Traditional Intelligence Cycle

Similar to the business intelligence cycle, the traditional
intelligence cycle is an iterative process consisting of five steps:
planning and direction, collection, processing, analysis and
production, and dissemination.
As Mark Lowenthal points out, the depiction of the intelligence cycle
is not entirely accurate. While it provides a means for helping
managers and analysts deliver a reliable product, it assumes that the
steps will proceed in the prescribed order and that the process will
repeat itself continuously; it does not address elements that may
influence the movement of the cycle, positively or negatively.
Lowenthal notes that most discussions of the intelligence process end
with dissemination. He concludes that two essential phases remain:
consumption and feedback.  Policy makers are not blank slates or
automatons that are compelled to consume intelligence. Instead, the
policy maker decides whether or not to act in accordance with the
intelligence. Lowenthal notes that the intelligence community rarely
receives feedback from the policy community. He concludes that the
policy maker’s use of the intelligence should be conveyed to the
provider to make appropriate adjustments and improvements and that the
failure to provide feedback is analogous to the policy maker’s
inability or refusal to define requirements.

What then, is the proper role of the policy maker in the intelligence-cycle?

Here’s what it should look like

What then, is the proper role of the policy maker in the intelligence-cycle?

Pg.183 Mark Lowenthal states, “The ultimate goal of the US policy
process is to arrive at a consensus that all parties can support. But
consensus in the US bureaucratic system means agreement down to the
last detail of any paper being considered.”

Pg. 184 he also states, “Policy makers have many reasons to find fault
with or even to ignore intelligence.”

These two statements displays that their lies a fundamental problem in
the Intelligence cycle. The goal of policy makers is to come to a
consensus for all parties, but they will disregard or discredit the
intelligence they received. I am left to assume what forms of logic
policy makers use to decide on a policy.

The policy maker should be an integral influencer of the requirements
step of the cycle. The CHDS states that the IC rarely incorporates
policy makers in this step, and this means that the IC has to
assume/guess what relevant information that a policymaker needs. It is
important to avoid assumption/guess collection work, because this
leads to a waste of time and resources for the IC. Gathering
unnecessary and irrelevant information can and does inundate the
processing and exploitation step. Ultimately, information is processed
and intelligence is distributed to a policymaker. It is imperative
that the intelligence is relevant to the priorities of the policy
maker so that the IC’s work hasn’t been performed unnecessarily. The
quote on above from pg 184 states that policy makers will omit some of
the intelligence that they receive if it doesn’t suffice their wishes.

Policymakers are busy individuals who usually don’t take time to
inform the IC of the timeliness, validity, and clarity of the
intelligence. Policy makers should have done this in the requirements
section of the intelligence cycle, and definitely give feedback to
enhance future collection/process/exploit efforts.

My next point isn’t necessarily mentioned in any of the readings or
the video. I feel the need to state the importance of Policymakers
being knowledgeable of the culture, jargon, national/international
community and more. Wicked problems are difficult to solve because of
their nature. The difficulty will be increased if the policymakers’
knowledge came solely from one piece of intelligence. It is unfair to
ask a policymaker to have full knowledge on every issue that they will
come across in their term. For instance a Senator doesn’t need to be a
meteorologist, but it helps to be informed on weather issues in case
of a Hurricane. Having a broad base of knowledge will allow the
policymaker to give better requirements, and feedback. Policymakers
need to generally understand the discipline in which they are about to
address. I’m not sure what the happy medium is for having a informed
Policy maker, but I feel it is necessary to mention.