Dating back to the Revolutionary War, intelligence has been a critical component of American
homeland security and emergency management functions. In 1775, shortly after George
Washington took over command of the Continental Army, he began paying intelligence agents to
report on the movements of the British army (The evolution of the U.S. Intelligence Community-
an historical overview, n.d.). Washington was known for setting up spy rings, devising secret
methods of reporting intelligence, and analyzing the information gathered by his agents (The
evolution, n.d.). Many historians explain Washington’s abilities to procure intelligence through
secret correspondence helped win the battle of Yorktown and provided the capability to
successfully evade British troops during the winters at Valley Forge (The evolution,
n.d.). Washington’s efforts were one of the first successful uses of intelligence to deceive the
British armies (The evolution, n.d.). Additionally, during the war, the Continental Congress
created the Committee of Secret Correspondence to gather foreign intelligence from individuals
all over Europe, such as England and Ireland to get headway in the war (The evolution, n.d.).
With such a success showcased in the Revolutionary war, once Washington began his presidency,
he asked Congress for funds to be allocated towards intelligence operations (The evolution, n.d.).
In response, Congress created the Contingent Fund of Foreign Intercourse and authorized forty-
thousand dollars for such purposes (The evolution, n.d.). Three years after, the authorized funds
grew to one million. In current times, the intelligence budgetary needs have surpassed sixty
million dollars (Office of the Director of National Intelligence, 2022).
Since the dawn of intelligence operations, the United Stated has faced several incidents that have
challenged the use of intelligence, spawning mixed results. One of the first failures noted was the
War of 1812 when the Secretary of War refused to believe that the British would invade
Washington, and military intelligence reported from this perspective (The evolution, n.d.). This
resulted in military intelligence failing to discover the British troops were advancing on the
Capital until they were sixteen miles away (The evolution, n.d.).
For centuries, intelligence was used in war, but early into the 20th century, intelligence was
expanded to include domestic capabilities to protect American borders from smuggling and
spying on numerous foreign nationals within the United States (The evolution, n.d.).
Foundationally, intelligence is nothing more than information assessment dedicated to the overall
mission of the time or organization (Nemeth, 2017). Michael Chertoff, former secretary of the
Department of Homeland, stated “Intelligence, as you know, is not only about spies and
satellites. Intelligence is about the thousands and thousands of routine everyday observations and
activities. Surveillance, interactions, each of which may be taken in isolation as not a particularly
meaningful piece of information, but when fused together, gives us a sense of the patterns and
the flow that really is at the core of what intelligence analysis is all about.” (Nemeth, 2017).
Every organization collects intelligence, and it would only make sense to share the information
to give meaning to the intelligence and understand it as a whole to protect the homeland.
Unfortunately, for a long time, many agencies only focused on the information they received for
their own purposes, resulting in 9/11 and various other catastrophic disasters that demonstrated
how intelligence agencies were falling short by not sharing information with one another. The
Homeland Security Act was enacted in 2002 to combat the issues seen among the intelligence
community. The act sets the expectation for all government entities to collaborate in the
collection and sharing of intelligence (Nemeth, 2017).
“To know wisdom and instruction, to perceive the words of understanding, to receive the
instruction of wisdom, justice, judgement, and equity; To give prudence to the simple, To the
young man knowledge and discretion— A wise man will hear and increase learning, and a man
of understanding will attain wise counsel…” (New King James Version Bible, 1982, Proverbs
1:2-5). The Bible councils an individual must be able to acquire information but recognize the
information and be knowledgeable to use it in future events. Further, an intelligence professional
must be wise enough to make proper decisions in all types of circumstances and ready to utilize a
thorough understanding of the information to relay pertinent details to other agencies of
relevance. In collecting intelligence, the verse asks individuals deal in “justice, judgement, and
equity”. This means to be fair in how one approaches information gathered and to not use it for
personal motivations. For example, the government should not encroach on one’s freedoms
solely and unreasonably based on one’s being the same nationality as a party that leveraged an
attack against the nation. An intelligence professional should be able to discern false information
from the truth. Unfortunately, there have been several instances in which the government did not
make the best decisions with the intelligence given. In other egregious incidents, intelligence was
created or misconstrued for the sake of personal interests. Everyone working in intelligence
operations must remember intelligence is knowledge, and it is up to the individual to determine
what actions should be taken based on this information. Ultimately, the chosen direction should
always be based upon the security of the homeland.
References
The evolution of the U.S. Intelligence Community-an historical overview. govinfo. (n.d.).
Retrieved July 28, 2022, from https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/GPO-
INTELLIGENCE/html/int022.html
Nemeth, C. P. (2017). Homeland security: An introduction to principles and practices (3rd ed.).
Office of the Director of National Intelligence. (2022). ODNI Home. U.S. intelligence
community budget. Retrieved July 25, 2022, from https://www.dni.gov/index.php/what-we-
do/ic-budget
Mark,
Your discussion board was thorough in explaining the events of the Revolutionary War and each
sides’ use of intelligence. It does elicit the question: were their techniques for intelligence and
counterintelligence more efficient than current practices? With new innovative technology and
gadgets, are we forgetting the fundamentals? Intelligence only began as the basic acquisition of
information; now, it has evolved but it may not be for the better. Just as you discussed, the
intelligence cycle is a process in which collection requirements are developed. Then,
intelligence is collected, analyzed, and disseminated to the consumer. Mark M. Lowenthal,
president of the Security and Intelligence Academy, critiques the intelligence community’s
dependency on technology, believing preference should be shown to sticking to the basics in
intelligence gathering; he urges the community to “get back to the knowledge building business”
(Nemeth, 2017).
I can see why many intelligence professionals would like to see more technology to further
information gathering and why so many other professionals may insist on focusing on the
fundamental gathering practices. In my opinion, I do not believe the issues lie within the overuse
of technology. In the situation of the war against the British, everyone in the colonies worked
together. Whether in Boston or Lexington, the fight was a team effort. Documents such as the
9/11 Commission Report and legislation like the Unity of Effort in the Intelligence community
have mandated information sharing within all agencies, local, state, and federal (Brown, 2017).
However, are these measures being followed? If so, are they effective in successful intelligence
gathering? Many scholars are finding the measures are not being followed and many agencies are
still not communicating. Often times, agencies receive intelligence and make final decisions on
threats without collaborating with agencies that may be affected (Brown, 2017).
Brown, M. (2017). The Reality of the DHS Enterprise Field Intelligence Information Sharing
Environment. Homeland Security Affairs.
Nemeth, C. P. (2017). Homeland security: An introduction to principles and practices (3rd ed.).
Israel,
Thank you for your discussion post. I would like to respond to the questions you posed. Your
first question was “Should President Bush have been held accountable for knowingly using
intelligence to misrepresent to the American people that Iraq possessed weapons of mass
destruction?” Maybe, but how would he be the only person accountable for actions not one
person could execute solely on his own? George Bush was not alone in spreading outdated
intelligence, and he was not the only one ignoring those who were refuting the bad intelligence.
Unfortunately, at the time, many people were running off of fear, and a stressed, dreadful
environment is not the best one for decision making. Benjamin Freidman wrote a book
discussing fear after 9/11. In his book, he searched to see if it was necessary or brought on by
false ideology of 9/11 not being a one off. In the end, he concludes: “Eight years later and
counting, with plenty of conventional terrorism abroad and almost none in the United States,
evidence is mounting that these trends are overstated or wrong—that September 11 was more an
aberration than a harbinger of an age of deadlier terrorism. Terrorism using biological or nuclear
weapons should still worry us, but the common claim that these sorts of attacks are virtually
inevitable is an overstatement.” (Nemeth, 2017). But does this make you feel better after what
we have seen? Bush, and many of his administration, potentially lied about the intelligence given
to them and led many to their deaths by sending troops in to stop al Qaeda. The complete line on
who is at fault may be difficult to identify because during this time everyone was at their most
vulnerable and the thought of another 9/11 occurring was what may have brought the entire
American society to its knees. So, in your next question: “Should there be additional oversight
from Congress when Presidents use intelligence to either order troops to battle and/or declare
war on another country?” There is supposed to be oversight. The Constitution gives Congress the
ability to declare war and allocate funds towards war operations (US House of Representatives,
n.d.). However, the President is Commander and Chief of the military, helping to make war time
decisions (US House of Representatives, n.d.). In these times, everyone was cheering for a war,
each having their own motivation, but all steaming from one main motive—revenge.
References
US House of Representatives. (n.d.). Power to declare war. US House of Representatives:
History, Art & Archives. Retrieved July 30, 2022, from
https://history.house.gov/Institution/Origins-Development/War-Powers/
Nemeth, C. P. (2017). Homeland security: An introduction to principles and practices (3rd ed.).
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
