Intelligence, of all kinds, benefits from education | Homeland Security Watch

Intelligence, of all kinds, benefits from education | Homeland Security Watch: "This morning the House Homeland Security Committee will consider a proposed Resolution of Inquiry (pdf). If adopted this would require the Department of Homeland Security to release internal documents related to a DHS intelligence product entitled: Rightwing Extremism: Current Economic and Political Climate Fueling Resurgence in Radicalization and Recruitment.

(A copy of the report and the context for it’s original release is available by accessing a prior HLSwatch post.)

A Resolution of Inquiry is a rarely used procedure that requires prompt Committee consideration. In this instance the proposed resolution is unlikely to be adopted. Committee Chairman Bennie Thompson has characterized the action as a “GOP stunt.” News reports suggest the Chairman will offer an alternative approach."

The DHS intelligence product, since withdrawn, often indulges in over-broad generalization and fails to support its claims with much evidence. Criticism of the DHS intelligence product often indulges in over-broad generalization and prefers to ignore evidence that might support the report’s claims.

Last week Secretary Napolitano, responding to questions on the matter during her budget testimony, explained, “It was not authorized to be distributed. It had not even completed its vetting process within the department. It has been taken off of the intel web sites and the lexicon that went along with it was similarly withdrawn. Neither were authorized products, and we have now put in place processes. And it turned out there were really no procedures to govern what went out and what didn’t before, and now there are.”

Vetting outputs is different than ensuring rigorous inputs. In the heated response to the mediocre or worse intelligence product, not much light has been shed on the processes that led to its compilation. I have heard the following explanations or speculation:

• The language and treatment was selected to match what the product’s consumers — mostly State and local law enforcement — would find helpful. (The phrase “dumbed-down” has unfortunately been used.)
• The language and treatment was chosen to highlight a threat some DHS analysts perceive has been given too little attention. (Well, if so, lack of attention is no longer the biggest problem.)
• The language and treatment resulted from a rather thoughtless cut-and-paste job from various public sources of information. (For example, compare the contents of the report to Wikipedia’s entry on domestic terrorism.)

An important factor in the analytic anemia demonstrated by the rightwing extremism report is an over-dependence on foreign and military intelligence paradigms when doing domestic risk analysis.

Foreign and military intelligence operations usually have very different purposes than criminal intelligence or all-hazards risk analysis. Foreign and military intelligence gathering is often covert; domestic analysis should usually be overt and open. Moreover, inside the United States Constitutional protections — especially those of the first and fourth amendments — apply in a way that foreign and military intelligence analysts do not need to consider.

From a policy perspective these important differences are widely recognized. But in terms of education, training, information gathering processes, analytical procedures, and information sharing the differences are much less well-defined. Many domestic analysts — especially with classified clearances – have come to their positions from military intelligence operations. Their extensive military training and experience tends to trump the very modest orientation they receive for their new domestic role.

The need for education and training is especially acute among State and regional fusion centers. A 2008 GAO survey of fusion center leadership found, “challenges obtaining guidance and training. In particular, they (fusion center officials) cited the need for clearer and more specific guidance in a variety of areas, including standards for analyst training and information-sharing policies and procedures, to help address operational challenges.”

I have never encountered a public safety official who purposefully set-out to abuse the Constitution (I expect such individuals exist, but I have not met them). I have, however, met plenty of public safety officials — and others — who have received almost no education or training related to Constitutional protections and equally modest preparation in critical assessment of information.

I don’t know — and don’t care — who is to blame for the DHS report. We should all care about improving the professional development of those charged with developing such reports.