coordination is accomplished.
- International terrorism, a major threat facing the United States in the 21st century, presents a difficult analytical challenge, vividly demonstrated by the attempted bombing of a commercial aircraft approaching Detroit on December 25, 2009. Counterterrorism requires the close coordination of intelligence and law enforcement agencies, but there remain many institutional and procedural issues that complicate cooperation between the two sets of agencies.
- Techniques for acquiring and analyzing information on small groups of plotters differ significantly from those used to evaluate the military capabilities of other countries. U.S. intelligence efforts are complicated by unfilled requirements for foreign language expertise. Whether all terrorist surveillance efforts have been consistent with the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 (FISA) has been a matter of controversy.
- Intelligence on Iraqi weapons of mass destruction was inaccurate and Members have criticized the performance of the intelligence community in regard to current conditions in Iraq, Iran, and other areas. Improved analysis, while difficult to mandate, remains a key goal. Better human intelligence, it is widely agreed, is also essential.
- Intelligence support to military operations continues to be a major responsibility of intelligence agencies. The use of precision guided munitions depends on accurate, real-time targeting data; integrating intelligence data into military operations challenges traditional organizational relationships and requires innovative technological approaches. Stability operations now underway in Afghanistan may require very different sets of intelligence skills.
