Military intelligence is important, but it isn’t the whole world
As quoted from David Oakley’s book, Subordinating Intelligence: The DoD/CIA Post-Cold War Relationship
How has the relationships among intelligence agencies evolved over the past half century, and why is this important for national security leaders today? In this episode in our on-going series on Strategic Intelligence, David Oakley shows how two prominent actors in the intelligence community — the Department of Defense and Central Intelligence Agency — moved from an even-weighted partnership to a virtual supported-supporting relationship since the 1990s. Using the constructs of “intelligence for action” vs. “intelligence for understanding,” Oakley describes how this negatively impacted the functioning of the community as a whole. U.S. Army War College DeSerio Chair for Strategic Intelligence Genevieve Lester moderates.
David Oakley is an Assistant Professor in the Department of War and Conflict Studies at the National Defense University. Genevieve Lester is the De Serio Chair of Strategic Intelligence at the U.S. Army War College. The views expressed in this presentation are those of the speakers and do not necessarily reflect those of the U.S. Army War College, U.S. Army, or Department of Defense.
Photo: Director of National Intelligence Daniel Coats, left, and Director of the Defense Intelligence Agency Lt. Gen. Robert P. Ashley, Jr. testify on March 6, 2018, on Capitol Hill.
Photo Credit: Defense Intelligence Agency photo
Other releases in the “Intelligence” series:
- THE ROLE OF INTELLIGENCE TODAY
- POLICY SUCCESS VS. INTEL FAILURE?
- IMPACT (OR NOT) OF INTEL ON STRATEGIC DECISION MAKING
- STRATEGIC ATTACKS AND THEIR FALLOUT
- NEEDLES IN HAYSTACKS: ANALYZING TODAY’S FLOOD OF INFORMATION
- WHERE DOES INTELLIGENCE GO FROM HERE? AN INTERVIEW WITH JAMES CLAPPER
- THE DOD-CIA RELATIONSHIP: ARE WE MILITARIZING STRATEGIC INTELLIGENCE?
- THE SIGNIFICANCE OF THE ODNI: AN INTERVIEW WITH JAMES CLAPPER
- AFGHANISTAN: WHERE WAS THE INTEL?