An insightful exploration of intelligence cooperation (officially known as liaison), including its international dimensions. This book offers a distinct understanding of this process, valuable to those involved in critical information flows, such as intelligence, risk, crisis and emergency managers.

Intelligence continues to undergo significant changes at a remarkable pace, notably developments related to “Big Data,” surveillance, and cyber. Intelligence today involves multiagency, multinational, multidisciplinary, multidomain information sharing and sense-making, conducted by commerce, academic, government, civil society, media, law enforcement, military, and nongovernmental/nonprofit organizations. Increasingly complex systems, including interrelated technical dimensions, are central to modern defense systems. Intelligence Engineering: Operating Beyond the Conventional provides a new framework for generating analysis, exploring how systems to system-of-systems can be harnessed both for and into the future. Intelligence engineering (IE) involves the use of scientific and technical knowledge to artfully create, operate, maintain, and dismantle complex devices, machines, structures, systems, and processes that support and/or disrupt human endeavor occurring in the intelligence context. Spanning both human and technical intelligence realms, IE includes the collection and analysis of information that is of military and/or political value, and that relates to international relations, defense, and national security. Strategic Futures, risk management across to resilience concerns, are similarly engaged.

While counterterrorism has been the primary focus of the defence and security policies of major Western countries in the last two decades, recent years have seen the re-emergence of states as the major threat. Intelligence Cooperation under Multipolarity offers a timely analysis of the challenges and opportunities for intelligence cooperation, characterized by the re-emergence of great power competition, particularly between the United States, China, and Russia. This collection explores foreign policy and national security tools and partnerships that have emerged as the United States, typically an international leader, experiences internal and external shocks that have rendered its role on the international stage more uncertain. The book focuses on non-American perspectives in order to understand how America’s allies and partners have adjusted to global power transitions. Drawing on contributions from leading intelligence and strategic studies scholars and professionals, Intelligence Cooperation under Multipolarity aims to broaden and deepen our understanding of the consequences of the power transition on national security policies.

In the late eighties and early nineties, driven by the post–Cold War environment and lessons learned during military operations, United States policy makers made intelligence support to the military the Intelligence Community's top priority. In response to this demand, the CIA and DoD instituted policy and organizational changes that altered their relationship with one another. While debates over the future of the Intelligence Community were occurring on Capitol Hill, the CIA and DoD were expanding their relationship in peacekeeping and nation-building operations in Somalia and the Balkans. By the late 1990s, some policy makers and national security professionals became concerned that intelligence support to military operations had gone too far. In Subordinating Intelligence: The DoD/CIA Post–Cold War Relationship, David P. Oakley reveals that, despite these concerns, no major changes to national intelligence or its priorities were implemented. These concerns were forgotten after 9/11, as the United States fought two wars and policy makers increasingly focused on tactical and operational actions. As policy makers became fixated with terrorism and the United States fought in Iraq and Afghanistan, the CIA directed a significant amount of its resources toward global counterterrorism efforts and in support of military operations.

"The Digest Version of A Decadal Survey of the Social and Behavioral Sciences: A Research Agenda for Advancing Intelligence Analysis summarizes the most important ideas from the full report for the Intelligence Community to consider in the coming decade. This volume provides an overview of the primary opportunities that research in the social and behavioral sciences offers for strengthening national security, specifically the work of the intelligence analyst, and the conclusions and recommendations of the Committee on a Decadal Survey of Social and Behavioral Sciences for Applications to National Survey. This digest version is a succinct roadmap to the critical contribution researchers from these fields make to national security"--Publisher's description

Internationally, the profession of intelligence continues to develop and expand. So too does the academic field of intelligence, both in terms of intelligence as a focus for academic research and in terms of the delivery of university courses in intelligence and related areas. To a significant extent both the profession of intelligence and those delivering intelligence education share a common aim of developing intelligence as a discipline. However, this shared interest must also navigate the existence of an academic-practitioner divide. Such a divide is far from unique to intelligence – it exists in various forms across most professions – but it is distinctive in the field of intelligence because of the centrality of secrecy to the profession of intelligence and the way in which this constitutes a barrier to understanding and openly teaching about aspects of intelligence. How can co-operation in developing the profession and academic study be maximized when faced with this divide? How can and should this divide be navigated? The Academic-Practitioner Divide in Intelligence provides a range of international approaches to, and perspectives on, these crucial questions.

U.S. intelligence relations with foreign counterparts offer a number of benefits: indications and warning of an attack, expanded geographic coverage, corroboration of national sources, accelerated access to a contingency area, and a diplomatic backchannel. They also present risks of compromise due to poor security, espionage, geopolitical turmoil, manipulation to influence policy, incomplete vetting of foreign sources, over-reliance on a foreign partner's intelligence capabilities, and concern over a partner's potentially illegal or unethical tradecraft. Because intelligence failures involving a foreign partner sometimes become public, the risks to the IC of cooperating with a foreign intelligence service are more easily understood. Nevertheless, the persistent cultivation of intelligence relations with foreign partners suggests that the IC remains confident that the benefits outweigh the risks. These benefits are not always widely recognized due to their sensitivity and the potential for compromising the scope and details of what amounts to intelligence collection. The best known of these intelligence relationships are the decades-long ties to America's closest allies, who have shared history, values, and similar perspectives on national security threats. Such ties are often one component of a broader security cooperation arrangement. Less well known are liaison relationships with U.S. adversaries over a particular issue of mutual concern, or relations with non-state foreign intelligence organizations such as Kurdish groups. Regardless of the partner, the U.S. Intelligence Community's aim is to enhance national intelligence resources and capabilities and to further U.S. national security by better understanding the threat environment and thereby enabling informed strategic planning, better policy decisions, and successful military operations. Thus, U.S. foreign intelligence relationships can be an overlooked component of public discussion of various aspects of international cooperation. Foreign intelligence agencies with ties to U.S. intelligence have often escaped the reach of congressional oversight. Yet Congress, at various times, has been interested in both the benefits and the risks of foreign intelligence relationships to U.S. national security. While sometimes extolling the value intelligence foreign partners can provide, Congress has also been critical of occasions when the IC has become too dependent on such partners at the expense of IC investment in its own intelligence capabilities. Congress has also been concerned with the IC's ability to independently assess the credibility of foreign intelligence sources, as well as the vulnerability of a foreign intelligence partner's telecommunications infrastructure to compromise by a hostile foreign intelligence service. Of particular sensitivity to Congress has been the poor record of human rights by certain foreign intelligence agencies and the potential for foreign intelligence partners to collect and share with the United States information on U.S. persons.

In this seminal work, published by the C.I.A. itself, produced by Intelligence veteran Richards Heuer discusses three pivotal points. First, human minds are ill-equipped ("poorly wired") to cope effectively with both inherent and induced uncertainty. Second, increased knowledge of our inherent biases tends to be of little assistance to the analyst. And lastly, tools and techniques that apply higher levels of critical thinking can substantially improve analysis on complex problems.