Intelligence Officer In Training: Select A Theory of Intelligence To Follow, To Support Your Practice: A Hybrid: " Synergy Theory of Intelligence Studies"

1-26-2017

Forum Question: Week 4 Post

Miss. Bayo Elizabeth Cary, AA, BA, MLIS

2^nd Master’s Degree: Intelligence Officer In Training

Intelligence and Global Security Studies

American Public University System

Email: mumbaibayo.cary@yandex.com

Cell: 1-352-872-4774

Class Assignment:

This week you were exposed to an array of theories that should help to jump start your research.  What theory have you chosen to help you answer your research question?  Please take this opportunity to practice discussing your theory in detail by explaining why you think it's a good fit for the research project, the level of analysis it operates at, the variables it acknowledges, whether it seeks to explain or understand, and if it supports prediction.

Instructions: Your initial post should be at least 300 words. Please respond to at least 2 other students. Responses should be a minimum of 250 words and include direct questions.

Initial Post Due: Thursday, by 11:55pm ET
Responses Due: Sunday, by 11:55pm ET

        I read an article, this week, for the theory behind intelligence studies, by Loch Johnson (2003) “Bricks and Mortar For A Theory of Intelligence,” and the article focused, on intelligence: study, collection, analysis, and dissemination, etc.-which were based on, the “synergy”-of information (Johnson 2003, 18). “Synergy,” of information, is loosely defined by the Loch Johnson peer-reviewed journal article (2003)-as a collection of various pieces of intelligence/information, from a myriad of resources-which, are then when mapped together, to present-a logical answer, to a pressing “intelligence query.”

         The emphasis, on: “theory of synergy,” is more-for a “collection of evidence,” as if, the information/intelligence officer, were collecting, for an impending judicial challenge-as opposed, to a collection of information-which, could not “hold water,” and buttress a difficult argument, in a court of law. The United States, has a long history, of supporting: “Humanitarian Action,” and, “International Judicial Proceedings (Johnson 2003, 11).”

           I understand, that there are a variety of theories, both: contemporary and classical, that could be utilized legitimately, to explain, why a collection of intelligence information, is both: relevant and valid. I have found, that a: “hybrid,” of various intelligence information resources, and, intelligence specialties, is the best meaningful way, for me to answer, an “intelligence query.” I am a self- training intelligence officer. I require more than just books. I prefer, to get my hands dirty. I am already working in my field. Now, I need, a country other the US-to hire me, because, I work for money-like anyone else, and not just for food stamps.

        The easiest ways, to collect intelligence information, is through readily available information resources-such as: newspaper, television, magazines, peer-reviewed academic journals, microfiche, Internet, etc., and that is referred to, as: OSINT. However, for information, that is more difficult to obtain, and, to confirm intelligence, that has been collected by other branches of INT-HUMINT, is still, the preferred method (Clark and Lowenthal 2016, 74). Intelligence Officers in the US, train, to be the handlers, of information resources-more so, than, to be: the active information resource-themselves (Clark and Lowenthal 2016, 61).

       For instance, as an intelligence officer, I would be required, to accept and “intelligence query” assigned to me, and then, as an information officer, I would be required, to locate information resources-to answer the query (Clark and Lowenthal 2016, 61). The HUMINT field-the collection of information, by humans-is limiting and dangerous, and therefore, alternative information resources-must be considered (Clark and Lowenthal 2016, 64). As an Intelligence officer-in action, I need to acquire information resources and contacts, that, provide me with enough: “clear and convincing evidence,” to begin to answer, the “intelligence query,” that, I had been assigned. I think, that it would be detrimental to my Intelligence/information recovery efforts-to limit my resources, to the very same: “intelligence contacts,” or “intelligence resources,” to answer any given “intelligence query (Clark and Lowenthal 2016, 49).”

             A theory, must be utilized, to support, and to explain, how I-“theoretically,” as an intelligence officer, chose to answer, the “intelligence query,” that I had been assigned. I think, that being a more resourceful, and creative individual, and, looking for additional information, and intelligence resources-through the application, of the: “syngery theory of intelligence studies,” provides me, with an upper hand. I have more opportunities-in looking towards alternative Intelligence/information resources, to cover any intelligence gaps-in information, that-might have been left behind, by: “Mr. old-reliable,” “Mr. traditional,” or “Mr. easy-to-access.”

    According, to: Loch Johnson (2003), author of the article: “Bricks and Mortar, For A Theory of Intelligence”, the following logical steps, should be applied to all intelligence information collected-regardless, of what the original resources, of the information was:

1)      How did the query originate? Why was the particular: “scope,” of information-selected, and by whom (Johnson 2003, 3)?

2)      How is the threat being analyzed-and how is it, applicable to: the US, and American domestic, and/or International government policy (Johnson 2003, 4)?

3)      Does the US have a: “Global Presence,” in the particular area of the globe-that needs further review and/or investigation? And, how well, can US INT resources-in that area, be utilized, to gain access, to additional information (Johnson 2003, 5)?

4)      Is the country, or area, in question: friendly, or unfriendly to the US, and American information needs-at-this-time (Johnson 2003, 5)?

5)      Can HUMINT, be replaced-in some instances, by TECHINT or OSINT, to collect more intelligence information, with less risk, to US intelligence officers, and their contacts (Johnson 2003, 6)?

6)      Is information, in this particular area of the world, limited, by: cook tail parties, or NOC, or Liaison negotiators? And, should the US limit, which areas of INT are activated and exploited? And, how various INT information resources, and other interested parties, are permitted to negotiate, on behalf of the US-what are the limitations (Johnson 2003, 6-7)?

7)      Does information collected, in the question area, need to be analyzed again, and to what extent (Johnson 2003, 8)?  Does the analyzing require any sort of interpretation, i.e.: language translator, or code breaking (Johnson 2003, 8)?

8)      Is this, an area-domestic/or International Intelligence situation, that, requires, a combined effort-from more than one, of the operating agencies, of US Intelligence collection (Johnson 2003, 9)?

9)      Has enough intelligence information, been collected, from any given area, or situation-to provide intelligence, that “anticipates,” a developing threat, against America (p. 10)?

10)  Are all the activities, which transpire, actions-which, are intended to increase and protect, America’s core values, i.e.: defense of American culture, and our way of life: “The American Dream,” and “The US Constitution and Bill of Rights (Johnson 2003, 9).”

References

Clark, Robert M., Lowenthal, Mark M. 2016. The 5 Disciplines

of Intelligence Collection. CQ Press an Imprint of SAGE Publications, Inc.

Johnson, Loch (2003) “Bricks and Mortar for a Theory

of Intelligence”, Comparative Strategy, vol. 22, 1.: 1-28. Accessed January 26, 2017.   http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01495930390130481