Intelligence seems to be back in the headlines again. One of Obama’s first acts as president was to close Guantanamo Bay because, in the words of his newly appointed head of national intelligence, Dennis Blair, “It is a rallying cry for terrorist recruitment and harmful to our national security”. And one of the main responsibilities for Blair will be to rebuild public trust in the intelligence agencies.
According to election analysts, if national security had been the main concern for America in the recent presidential elections, then the odds of Republican success were high. As economic issues grew in importance, the balance tipped towards the Democrats (although I’d like to think that Obama himself was responsible for the level of the swing). Therefore, it is interesting that one of President Obama’s first moves is send such a clear message of a break with the Bush past on security issues.
Yet how much will he really change in terms of the nuts and bolts of intelligence? Progressives, it seems fair to say, still struggle with the realities of terrorism and intelligence. Often the intelligence world is seen as one of smoky mirrors and Spooks. But it pays to remember that intelligence is really just the analysis of information; and in the case of terrorism, the analysis of information on the threat of a terrorist attack.
What is crucial is how that information is analysed and used. According to Dennis Blair, in the future the American intelligence agencies will work within the rule of law, respect civil liberties, and ensure accountability and transparency. But Obama and Blair have not yet fully addressed the realities of how large bureaucracies can effectively process huge amounts of information on possible threats and potentially make life and death decisions on how to use that analysis. The instances when intelligence analysis has failed are only too clear – from the numerous signs in the run-up to 9/11 to the more recent botched operation which resulted in the Stockwell shooting in London. Furthermore, such is the proliferation of threats, that it is almost an impossible task to keep abreast of all potential risks.
Two key challenges remain, namely the need for greater coordination and the need to better understand the nature of current threats. In the UK, the intelligence agencies have increasingly sought to ‘open up’ with online, public recruitment and expressions of interest in those from diverse ethnic backgrounds. But there is plenty of scope to go further than this. States have traditionally kept their intelligence to themselves, but in a ‘globalised’ world, there is a growing need to share data on security risks and threats. The European Union, through its 2005 Counter-Terrorism Strategy, has sought to achieve better coordination and integrated analysis of this kind, though this is still a work in progress; greater coordination with the US would significantly improve access to information.
But intelligence should not just be seen as a reaction to immediate threats. Ultimately, what recent attacks have shown is just how little is still understood about the causes and growth of current terrorist groups and activity. Winning ‘hearts and minds’ could be the one thing the new American president is best at, and his inaugural speech went some way towards reaching out to those disaffected with previous American policies. What is still lacking is more ‘intelligent’ analysis of the roots of terrorist activity today and the drivers of its support. The incoming US head of intelligence may find that it is these issues above all others which now take priority in his in-tray.