National Intelligence Comparison

A Comparison of Britain’s and the United States’

National Intelligence Machinery

Richard S. Moscorelli

Santa Fe College

Comparative Politics

Matthew M. Caverly, Ph.D. Adjunct Assistant Professor

5 June 2015

Introduction

The scope of national intelligence in all of its endeavors to support and protect the peoples and interests of the home country is monumental. Britain’s national intelligence machinery to the United States national intelligence machinery at the highest levels of government is compared in this essay. These two entities effect the decision making processes of the leaders of Britain and the United States on a daily basis. Intelligence organization’s products are consumed by the highest levels of government. Who tasks the national intelligence agencies? How are the national intelligence agencies structured? Finally, what gives the national intelligence agencies authority to act and who provides oversight to keep civil liberties from being intruded upon? Understanding intelligence is crucial to understanding how key leaders are thinking and why they are making decisions in the ways in which they are made.

Intelligence

The British definition of intelligence is different than how it is seen in the United States. The British see intelligence as a hidden way of gaining information from sources. Clandestine operations within the United Kingdom and abroad have been a mainstay of British intelligence operations (Davies 2012). The United States view on intelligence is more of a systematic approach to the processing of raw information into intelligence. Intelligence is a product which is drawn from the analyzing of raw information. Raw information is obtained through human interaction, reconnaissance, communication systems, and other methods. The founder of American Intelligence Theory Sherman Kent stated “intelligence is knowledge, the kind of knowledge our state must possess regarding other states in order to assure itself that its cause will not suffer nor its undertakings fail because its statesmen and soldiers plan and act in ignorance.”

Now that we have an idea of what the definition of intelligence is next to be discussed is the intelligence cycle. The intelligence cycle which consists of tasking, collecting, processing, analyzing, and disseminating the intelligence product, and feedback. Let us use the weapons of mass destruction in Iraq as an example. Senior leaders of the British and United States tasked their respective intelligence communities to find information about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. The communities collected information through the various intelligence disciplines. This information was processed for authenticity and validity. Then analyzed and reported to the requesting leadership and to other analysts. When no further questions are required and the requestor is satisfied with the intelligence then decisions are made and countries act as in Iraq. When the requestor is not satisfied and new questions are raised from the new intelligence then collectors are tasked with new questions starting the cycle again. The feedback from forces on the ground in Iraq proved that weapons of mass destruction were not found and the intelligence communities got it wrong. Intelligence is not one hundred percent accurate.

Imaging getting a puzzle and while looking at the shape and color of the pieces it is discernable to piece the puzzle together. This is the basic idea of what intelligence organizations due. However sometimes the pieces are all the same color and same shape. Finding information to match it to other pieces of information and seeing what fits is a daunting task.

History of Britain’s and the United States’ National Intelligence

The history of modern intelligence in both Britain and the United States can be found in the beginning of the twentieth century. Britain was conducting operations to find out what Germany was doing leading up to World War I. Britain did not have a formalized national intelligence system at this time however the acts of the British system suggested a national system. Britain acted then put a name on what they did. The United States did not have a national intelligence system by name or practice at this time (Davies 2012).

The United States developed the Office of Strategic Services (OSS) with the aid and mentorship of Britain during World War II. The British and United States trained and worked together during this time to fight the Axis powers.

Subversion, denial, clandestine operations, and disinformation are trade crafts which the British intelligence forces mentored and trained the United States forces in during this time. Joint British and US commando teams conducted operations together against their common enemy. This joint working relationship has endured to this day as mentioned above as combined intelligence was provided together on the Iraq venture.

The United States took members of the Office of Strategic Services (OSS) after it was disbanded and made what is today known as the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA).

Structure of the British and United States National Intelligence Machinery

How these national intelligence systems are configured in Britain and the United States and how they compare will be discussed.

The National Intelligence Mechanism booklet of Crown Copyright defines the British intelligence system with three equal groupings, ultimately reporting to the Prime Minister and one standalone oversight and quality control group. They are Defence Secretary, Home Secretary, and Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary. The Secret Intelligence (SIS, also known as MI6) and Government Communications Headquarters (GCHQ) falls under Foreign and Common Wealth Secretary. The Security Service (MI5) falls under Home Secretary. The Chief of Defence Intelligence and Defence Intelligence Staff (DIS) fall under the Defence Secretary. There is a standalone position in the hierarchy. The Secretary of the Cabinet which is the chairman of the Joint Intelligence Coordinator and heads up the Joint Intelligence Organization. This group tasks, coordinates, ensures quality control and oversight over the Defense, Home, and Foreign and Commonwealth Secretaries. These British Intelligence organizations all fall under the control of the Prime Minister.

More information in the booklet National Intelligence Machinery of Crown copyright has the operations of the three fall under statutory regulations. The GCHQ and SIS by The Intelligence Services act 1994 and the Security Services under the Security Service Acts 1989 and 1996. The operations of the three also are subject to compliance with the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000.

The United States Intelligence apparatus is a behemoth. It has multiple agencies that ultimately report to the President of the United States. There are three groups which the agencies fall under. The Military, Foreign Intelligence, and the Domestic Intelligence. The Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) is the only stand-alone agency which is directed to foreign intelligence only. The other organizations such as the National Security Agency (NSA), Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA), all fall under the Department of Defense. Homeland Security Intelligence, Federal Bureau of Investigation, Department of State Intelligence, Department of Treasury, Coast Guard Intelligence, and the Department of Energy all fall under the Domestic Intelligence group. Statutory regulations balancing civil liberties with intelligence collections is the ultimate goal with containing the intelligence services.

The British and United States Intelligence Systems all have Oversight Committees in place. The United States monitors collections at the lowest possible level. When Edward Snowden reported on NSA listening to the calls of United States Citizens it was not an illegal act by the National Security Administration (NSA). It had been approved by Oversight Committees. The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance (FISA) Act modified 2007, National Security Act 1947, Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004 provide for the statutory compliance of the United States national intelligence agencies and organizations (Davies 2012).

A chart within “Intelligence and Government in Britain and the United States: A Comparative Perspective” by Phillip H.J. Davies helps to compare the following groups found in the British and United States intelligence machinery. The British Secret Intelligence Service (SIS, MI6) has the similar focus of foreign intelligence collection as the United States’ Directorate of Operations and Central Intelligence Agency (CIA). Britain’s Domestic Security Intelligence is the Security Service (MI5) which is similar in responsibility as the The Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) of the United States. The two entities which cover National Signals Intelligence are the British Government Communications Headquarters (GCHQ) and the National Security Administration (NSA) of the United States. Remember as mentioned above, the British intelligence apparatus has a group which functions as the national interagency coordination staff or group. This is the Joint Intelligence Committee (JIC) and the JIC Chairman. The JIC Chairman coordinates with the secretaries of the other three British groups in coordinating intelligence activities. This position in the U.S. is held by the National Intelligence Foreign Board (as the heads of US agencies reporting to the Director), Director of Central Intelligence (National Intelligence Lead Official), and the Office of the Director of Central Intelligence (National Interagency Coordination Staff). Cabinet level national security committee is the Defence and Overseas Policy Committee (DOCP) in Britain and the National Security Council holds that position for the United States. This is a comparison at high levels of the intelligence machinery of both the British and the United States. It gets much more difficult to make comparisons the further one gets away from the national intelligence scene. There are many more committees and sub committees which are at the working level of interagency coordination where the lines become blurred at the country level, not even taking into consideration on how the particular group would compare to the other country in comparison.

Conclusion

In conclusion, the national intelligence of Britain and the United States provides a window into the world in which the leaders of these countries look through. This window is distorted at times do to a lack of clearness. Comparing the intelligence machinery of these two countries and seeing similarity at the national level shows how much the two countries work together in gaining information about the world in which they operate. It is important for this window of the world to be as clear as possible to ensure correct decisions are made when these countries choose to act.

References:

"An Overview of the Intelligence Community." An Overview of the Intelligence Community. N.p., n.d. Web. 05 June 2015. <http://fas.org/irp/offdocs/int023.html>.

"National Intelligence Machinery.", First Edition Published April, Second Edition Published September 2001, © Crown Copyright 2000, and The Text In This Document May Be Reproduced Free Of Charge In Any Format Or Media. National Intelligence MachineryFirst Edition Published April 2000 (n.d.): n. pag. Web. 5 June 2015.