Intelligence and Policy
Intelligence is defined as the ability to acquire and apply knowledge. It also relates to one’s logical capacity, level of comprehension, and self-awareness. The ability to learn, plan, create, and solve issues determines one’s level of intellect. The ability of an individual to control his or her emotions and make a decision is ostensibly another deciding component of intelligence. On the other hand, policy refers to the principles of action that an organization or individual has accepted or suggested. When the policy is implemented, codes of conduct control the systems (Lowenthal, 2016). When the procedures of the plans are not followed, the violation suffers some consequences. Many scholars put forward various relationships between intelligence and policy. Therefore, this research paper explores the interrelationship between information and systems. It also expedites on the National Intelligence Strategy of the United States of America. In addition, the research takes North Korea as the study case example to explain how anticipatory intelligence can be used efficiently
Intelligence and American Procedures
Following the recent national security disagreements, lies the trouble between the relationship of information and policies (Wege, 2016). In fact, Joshua Rovner in his book, Fixing the Facts, explains the different American procedures that may have been for long firmly tangled to the manipulation of the intelligence and considers how these have affected military plans and the conduct of foreign policy. According to Paul R. Pillar, he challenges the belief that information drives significant national security decisions, and he companies doubt on fixes intended to prevent future failures. He believes that such efforts often waste critical resources and divert attention away from more sensible reforms.
Anticipatory Intelligence
Anticipatory intelligence, therefore, is the product of intellect collection and the analysis that is majorly focused on the trends, events and the changing of conditions aimed at identifying and characterizing potential, significant events or some of the threats to the United States national interest (Lowenthal, 2016). The intelligence community presents an extensive range of functional responsibilities. It also offers a very complicated set of organizational arrangements. Thinking of it regarding traditional regulatory analysis or systems engineering methods to explain its working does not enable it because it far more resembles a living ecology with a complex web of many interacting entities. Apparently, it shows dynamic relationships, non-linear feedback loops and specific functional niches that reflect briefly successful adaptations to the environment.
Challenges of the Intelligence Community
For the natives, it is challenging working under the anticipatory intelligence community since its members are not profoundly self-reflective about its plans and processes. It makes the insiders fear to work for the city (Wege, 2016). On the other hand, the outsides, these difficulties are viewed by the togetherness in the community, security restrictions, and essential impenetrability. For this reason, applying for the traditional organizational analysis that concentrates on the structure is destined to fail. For one to understand these complex adaptive systems, on requires a more synthesis and understanding than that of the traditional reductionist analysis.
The Failure of the Intelligence Community
The result of the failure of the intelligence community to recognize the increasing dysfunction was both paradoxical and unfortunate (Burrows, 2017). They were both regrettable because the pressures to which it did adapt flowed from misperceptions inside and outside the Intelligence Community. Because of this, it resulted in the collapse of the Soviet Union that there would be no significant challenges to American interests. The end of the Cold War slowed down the need for a National Security State that there should be a considerable peace bonus, which is a large part of which would be paid by the Intelligence Community. However, these internal pressures outweighed the enormous new challenges emerging in the external security environment (Burrows, 2017). Responding to these would demand unique expertise and a single knowledge base, along with appropriate methods, tools, and perspectives all of which needed more resources, determined leadership, and strong commitment, which was not there by then. As a result, the community looked into a series of processes that were increasingly maladapted to needs emerging in the new geostrategic environment.
Anticipatory Intelligence and North Korea
Recent reports indicate that there is already a high tension between the United States and the North Korea as far as anticipatory intelligence is concerned (Burrows, 2017). The situation is getting worse day by day. Now that North Korea is ready to test the global flying missile, the United States, on the other hand, says that the situation will get more controversial. The two nations must address those cases using non-forcible means or by obtaining the UN Security Council’s endorsement. For this matter, the Security Council has prevented most of the nations from the acquisition of the nuclear weapons. Numerous resolutions have been put in place to condemn North Korea for the conduct of its nuclear program.
Examples of Condemnation of Anticipatory Intelligence
There are practical examples related to North Korea showing how the condemnation of anticipatory intelligence succeeded (Manzo & Miles, 2016). First, in the year 2007, Israel continuously attacked the newly constructed facility in Syria. Because of the attack, the UN Security Council came out boldly and wholly silenced it, and it did not continue. Second, the media report indicate that Israel and the United States continuously attacked Iran`s nuclear program. The Security Council dealt with it, and the issue was silenced, though the Council was pressuring it to accept oversight that is more international. These attacks varied in their sternness, some of them cause fetal deaths to the individuals.
The Challenges in Restraining North Korea
Given that the United States has itself improved in the permissive situation of anticipatory self-defense, North Korea could table something of a test case (Litwak, 2017). The United States might try to exploit the legal ancient zones or press for its position on the law. Their moves to achieve these would not succeed because of some kind reason. The first goal is that using the force to restrain North Korea’s nuclear plan would be difficult and present a severe risk of an intensification of violence. The second reason is that the Trump administration has shown little interest in, and has at times been hostile towards international law and institutions (Manzo & Miles, 2016). Those who have a stake in preserving these arrangements and who worry about their worsening during Trump administration have reason to push back against the United States to restrain an operation that they might then tolerate because they view it as demonstrating an unconcealed disregard for the law. Another reason is that the United States might now try to meet other states to help them support or tolerate a defensive operation. However, this would require a serious diplomatic effort (Burrows, 2017). The United States would likely have to convince her sister nation that the alternatives to opposing force including action through the Security Council are either inadequate or infeasible.
The United States' Position on North Korea
Now, the United States seems ill-prepared to undertake this effort, and they might still use power to try to prevent North Korea’s nuclear threat. Because of this, North Korea’s nuclear program would always present a severe security threat. In addition, the United States would be, at least for once, poorly situated to lead a broad-based, bilateral initiative to withstand that danger. Unless other countries get into the breach, the situation on the Korean Peninsula is likely to deteriorate even further.
References
Burrows, M. (2017). The US National Intelligence Council’s Global Trends. Strategic Analysis in Support of International Policy Making: Case Studies in Achieving Analytical Relevance, 77.
Litwak, R. S. (2017). Preventing North Korea’s Nuclear Breakout. Washington: Wilson Center, 59.
Lowenthal, M. M. (2016). Intelligence: From secrets to policy. CQ press.
Manzo, V. A., & Miles, A. R. (2016). The Logic of Integrating Conventional and Nuclear Planning. Arms Control Today, 46(9), 8.
Wege, C. A. (2016). Anticipatory Intelligence and the Post-Syrian War Hezbollah Intelligence Apparatus. International Journal of Intelligence and CounterIntelligence, 29(2), 236-259.
