Respond to at least two other students initial forum

User Generated

tnzory

Business Finance

Description

I have added the students forum in the drop box. please respond to each student separately; Respond to at least two other students initial forum answers with a minimum of 200 words each. In your replies to classmates you may offer your opinion on the topic of the week, substantially support or supplement another student’s answer, or even politely disagree with or challenge their forum answer (but do not ask your classmates questions, or do so only as a last resort per the forum philosophy). You will also reply to my follow up question in your own forum string, and also read and acknowledge the Professor wrap up forum I post toward the end of the week. Also, do not be afraid to respectfully disagree with the readings or a classmate where you feel appropriate; as this should be part of your analysis process and employs critical thinking and academic freedom. Forum posts are graded on demonstrated knowledge of the lesson and weekly readings, relevance, timeliness, as well as clarity and quality of analysis and synthesis. Sources utilized to support answers are to come from the weekly readings, but other credible and scholarly sources may be used to supplement (but not replace) the assigned readings. However, dictionaries, encyclopedias and Wikipedia are not scholarly and are not acceptable sources in college level work. All forum work must be completed within the academic week.

Unformatted Attachment Preview

Jacob Sipe Looking at the current intelligence cycle model and comparing to issues that have been seen over the past 15 years, it is apparent that issues are repeating themselves. The 9-11 commision reported that information sharing was one of the biggest issues. Lack of sharing between agencies that could have prevented the attack. (9/11 Report, pg. 12) Many changes were made to the IC. Agencies were reorganized, oversight was created and new offices to oversee it all were established. Truly the only way to know if this will work is to exercise it. In the military every process, and procedure gets exercised and tested to a certain point but even those can’t be known as effective until “Battle Tested”. The major issue that keeps reappearing is the lack of information sharing. 9/11 Commission brought that fact out. (9/11 Report, pg. 12) Twelve years later another major terrorist attack on United States soil clearly showed that the reforms fixed a few issues but did not fix information sharing to everywhere. When the Boston Marathon Bombers conducted their attack they had been previously interviewed and released months before the attack. At the time there was not enough information to continue observation. (Stokes 2013, pg 58) The FBI conducted the initial interview but did not pass the information down to local/state police. The FBI’s conclusion that there was not enough information to continue investigation led to the information being shelved and not distributed. This brings up several issues in the Dissemination category. Who deems the information distributable or not? Is it the originator of the information that is solely responsible or should a 3rd party make that decision? Would a 3rd party have made the same decision since there were no findings on the Bombers. When over sharing happens to state and local, who have far less resources, they can get overwhelmed. Law enforcement is much more about the “after the fact” of an event and intelligence organizations are into the what next. The rest of the cycle works very well and is clearly effective since it's used in some capacity pretty much universally. The cycle could benefit from a branch in the dissemination section to help with information flow. I would bring back up last week where I mentioned functional areas. Internal Security, External Security, External Intelligence, Investigations. If a flow chart to create a decision matrix for who gets the information was created then it would be more likely to have more robust information sharing. For example; The Boston Bombers were cleared by the FBI due to lack of evidence. If the Investigations Functional Area had passed it to Internal Security then the National Network would have had the information. Investigations would find it worthy to pass because they might need additional observation and Internal Security is the right place for that. It’s hard to say if Local Law Enforcement would have prevented the attack but they would have been known to LE outside of Federal LE. I doubt that Local LE knowing would have made much of a difference. Pressure cookers are not regulated and the report saying they were a threat was from 2004 and the attack was 9 years later.(Stokes 2013, pg 58) That is a massive leap of analytical linkage to tie those 2 bombers to pressure cookers and terrorist attacks. They might have had Jihadist videos on their YouTube account but that's not always a precursor to terrorism. It looks like not much in the information sharing was corrected with all the changes. There are still a lot of stovepipes of information and not a lot of cross sharing. A 18th Agency for intelligence sharing/dissemination needs to be created to ensure one place to send and receive information. They should be staffed to process and tag for organizations that need it. There still exists a gap between federal and state/local. Information exists in several organizations that is duplicated and need to be paired/linked with information from other organizations that could help paint a more robust picture. Cited: Stokes, R. (2013). Employing the intelligence cycle process model within the Homeland Security Enterprise. Center for Homeland Security. Retrieved from http://calhoun.nps.edu/bitstream/handle/10945/39018/13Dec_Stokes_Roger.pd (pages 1-9, 5569) The National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States (also known as) The 911 Commission Report, Executive Summary (2004). Retrieved from http://govinfo.library.unt.edu/911/report/911Report_Exec.pdf (pages 1-26) Robert Krolikiewicz The intelligence cycle should work as a well-oiled machine. The different phases of the cycle are correctly ordered (direction and planning, collection, processing, production, dissemination, and continuous evaluation) however, because they are run by people, there are flaws in the system. Unfortunately a cognitive bias, or often times just ego, can interrupt the intelligence cycle. All phases of the intelligence cycle are important. Keithly states that the production process “is often the most critical phase of the intelligence cycle” (2010, 46). I would have to disagree. I think the most critical phase of the intelligence cycle is the dissemination phase. The reason being, that if the person (decision maker) who needs the information does not receive it, then there is a strong possibility that the outcome may result in an intelligence failure. Just like the other phases of the cycle, dissemination has its flaws. The dissemination of the intelligence product may be held back for a multitude of reasons. Just as we have seen in the past and something that unfortunately still occurs, is the lack of sharing information. It has been well documented since the attacks of 9/11 how the different agencies within both federal and local governments, did not communicate the pre-incident indicators that led up to the four suicide hijackings. “This has been exhaustively examined and has led to the restructuring of the intelligence system”(Hulnick 2006, 5). Fusion cell have been created where representatives from the different agencies work side by side to increase the communication flow. There are positive outcomes to this model, however it does not prevent all the information from being shared. I have seen from my own experience that if one agency has information that they only want to share with one other element of the cell, then they would leave the rest of the cell out of a meeting. That of course creates a rift in the team and interrupts the flow of information. Rob References: Hulnick, Arthur S. (2006). "What's wrong with the Intelligence Cycle." Intelligence & National Security 21, no. 6 (December) 959-979. International Security & Counter Terrorism Reference Center Keithly, D. (2010). Intelligence fundamentals. In Homeland security and intelligence, edited by Logan, Keith. Santa Barbara, CA: Praeger Security International. Retrieved from http://ezproxy.apus.edu/login?url=http://psi.praeger.com/doc.aspx?d=/books/gpg/C9095C/C90 95C-1079.xml
Purchase answer to see full attachment
User generated content is uploaded by users for the purposes of learning and should be used following Studypool's honor code & terms of service.

Explanation & Answer

Attached.

Name
Course Title
Institution
Instructor
Date

Hello Jacob Sipe,
The assignment on the national security of the United States was well presented. The document
has dealt with very important details pertaining what might have caused the loopholes which led
to the terrorist attack through suicide bombing. You were able to dwell into issues which I was
not able to think about in my response. The document is written in a mature manner with issues
following each other in a clear manner. The reader is able to connect the entire process that
preceded the attack.
The major problem is sharing of i...


Anonymous
Just what I needed…Fantastic!

Studypool
4.7
Trustpilot
4.5
Sitejabber
4.4

Similar Content

Related Tags