Building a Theory of Intelligence Systems

doi:10.1017/CBO9781139174541.003

2 - Building a Theory of Intelligence Systems

from PART 1 - DEFINING THE FIELD, ITS THEORY, HISTORIOGRAPHY, AND CHANGES AFTER THE COLD WAR

Published online by Cambridge University Press: 05 June 2012

Michael Warner

Edited by

Gregory F. Treverton and

Wilhelm Agrell

Show author details

Michael Warner: Affiliation:
Office of the Director of National Intelligence
Gregory F. Treverton: Affiliation:
RAND Corporation, California
Wilhelm Agrell: Affiliation:
Lunds Universitet, Sweden

Book contents

Get access

Summary

From a hobby of kings and a staple of lurid tales, intelligence has gradually become a proper topic of scholarship. During the last generation, various scholars have voiced impatience with the insightful but ad hoc pattern of studies in this new field and have called for research agendas oriented around cross-national comparisons. Such agendas, however, have not yet emerged. Various well-known factors help to explain this deficit of truly comparative analyses: the paucity of reliable, declassified data to analyze; the general lack of interest among government agencies in sponsoring such studies by in-house experts with access to the files; and the methodological divide between the academic historians (and their official counterparts) mining the available documents and their colleagues trained in political science who draw generalizations from the historical findings. Unfortunately, these perennial obstacles seem immune to quick or easy solutions. Another reason for the lack of comparative studies, however, is closer to home and perhaps easier to address: the lack of agreement, among both scholars and practitioners, of just what would be compared in a comparative approach to intelligence studies.

A great amount of writing, and some excellent research, has been done on intelligence activities and personalities. Not so much has been done on the collective authorities, resources, oversight, and missions assigned to parties officially assembled to perform intelligence duties of particular nations. Still less has been done to compare these collectivities across nations, cultures, or eras. What has been written is not comprehensive.

Type: Chapter
Information: National Intelligence Systems
Current Research and Future Prospects
, pp. 11 - 37

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139174541.003 [Opens in a new window]

Publisher: Cambridge University Press

Print publication year: 2009

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Book purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Hastedt, Glenn P., “Towards the Comparative Study of Intelligence,” Conflict Quarterly, 11, 3 (Summer 1991), 60–4Google Scholar

Kahn, David, “An Historical Theory of Intelligence,” Intelligence and National Security, 16, 3 (Autumn 2001), 84–5CrossRef Google Scholar

Johnson, Loch K., “Preface to a Theory of Strategic Intelligence,” International Journal of Intelligence and Counterintelligence, 16, 4 (2003), 657CrossRef Google Scholar

Johnson, Loch K., “Bricks and Mortar for a Theory of Intelligence,” Comparative Strategy 22 (2003), 22–3CrossRef Google Scholar

Turner, Michael A., “A Distinctive U.S. Intelligence Identity,” International Journal of Intelligence and Counterintelligence, 17 (2004), 42–5CrossRef Google Scholar

Johnston, Rob, Analytic Culture in the U.S. Intelligence Community: An Ethnographic Study (Washington: Central Intelligence Agency, 2005), p. 37Google Scholar

O'Connell, Kevin M., “Thinking about Intelligence Comparatively,” Brown Journal of World Affairs, 11 (Summer/Fall 2004), 193–7Google Scholar

Wheaton, Kristan J. and Beerbower, Michael T., “Towards a New Definition of Intelligence,” Stanford Law & Policy Review, 17, 2 (2006), 329Google Scholar

Derian, James called intelligence “the continuation of war by the clandestine interference of one power into the affairs of another.” Antidiplomacy: Spies, Terror, Speed, and War (Cambridge, MA: Blackwell, 1992), p. 21Google Scholar

Warner, Michael, “Wanted: A Definition of Intelligence,” Studies in Intelligence, 46, 3 (2002)Google Scholar

Shulsky, Abram N. and Schmitt, Gary J. called these the “traditional” and “American” views; Silent Warfare: Understanding the World of Intelligence (Washington: Potomac Books, 2002 [1991]), pp. 159–67Google Scholar

Jackson, Peter, “Historical Reflections on the Uses and Limits of Intelligence,” in Jackson, Peter and Siegel, Jennifer (eds.), Intelligence and Statecraft: The Use and Limits of Intelligence in International Society (Westport, CT: Praeger, 2005), pp. 12–13Google Scholar

Scott, Len, “Secret Intelligence, Covert Action and Clandestine Diplomacy,” in Scott, L. V. and Jackson, P. D. (eds.), Understanding Intelligence in the Twenty-First Century: Journeys in Shadows (London: Routledge, 2004), pp. 162–3Google Scholar

“Intelligence as Risk Shifting,” in Gill, Peter R., Phythian, Mark, and Marrin, Stephen (eds.), Intelligence Theory: Key Questions and Debates (London: Routledge, 2008)

Sims, Jennifer E., “Understanding Friends and Enemies: The Context for American Intelligence Reform,” in Sims, Jennifer E. and Gerber, Burton (eds.), Transforming U.S. Intelligence (Washington: Georgetown University Press, 2005), pp. 15–16Google Scholar

Sims, Jennifer E., “Foreign Intelligence Liaison: Devils, Deals, and Details,” International Journal of Intelligence and Counterintelligence, 19, 2 (Fall 2005), 196–201Google Scholar

Bozeman, Adda, “Political Intelligence in Non-Western Societies: Suggestions for Comparative Research,” in Godson, Roy (ed.), Comparing Foreign Intelligence: The US, the USSR, the UK, and the Third World (Washington: Pergamon-Brassey's, 1988), p. 135Google Scholar

Gill, Peter R. and Phythian, Mark, Intelligence in an Insecure World (Cambridge, England: Polity, 2006), pp. 7, 29Google Scholar

Warner, Michael, “The Divine Skein: Sun Tzu on Intelligence,” Intelligence and National Security, 17, 4 (August 2006)Google Scholar

Kautilya, 's Arthashastra (Mysore: Sri Raghuveer, 1956)Google Scholar

Rangarajan, L. N. (ed.), Kautilya: The Arthashastra (New Delhi, India: Penguin Classics, 1992)

Luvaas, Jay, “Napoleon's Use of Intelligence: The Jena Campaign of 1805,” in Handel, Michael I. (ed.), Leaders and Intelligence (London: Frank Cass, 1989), pp. 48–52Google Scholar

Forcade, Olivier and Laurent, Sebastien, Secrets d'Etat: Pouvoir et renseignement dans le monde contemporain (Paris: Armand Colin, 2005), pp. 53–64Google Scholar

Warner, Michael, The CIA under Harry Truman (Washington: Central Intelligence Agency, 1994), pp. 29–32Google Scholar

Goscha, Christopher E. and reprinted in “Three Documents on Early Vietnamese Intelligence and Security Services,” Intelligence and National Security, 22, 1 (February 2007), 139–40CrossRef Google Scholar

Evera, Stephen, Guide to Methods for Students of Political Science (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1997), pp. 7–21Google Scholar

Johnson, Loch K., “Preface to a Theory of Strategic Intelligence,” International Journal of Intelligence and Counterintelligence, 16, 4 (2003), 639CrossRef Google Scholar

Clausewitz, Carl, On War, edited and translated by Howard, Michael and Paret, Peter (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1984 [1976]), pp. 605–10Google Scholar

Aristotle, , The Politics, Book III, 6:1. This uses the Lord, Carnes translation (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1984)CrossRef Google Scholar

Dziak, John J., Chekisty: A History of the KGB (Lexington, MA: Lexington Books, 1988), p. 2Google Scholar

Andrew, Christopher, “Intelligence, International Relations and ‘Under-theorisation’,” in Scott, and Jackson, (eds.), Understanding Intelligence in the Twenty-First Century, pp. 34–7