AMERICAN

INTELLIGENCE
JOURNAL

THE MAGAZINE FOR INTELLIGENCE PROFESSIONALS

Information Warfare

__NMIA__________________________
Vol. 30, No. 2, 2012

American
Intelligence
Journal

THE MAGAZINE FOR INTELLIGENCE PROFESSIONALS

Vol. 30, No. 2

2012

ISSN 0883-072X

NMIA Board of Directors

LTG (USA, Ret) James A. Williams, CEO
Col (USAF, Ret) Joe Keefe, President
Mr. Antonio Delgado, Jr., Vice President
Dr. Forrest R. Frank, Secretary/Director
Mr. Mark Lovingood, Treasurer/Director
Col (USAF, Ret) William Arnold, Awards Director
Brig Gen (USAF, Ret) Scott Bethel, Director
MSgt (USAF, Ret) Thomas B. Brewer, Director
CDR (USNR, Ret) Calland Carnes, Chapters Director
Mr. Joseph Chioda, PMP, Membership Director
RADM (USN, Ret) Tony Cothron, Director
Lt Gen (USAF, Ret) David Deptula, Director
COL (USA, Ret) Jim Edwards, Director
Ms. Jane Flowers, Director

Col (USAFR, Ret) Michael Grebb, Director

COL (USA, Ret) Charles J. Green, Director
COL (USA, Ret) David Hale, Director
COL (USA, Ret) William Halpin, Director
Ms. Tracy Iseler, Director
MG (USA, Ret) David B. Lacquement, Director
Maj (USAF, Ret) Shawn R. O'Brien, Director
Mr. Louis Tucker, Director
Ms. Marcy Steinke, Director
COL (USA, Ret) Gerald York, Director

Editor - COL (USA, Ret) William C. Spracher, Ed.D.

Associate Editor - Mr. Kel B. McClanahan, Esq.
Editor Emeritus - Dr. Anthony D. McIvor
Production Manager - Ms. Debra Hamby-Davis
LTG (USA, Ret) Harry E. Soyster, Director Emeritus
RADM (USN, Ret) Rose LeVitre, Director Emeritus
LTG (USA, Ret) Patrick M. Hughes, Director Emeritus

Lt Gen (USAF, Ret) Lincoln D. Faurer, Director Emeritus

COL (USA, Ret) Michael Ferguson, Director Emeritus
MG (USA, Ret) Barbara Fast, Director Emeritus

The American Intelligence Journal (AIJ) is published by the National Military Intelligence Association (NMIA),
a non-profit, non-political, professional association supporting American intelligence professionals and the U.S.
Intelligence Community, primarily through educational means. The Board of Directors is headed by Lieutenant General James A.
Williams (USA, Ret), and the president of NMIA is Colonel Joe Keefe (USAF, Ret). NMIA membership includes active duty,
retired, former military, and civil service intelligence personnel and U.S. citizens in industry, academia, or other civil pursuits who
are interested in being informed on aspects of intelligence. For a membership application, see the back page of this Journal.
Authors interested in submitting an article to the Journal are encouraged to send an inquiry with a short abstract of the text to
the Editor by e-mail at <aijeditor@nmia.org>. Articles and inquiries may also be submitted in hard copy to Editor, c/o NMIA, 256
Morris Creek Road, Cullen, Virginia 23934. Comments, suggestions, and observations on the editorial content of the Journal are
also welcome. Questions concerning subscriptions, advertising, and distribution should be directed to the Production Manager at
<admin@nmia.org>.
The American Intelligence Journal is published semi-annually. Each issue runs 100-200 pages and is distributed to key government officials, members of Congress and their staffs, and university professors and libraries, as well as to NMIA members, Journal
subscribers, and contributors. Contributors include Intelligence Community leaders and professionals as well as academicians
and others with interesting and informative perspectives.
Copyright NMIA. Reprint and copying by permission only.

American Intelligence Journal

Page i

Vol 30, No 2

AMERICAN INTELLIGENCE JOURNAL

Table of Contents
Editor's Desk ................................................................................................................................................................................. 1
Lest We Forget: Five Decades after the Construction of the Wall
by Dr. David M. Keithly ................................................................................................................................................ 4
Teaching Integrated Information Power: The NDU-NIU Approach
by Dr. Daniel T. Kuehl and LTC (USA, Ret) Russell C. Rochte ..................................................................................... 6
Arming the Intelligence Analyst for Information Warfare
by Maj (USAF) Robert D. Folker, Jr. ............................................................................................................................. 13
The Roots of Deception
by Dr. James A. Sheppard ............................................................................................................................................. 17
Geo-Profiling for Geospatial Intelligence: An Application to Maritime Piracy
by Lt Col (Italian AF) Vinicio Pelino and Capt (Italian AF) Filippo Maimone .............................................................. 22
The Other Fifty Percent: Psychological Operations and Women in Eastern Afghanistan
by Kailah M. Karl ......................................................................................................................................................... 28
Soft Power: The Limits of Humanitarian Intervention
by Dr. James E. McGinley, Louis P. Kelley, and Laura M. Thurston Goodroe ............................................................. 34
All That Jazz: CIA, Voice of America, and Jazz Diplomacy in the Early Cold War Years, 1955-1965
by Lt Col (USAF, Ret) James E. Dillard ........................................................................................................................ 39
A Labor Migrant's Handbook: A Looking-Glass into the State of Russia's Social Labor Divide
by LT (USN) Jason Gregoire ......................................................................................................................................... 51
Three Critical Factors in Intelligence Activity: Product, Process, and Personnel (The 3P Project)
by Ionel Nitu ................................................................................................................................................................ 57
Performing the Intelligence Mission Despite Large Budget Reductions
by John G. Schwitz ........................................................................................................................................................ 68
The Militarization of Intelligence: Can the Military Perform Covert Action More Effectively than the Intelligence Community?
by Stuart D. Lyle ........................................................................................................................................................... 79
Intercultural Competence for Future Leaders: Addressing Cultural Knowledge and Perception at West Point
by Dr. Richard L. Wolfel and Dr. Frank Galgano .......................................................................................................... 84
Mexicos Challenges: Why Colombias Solution to the Drug War Wont Work in Mexico
by Meghan Harrison .................................................................................................................................................... 93
Getting It Right: Assessing the Intelligence Communitys Analytic Performance
by Welton Chang ......................................................................................................................................................... 99

The opinions expressed in these articles are those of the authors alone. They do not reflect the official position of the U.S.
government, nor that of the National Military Intelligence Association, nor that of the organizations where the authors are
employed.
American Intelligence Journal

Page iii

Vol 30, No 2

AMERICAN INTELLIGENCE JOURNAL

Table of Contents (Continued)
A Shift in Leadership Praxis: A Creative and Innovative Leadership Journey of Transformation in a Military Intelligence Context
by Donald Patterson, Jr. ............................................................................................................................................. 109
Formal Modeling of Heterogeneous Social Networks for Human Terrain Analytics
by Dr. J. Wesley Regian .............................................................................................................................................. 114
In My View
To Win in Afghanistan, Destroy Pakistans ISI
by Howard Kleinberg ................................................................................................................................................. 120
Profiles in Intelligence series...
Joseph Goebbels: Propagandist
by Dr. Kenneth J. Campbell ........................................................................................................................................ 125
NMIA Bookshelf...
Robert Leikens Europes Angry Muslims: The Revolt of the Second Generation
reviewed by MAJ (USA) John M. Rose .................................................................................................................... 135
Peter Harts Gallipoli
Otto Liman von Sanders Five Years in Turkey
reviewed by Christopher N. Bailey ............................................................................................................................ 136
Amy Zegarts Eyes on Spies: Congress and the United States Intelligence Community
reviewed by Charles Carey ........................................................................................................................................ 137
Eric Feltons Loyalty: The Vexing Virtue
reviewed by Stephanie Wesley .................................................................................................................................. 138
Mark Owens No Easy Day: The Firsthand Account of the Mission that Killed Osama Bin Laden
reviewed by LTC (USA) Anthony Shaffer ................................................................................................................. 140

The opinions expressed in these articles are those of the authors alone. They do not reflect the official position of the U.S.
government, nor that of the National Military Intelligence Association, nor that of the organizations where the authors are
employed.
Vol 30, No 2

Page iv

American Intelligence Journal

Three Critical Factors in Intelligence Activity:

Product, Process, and Personnel (The 3P Project)
by Ionel Nitu, Romanian Intelligence Service

treated both within organizational theories and rational

choice theory (T.G. Cummings,3 L.J. Mullins4), as well as in
international relations theories (starting from the Graham
Allison and Philip Zelikow study on the Cuban Missile
Crisis5) or in psychological studies (regarding change, e.g.,
C.A. Carnall, W.W. Burke6).

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

he term 3P derives from the three very important

categories/areas in defining a reform process of
national security intelligence analysis, namely:

-Process (the analysis activity, with its entire set of

methods or means, internal procedures and standards,
but also with its various types of organization)
-Product (the results of the analysis activity, the
products which are sent to beneficiaries/users, and
the feedback or requests for information from the
intelligence consumers)
-Personnel (the intelligence analyst, as well as the
process of his/her selection and training)
Why these three Ps? I must confess that the idea of trying
to define the analysis activity, and implicitly the main parts
of reform in this important area for the activity of each
intelligence service, came following some discussions I had
with colleagues, experts, and intelligence analysts. I was coauthor of a paper (presented at an international forum)
concerning the evolution of intelligence analysis on these
three categories: process, product, and personnel.
Afterward, I found there is a whole literature that defines the
management processes (especially in corporations) or the
performance of an organization/company in the 3P logic.
Hence, I will briefly approach, from a theoretical point of
view, the subject of intelligence analysis reform, and I will
talk about the practical component, starting from these three
identified essential factors.

THEORETICAL PREMISES

ecurity risk dynamics after the end of the Cold War is

one of the research topics in international relations, as
well as in subsequent areas of security studies and
intelligence analysis. Among the most well-known authors
who discuss the subjects of globalization and widening the
security concept are James Rosenau, Alvin Toffler,1 Robert
Keohane, and Joseph Nye in the complex interdependence
theories or G. John Ikenberry regarding security strategies.2
The changes in the national security area were widely

American Intelligence Journal

The approaches concerning the change to intelligence

analysis are mostly of English origin and are limited to
debates on reform of the security area and interagency
cooperation. In this field, there are very famous studies
such as The Democratic Control of the Armed Forces
(DCAF Centre, Geneva) or Kings College, London, or
RAND Corporation, in the U.S., as well as those on policy
analysis carried out in an institutional framework (the
analysis of the Parliamentary commissions post-September
11 or Gregory Trevertons7 and Deborah Bargers8 studies).
The first scientific concerns (within the U.S. intelligence
community) belong to Sherman Kent (whose name was
given to the most famous research institute in this field, the
Center for Intelligence Studies, CIA) and Richards Heuer, Jr.9
The research on intelligence analysis was started after the
end of the Second World War along with the development
of the analytical domain within the CIA. Gradually, but in a
pronounced way in recent years (in the post-September 11
period), intelligence specialization (SIGINT, OSINT,
HUMINT, etc.) and technological development have led to
some intelligence studies focused on special fields (secret
sources, use of satellites, combating terrorism and organized
crime, etc.), but have offered a less comprehensive
perspective over the entire process of reform of intelligence
analysis. There has been advanced research on
developments in the intelligence area, which has been
generated by security system reforms and assessments
produced within different intelligence services in Europe and
the U.S., as well as by the development of cooperation
between services within NATO and the EU.
Nowadays, most of the studies concerning the intelligence
area have been generated by the emergence, after the end of
the Cold War, of some national intelligence communities (in
the U.S., United Kingdom, etc.) having the role of
harmonizing the objectives of intelligence services and

Page 57

Vol 30, No 2

integrating the collected intelligence. These communities

have been passing through a process of fundamental
changes with an impact on every component structure, but
they have achieved in time their own logic of institutional
development which involves transformation processes
differing from the individual ones of the intelligence
agencies.

- settling the general consensus on the goals and

pertinent tools for ensuring or promoting national
security interests;
- improving the architecture of the national
intelligence system according to security
challenges;
(b) relevant adjustments of institutions budgets as
a result of the transformation of institutional
priorities and personnel reduction 10;

Other relevant sources are the professional articles

published in various American and European magazines,
especially those in the area of intelligence and intelligence
analysis, concerning the failures and successes of
intelligence services in combating the new security threats
or managing the classic ones. The Parliamentary
commissions established in recent years (especially after
September 11) for assessing the activity of important
intelligence services have revealed the existence of various
dysfunctions which favored the appearance of analysis
failures. In this context, the need for reforming those
systems on several levels has become imperative.

(c) beginning the major reform process after the

end of the Second World War and, after that,
following September 11;
(d) surfacing the need to extend cooperation (at
the national and, especially, the international
level);
(e) modifying the internal requirements of
intelligence agencies (both pursuant to modifying
national legislation and the need to adapt to new
challenges);

In the U.S., the report of the commission which investigated

the activity of intelligence services after September 11
revealed the existence of shortcomings in ensuring the flow
of intelligence and mistakes in assessing the available data
(minimizing/ignoring the risk or, on the contrary,
exaggerating it). With respect to the reform of intelligence
analysis within the Romanian intelligence community, there
have not yet been studies or research dealing with this
subject in a unitary and comprehensive way.

(f) voicing the need for recruiting and guiding

personnel, and modifying the organizational
culture and methods and procedures;
In some cases the changes occurring within the
intelligence domain have been generated by:
- leakage of classified information or discovery
of targets, methods, etc., which have generated
legislative investigation or public opinion
pressures;
- intelligence failures (not necessarily those
which become public);
- changes in the political system or certain
governmental policies or decisions (including
those reducing the bureaucratic system);
- the dynamics of internal relationships
(cooperation protocols) or external agreements
(for example, the Club of Berne implies
adjustments of procedures and sometimes of
structures);
- changing the services leadership (every new
leader is tempted to impose his/her own
perspective);
- institutional necessities (concerning the
flexibility and reduction of bureaucracy)

ELEMENTS THAT INVOLVE THE

NECESSITY OF CHANGE

asically, the re-conceptualization process of the

intelligence paradigm was influenced by the activity
of several exogenous and endogenous factors.

Among the main internal factors inducing changes in the

intelligence field there are:
(a) the major changes in legislation or national
security strategiesas well as those generated by
the September 11 terrorist attacks. In the last
decade, many nations have updated their
doctrines, policies, strategies, and legislation
regarding security and intelligence and have begun
reform of the security domain (including
intelligence) by pursuing specific goals and
purposes:
- clarifying and developing the concepts within this
domain;
- unequivocally defining the elements representing
the condition for national security;

Vol 30, No 2

The most important exogenous determinations are posed

by the complex and dynamic developments of the security
environment, namely:

Page 58

American Intelligence Journal

(a) enhancing the threat areas and multiplication of

sources with high potential riskin the context of
growing the number of international actors (as a
consequence of disintegration of some multinational
states), growing the number of fragile societies/weak
states, and assuming an international and mainly
regional active role by some emerging powers. I am
referring to those factors that started to shape the
activity of intelligence structures:
- proliferation of actors, conflict sources, and
type of force used;
- cross-border character, enhancing the scope
and the impact of threats;
- technological progress caused by increasing
the vulnerability of many different and disparate
sources;
- prominence of unconventional forms of
conflict;
- increasingly targeting violence toward the
urban zone and the internal security area,
duplicating social tensions generated by
economic, ethnic, religious, and ideological
conditions.11
(b) emphasizing the globalization processwhich
generated, among others, the explosion of information
(multiplication of sources of information) and enhancing
the benefits of technical scientific progress, generating
also the globalization of risks. We witness a diminishing
of classical dichotomies, internal-external and politicalmilitary, in terms of risk development by the states.
Beyond the benefits derived from the dissolution of
borders and growing competitiveness as a consequence
of structural changes, globalizationthrough
phenomena that it generatesdetermines multiple tense
situations and demands changes in the security
environment.
Division and integration, internationalization and
regionalization, and centralization and decentralization are
several phenomena that create insecurity. Terrorism,
organized crime, economic crisis, starvation, and climatic
changes are global. In the current social economic
conditions, unequal access to resources defines the
difference between states and foments interstate conflicts.
We witness an increase in natural disasters, a reduction of
energy resources, and demographic growth related to
decreasing water and food resources. These phenomena
continue to affect global stability and security. The present
situation is the consequence of breaking down some
states following a deficiency in governance, precarious
economic conditions, continued ethnic/religious conflicts,
weakness of local and regional cooperation forums,
technological differences, etc. According to Dolghin, the
fight for energy resources dominates the geopolitics of the

American Intelligence Journal

21st century. The resources are where not necessary and

in the possession of those who do not deserve them.12
The accelerated process of integration, interdependence,
and communicationusually defined through
globalizationappears as the greatest challenge to the
national security system as well as to the states. Technical
scientific progress, accelerated rhythms of IT development,
and diversifying the types of information warfare have
enhanced the perspectives and scope of planning by
national security institutions and have imposed the
necessity for strategic assessments. Transposed at a level
of intelligence structures, this situation requires overcoming
the intuitive forms of prevision based on suppositions,
extrapolations, and heuristic exercises (requiring intuition,
flair, and creativity) and developing early warning systems;
(c) the hardly predictable character of the new types of
asymmetric and unconventional threats, compared to
classic threats, focused on state security.
Currently, the most important challenge that the international
community faces is caused by the complexity of the new
types of threats. These are difficult to identify, observe, and
interpret, considering that the security challenges differ from
one country to another and from one social group to
another. While the classic threats could be geographically
localized (risk factors for the nation-state), the new
asymmetric threats could probably affect any zone.
To anticipate and shape the future, as well as to promote
national security strategies/politics and adopt decisions with
major implications at the state level, certain substantiated
prognoses on a variety of domains are necessary: economic
trends, from technological development and climatic change
to diversification of the forms of fighting, and in particular
the atypical forms of conflict such as counterterrorism).
Getting intelligence and working out national security
strategies imply, over the long term, establishing challenging
domains and defining objectives. In line with this aspect,
utility of intelligence analysis (strategic prognosis) consists
in the fact it could provide an advantage to that person who
better knows the requirements of a future war, and draws the
necessary conclusions for implementing them in a timely
manner. In order to counteract the new types of risks and
threats, intelligence services have initiated processes both
to change the acting component of the intelligence activity
(enhanced competencies for the intelligence services in
fields such as energy security, food security, etc.) and to
increase the role of the analytical component (enhancing the
anticipative and preventive component) in order to improve
the capability of response to these new challenges.
Increasingly, analysts have noted that security is not only a
military power issue but also an issue of access to

Page 59

Vol 30, No 2

intelligence, of understanding the critical role of

complementarity between decision-making and intelligence.
The focus is not on combating threats any longer, but on the
activity of prevention. This requires a proportional increase
in the role and real importance of the intelligence services. It
should be noted that the global development of events has
formed an unknown issue in the domain of study: the
relationship between intelligence and security, where
intelligence is the strategic resource of power;
(d) the non-operative developments (that are not
necessarily related to the dynamic of risks and threats,
such as technological ones, to security). IT
developments are equally opportunities for modernizing
services and also meeting challenges that could cause
further risks and difficulties in monitoring those risks;
(e) a direct (arming a hostile neighboring country, war)
or imminent (environmental, health) threat;

-at the operational level, developing some

intelligence fusion capabilities to integrate
data held by different governmental bodies;
-at the strategic level, developing the national
intelligence community, as well as international
cooperation, in formats both bilateral and
multilateral (with noticeable outcomes, explicitly
mentioned for growing the common potential to
prevent and counteract security risks, accommodate
actionable procedures, etc.).
Among the most imperative needs for efficiently
managing current and future risks is enhancing
national and international cooperation.

Within the process of changing intelligence analysis

(regardless of its level of profoundness or the fact it is
revolutionary or, on the contrary, evolutionary), it is very
important to establish and, subsequently, monitor:
-the necessities that impose change (e.g., modification
of national priorities and objectives after Romanias
joining of NATO and the UE, changing the picture of
risks and threats to national security, and enhancing
cooperation with Euro-Atlantic services, including
other institutions in the national security system);
-the principles and objectives targeted through the
process of change (e.g., defining and implementing
some scientific methods for intelligence analysis and
human resources management, growing institutional
flexibility, increasing the quality of activity and the
capacity of response to challenges as well as security
opportunities, and strengthening the institutional
profile);
-the achieved or foreseen outcomes, in every relevant
component (structural, functional, ruling, resources
management, internal, and external relationships) and
the effects on that component of the intelligence
process.
Intelligence reform cannot pursue anything but
designing a more efficient and flexible organization,
connected to the informational society, capable of
rapidly reacting to security challenges and proactively
following its responsibilities, open to public opinion,
and functioning not only based on rules and
procedures but also adopting new attitudes and
mentalities.

(f) joining regional political/military/economic

organizations (e.g., NATO and EU) that impose new
standards and institutionalize some forms of cooperation
(which determine structural reorganization, new
objectives and missions, etc.).
Usually, the changes in intelligence services are an outcome
of the simultaneous action of exogenous and endogenous
factors.

PRAXIOLOGICAL GUIDING MARKS TO

UNDERLINE THE CHANGING IN
INTELLIGENCE ACTIVITY

he reality showed that their change is mainly a

reactive process that occurs when an inflection
strategic point is reached, beyond which the current
procedures (business as usual) could not efficiently work
anymore.
For a real change in the intelligence field, what is necessary
is an enhanced strategy of transforming a new doctrinal
framework, a rapid adjusting and continuous learning
system, and transforming the national security system in an
intelligence service focused on networks (through
interconnecting intelligence platforms of the component
structures, disseminating them for analyzing multi-sources,
and conducting joint operations).

From a practitioners perspective, among the main drivers

of change one could mention:

It should be noted that, after 9/11, reform in the intelligence

field in the majority of Western countries generated two
significant developments:

Vol 30, No 2

Page 60

-the detailed planning of change stages and the

thorough preparation of their launching;
-the consultation with organization members
following the early stages of change planning
together with permanent communication with
American Intelligence Journal

them, with the purpose of informing the members of

intermediate objectives and results, as well as
corrections needed;
-the acceptance and undertaking of expected
decisions, as well as an exact understanding, by each
member, of his/her role within the system;
-the alteration not only of objectives, tasks, structure,
and organization but also of the essential features of
organizational culture and mentalities, impacting both
the internal environment as well as relations with the
external environment.
The success of the transformation decisively depends on
the people working for the intelligence agencies, on their
quality, authority, and determination to take over the role of
primary internal agents of change. However, success is also
the result of the external agents contribution (decisionmakers, partner services, etc.), as well as that of the people
involved in modeling the change (consultants or specialists).
The approach to change in the intelligence domain must
have as a starting point analysis of intelligence imperatives
after the Cold War and taking into account the events of 9/
11, which lead to the identification of multiple deficiencies at
the level of the intelligence communities. Among the
deficiencies, one could mention the lack of joint standards
and practices for internal and external structures, the
reduced capacity to establish priorities and use of resources,
the multiplicity of tasks, the complex organization and
functioning of intelligence work, extreme secrecy, and the
structural barriers to cooperation. We must also equally take
into account the intrinsic features of the intelligence services
(the conservatism, the specific hierarchy, the security
agenda, etc.), as well as new requests for them, stemming
from the significant shifts in the security environment, the
technological boom, and customers needs and expectations
regarding the accuracy of predictions and the control of
unexpected developments.

analysis process cannot be an objective by itself if it

does not reside in the augmentation of the predictive
dimension as well as of the analytic products quality;
-it is not desirable to conduct human resources training
exclusively, in the absence of an increase in the
quality of the analysis process and without the two
above-mentioned objectives to be achieved in
intelligence product improvement and diversification;
-an increase in the quality of the analytic products
cannot be achieved, in order to meet the increasingly
complex needs of diversified customers, in the absence
of improving the other two factors: the analysis
process and personnel.

The First P The Process

s long as intelligence work has as its main purpose,

generally speaking, to reduce consumers inherent
and natural uncertainty, specific to the complex
national security issues as well as their induced uncertainty
(by manipulation and disinformation operations), the
analysis process is mainly oriented to transform the results
of intelligence work into a specific contribution to the states
and its citizens security.
From a functional perspective, intelligence analysis must
have a pivotal role between national security intelligence
collection and processing on the one hand, and dissemination
(information) on the other.
Any explanatory model used in intelligence studies starts
with the intelligence cycle. The classic cycle implies certain
logic, even a linear one: request/planning collection
processing/analysis dissemination. Analysts and
managers from different intelligence agencies with
significant traditions are proposing new versions of the
classic intelligence cycle where, given the informational
flood, analysis is not only a part of the overall process but a
necessary input to every stage of the cycle.

WHY 3P?

tarting with the previously mentioned considerations

and the day-to-day activity assessments within an
intelligence analysis department, we could consider
that the three Ps are becoming crucial factors in the reform
and modernization processes regarding intelligence analysis
within the intelligence communities and services. The need
for an integrated approach of the three factors results from
the fact they cannot be analyzed separately:
-it is not feasible solely to improve the analytic process
(for example, by implementing new scientific methods
for analysis, creating new work methodologies, or
extending cooperation with academia) in the absence
of professional analysts. The improvement of the
American Intelligence Journal

Therefore, in the launching stage of the intelligence process

(the result of either a consumer request or the internal
planning process), the analysis should contribute to the
orientation of intelligence collection, the precedence of the
objectives, etc. Within the collection stage, selecting the
targets and risks to be monitored implies an analysis of the
priorities of the state and the hierarchy of national security
risks. Within the processing stage, the analysis becomes
self-referential when it has the objective of assessing its own
product (through a specific period, taking into account the
ratio between the predictions and the effective
developments, etc.). Furthermore, while disseminated to the
intelligence consumers, the analysis plays a critical role
regarding the shape and content of the intelligence product,
the feedback assessment, the identification of ways to

Page 61

Vol 30, No 2

consolidate the cooperation between producer (analyst) and

consumer (intelligence customer), and even the development
of a common language for them.
From the methodological perspective, it is necessary to
improve analysis processes and products by continuously
adapting the structure and the working methods, in a way that
the final product is obtained as rapidly as possible, at a highquality level and efficiently (cost-benefit ratio).
In order to eliminate the situation where the intelligence
analysis fails due to the limits of the analytical process, a
reform of intelligence analysis should envisage:
- theoretically (re)designing the analysis domain,
creating new instruments for work standardization
and developing the methodology extensively (the
increase in the number of research methods, including
implementing new methods and techniques used by
private intelligence structuresbenchmarking,
reengineering, risk and strategic management,
competitive intelligence etc.as well as enlarging
their domain for applicability) and intensively
(refining/perfecting the utilized research methods). It
also could be extremely useful to import methods from
other sciences, especially the social sciences,
applicable to current intelligence work.

assessment, scenario method, concurrent hypotheses

analysis, conflicting decisions analysis,
corresponding to strategic intelligence) in order to
meet customers requests and needs, focused on
assessing the implications and emphasizing the
uncertainties.
I would support the idea regarding the need for a conceptual
apparatus for intelligence analysis with Rob Johnstons13
findings, whoafter hundreds of interviews and multiple
inputs by U.S. working teams immediately after 9/11did
not identify any standard analytical method for intelligence
analysis. The author mentions that the most com-mon
practice is to conduct limited brainstorming on the basis of
previous analy-sis, thus producing a bias toward
confirming earlier views. [...] None of the analytic agencies
knows much about the analytic techniques of the others. In
all, there tends to be much more emphasis on writing and
com-munication skills than on analytic methods. [...] Most
training is on-the-job. 14
I believe that, as the operatives have to learn human source
approach and recruiting techniques, the analysts have to
know and use analytical methods. Particularly important for
this complex approach, although a new concept within the
domestic intelligence community, is meta-analysis, which
could also be called the analysis of analysis.

The necessity of developing a conceptual apparatus for

intelligence analysis is built on the concern regarding
elimination of the confusion generated by the absence of
consensus on the used/operable notions and concepts in
intelligence analysis;
- implementing lessons learned mechanisms, in order
to allow the inventory and sharing (even in the
educational process) of the factors influencing
analysis work (analysis errors, limits or deficiencies
determined by some other factors, such as
psychological ones, the timelines, etc.);
- addressing in a cross-disciplinary manner the security
problems/phenomena and elaborating multi-source
analytical products;
- valuing open/public sources, taking into account
that the open society and the flood of available
information is facilitating the use of unclassified
methods in motivating and implementing security
policies;
- focusing analysis work on the development of the
capacities and capabilities needed for elaborating
predictive/anticipative intelligence products, in order
to allow vulnerabilities identification and the
countering of risks challenging national security;
- pushing for the use of intuitive-predictive techniques
(opportunities analysis, reduced probability

Vol 30, No 2

From this perspective, the concept of metaanalysis designates:

- on the one hand, the assessmentmainly in terms
of efficiencyof the degree of harmonization between
the methods and techniques employed during the
analytical process and national security data and
information to be processed with a view to developing
intelligence products;
- on the other hand, the complex theoretical approach
meant to identify the intimate mechanisms that define
the analytical process specific to the intelligence area
and to (re)configure the used conceptual and
methodological instruments in order to improve
analysis and prognosis by stimulating critical thinking.
Johnston 15 endorses the foundation of an
Improvement Performance Infrastructure, able to
measure the actual and ideal analytical performances,
to compare them (in order to reveal the performance
gaps), to intervene (with the aim of improving the
analysis) and, subsequently, to measure once again
the performance (to evaluate the efficacy of the
interventions).
From a structural point of view, the proper projection of
analytical levels attributions is essential for setting up
networks of communication between the intelligence

Page 62

American Intelligence Journal

structures (gathering and analysis) and for establishing

various efficient response mechanisms. The IT platforms
have, from this perspective, a major role. They aim at
facilitating the interaction (especially as far as the task
forces are concerned), improving operability (in receiving
and recognizing the value of the inputs used in developing
the intelligence products) as well as in augmenting the
interaction between analysis and intelligence gathering.

The Second P The Personnel

According to the 3P Project, it is indispensable to
implement a functional model of professional training (as far
as intelligence analysis is concerned) having as priorities the
training of:
-newly employed individuals;
-trainers (given that they will have a major role in
identifying the existing training needs as well as in
upgrading existing training programs).
As far as the new employees are concerned, the selection of
personnel and recruitment policies are essential. After their
employment, their intense and staged training is
indispensable. The training has to start from the premise
that what most people know about this job is mostly false.
It is the duty of the organization and its recruiters to present
its correct image and to work in order to destroy the already
established myths.16
From a functional perspective, the imperative of developing
analytical capabilities (tactically and strategically) in order to
identify the best methods for linking the existing capabilities to
the priorities of national security is a fact. This is the sine qua
non goal for the intelligence agencies, most of which have
various extensive programs for training individuals involved in
the activity of analysis.
Modernizing this critical component of analytical intelligence
aims at identifying the needs of the analysts own selection
and professional development, within the framework of his/
her career within an analytical department. The selection
methods have to shift from a passive attitude (merely
publishing the educational offer and taking any resume or
application into account) to an offensive one (selection on
specialized websites, information campaigns regarding
universities training the specialists the intelligence agencies
need, taking part in job-related activities, etc.). For some
posts (such as high-level ones) head-hunting companies
might help.
From a structural perspective, it is important to have various
psychological tests (starting with the selection process) focusing
on vocational aptitude. Also, professional tests (based on
competences and knowledge) can support the recruitment
American Intelligence Journal

process. Later on, work diagnoses might be extremely helpful,

focusing on the psycho-professional profile of the analyst (as
well as on features for shaping future generations of analysts)
and the identification of performance criteria (allowing the
identification of significant elements in assuring the analysts
efficiency as well as their activitys evaluation criteria).
Nonetheless, developing experience-exchange mechanisms
(between various analytical departments and also between
areas of intelligence gathering and analysis) and generalizing
the positive practices might contribute towaard optimizing the
analytical process, broadening the analysts knowledge horizon,
and avoiding errors as far as their shaping is concerned.
From a relational perspective, it is vital to have permanent
exchanges of opinion, projections, experience, etc., with similar
structures within Western intelligence services as well as
connections to academic research linked to national security.
Keeping the analysts updated with the realities of the security
context as well as the fundamental research in related fields
(economics, international relations, public administration, etc.)
makes possible a proper understanding of the security evolutions
that must be evaluated periodically. Attending scientific
conferences, seminars, and roundtables keeps analysts minds
open, allows them to exercise initiative, and promotes a proactive
attitude (in regard to their study objectives) to be creative and,
at the same time, to practice a critical approach. An analysis
culture rooted in cooperation and interaction, on decisional
relevance, implies automatically the development of a more
subtle relationship between the various levels of the
intelligence.17
From a cognitive perspective, given the inherent difficulties
of processing complex information, analysts have to be
encouraged to clearly separate their assumptions by deduction
and to specify the degree and the source of incertitude involved
in the meta-analysis which periodically reexamines the key
problems in the context. The analysts have to be stimulated to
be innovative as well as rigorous, to use analytical instruments
(scientifically validated), to underline the methods presenting
various viewpoints, and to present (in intelligence products for
decision-makers) not only the limits but also the virtues of
analysis.
From a managerial perspective, it is important to create an
organizational medium for stimulating analysis and assuring
training in intelligence-related analysis, focused on an attempt
to widen the analysts mental model. Given that the analyst has
to estimatebased on available information, his own experience,
and his own psychological abilities (intuition, creativity,
imagination)the evolution tendencies of threat indicators or
their emergence, there is a risk that the intelligence analysis will
be limited by human mental capabilities and the burden of using
mental fixations or lenses.18

Page 63

The following are the reasons for which they have to

be developed:
Vol 30, No 2

-modern policies for the selection of the intelligence

analysts (used by particular services) and for
stimulating performance (individual or teamwork);
-programs (as diversified as possible) for the training
of analysts, by means of experience exchanges with
other services, connection to trends of scientific
research in expertise areas, and attending seminars
and conferences, as well as promotion of individual
permanent training.
Works fulfillment is very important not only for gaining the
optimal status for the performance of analysts but also for
limiting the number of resignations in the intelligence
agencies. For these reasons, creating an optimal working
environment (based on meritocracy, ability to stimulate
professional performance, and access to management
positions) is a must. The non-induced resignationsalso
known as deserting19have consequences both in
maintaining the secrecy of classified information (known by
the analysts) as well as in regard to finances, given the high
costs needed for the specialization of this special category
of personnel.20

The Third P The Product

National security has a multidimensional character, requiring
an integrated and interdisciplinary approach. Its
accomplishment is possible only within the framework of the
existence of suitable institutional mechanisms between the
forces and the levers aimed at defending and promoting
national interests.
Countering the actual complex threats implies the
implementation of an integrated mode of response, involving
political, social, diplomatic, informational, military, and other
categories of elements. It requests improvement of the
relationships with the beneficiaries of national security
information in order to have efficient feedback, capable of
(re)orienting, subsequently, the intelligence activity;
strengthening of cooperation between the specialized
structures within national security; and opening
communication and cooperation channels between the
intelligence analysts and academic scholars or researchers
(having expertise that might contribute to improving the
analyses and assessments).
From a methodological perspective, it is becoming obvious
that, in the actual context, the activity of the institutions
involved in assuring the security climate has to be organized in
a manner which allows analytical structures to adapt and face
the new provocations (prefigured by risks and threat extension,
in regard to national security).
Given that the demands to inform decision-makers are based
on actionable intelligence (tactical analyses needed for
Vol 30, No 2

taking specific decision in various areas) as well as on

strategic intelligence (as a consequence of the complex
evolutions in the security domain), in the process of
reforming intelligence analysis both analytical types
(tactical and strategic) must have equal importance. The
classical terminology might lead, in a first phase, to the
wrong conclusions: intelligence as analytical product is
actionable in itself. One might choose a specific course of
action or, on a strategic level, might determine (given
available evaluations) the advantages or disadvantages of a
certain state policy, the assumed risks, and the way that
specific policy has an impact on national security.
One of the unwanted effects of the relationship between the
producer and the consumer of intelligence, excessive
information, generates by default certain selection
difficulties in the news-ocean of data which reflect
correctly a certain reality. The national security reality goes
progressively from the black-and-white, concrete reality to
the area of perception, to images of reality that various
actors involved in security build. In comparison to these
changing realities, tactical intelligence can be an anchor, a
substratum of reality, while strategic intelligence is trying to
make a prediction, a transversal vision of all layers of reality.
From this point of view, both are vital and reinforce each
other.
The failure of analysis of information activity in foreseeing a
surprise (e.g., the 9/11 attacks, the Indian nuclear test of
1998) reveals the importance to be attached to the same
extent of strategic assumptions and estimates based on
technical indications, and the occurrence of minimum tactical
indicators which appear at random with strategic
assumptions being able to point out a possible surprise.
In terms of structure, analytical activity involves support
management decision- taking at the leadership level, through
making available to beneficiaries of products designed to
substantiate the adoption and effective implementation of
measures to promote national interests.
There are many forms in which information activity is
conducted to inform beneficiaries, but most often this
support remains, despite technological developments, on
paper. There are few services (especially in the Anglo-Saxon
system) which currently practice direct networking between
producer (briefer) and consumer (state decision-makers).
Some analysts believe that the consumer should be caught
carefully between the moments when he is willing to listen
and when he is going to take a decision. Beneficiaries have
not been and will not be interested (e.g., ex-U.S. President
Jimmy Carter) in the importance of intelligence products and
do not rely on them. That does not necessarily mean they
are good or bad politicians.

Page 64

American Intelligence Journal

Beyond the concrete forms of development of this

relationship it is important to build a real partnership based
on mutual trust between producer and consumer, allowing
the rapid and accurate knowledge of the needs of the
consumer and capturing relevant reactions so useful for
planning intelligence activities, but also understanding the
strength and limits of this kind of activity. Therefore, only
through a partnership between producers and consumers, an
often difficult and tortuous one which always must be
validated, supported, and defended can intelligence define in
an effective way those competitive advantages so much
needed in strategic knowledge, that only can decide a
victory or failure of the state in the security field.21
From a related perspective, a reform in the field of intelligence
analysis needs to aim at the imperative of adapting the analytic
product to consumer needs, its security agenda, and its
physiological profile. The implementation of various methods
such as neuro-linguistic programming or distance personality
studies can be extremely useful for ensuring adequacy of the
message to the beneficiary profile.
Clear standards and high exigencies must be implemented,
both in ensuring the objectivity and credibility of analytical
products and in editing them. These must be two-ply by
various auditing and evaluation mechanisms of intelligence
products, which can offer on a monthly basis rigorous
internal perspectives about possible errors or the efficiency
of the informing action.
The role of the intelligence consumer within the information
cycle is very important, assuring the efficiency of the
activity of national security. In this respect, one might
project various typologies of settling the relationship
between the producer and the consumer as well as obtaining
feedback (allowing permanent adjustments of information
gathering and analysis). Intelligence structures have to
empathize. This means they have to put themselves in the
interlocutors shoes (the consumers shoes), to identify their
needs (justified needs, related to national security objectives
and matching the legal attributions) and try to accomplish
them. The empathy, the fair attitude, and the relation
between the producer and the consumer (natural in
democracy) suppose that the producer tries to persuade the
consumer, knowing of his/her needs or supposing his/her
misinterpretations or difficulties, understanding his/her legal,
political and public agenda boundaries, and knowing as well
the producers and consumers limits, originated in their
human condition.

intelligence), but we do not except that, maybe in this

moment, it is possible that someone makes mistakes (in an
intelligence product) or a beneficiary does so (in adapting to
certain decisions). It is possible that now (when reading
these lines) an analyst is committing an understandable error
or a decision-maker is assuming several things, including
one that is wrong or that might generate perverse effects
(unplanned) in the future.

GUIDING POINTS FOR DEVELOPING AN

ANALYTICAL CULTURE WITHIN THE
INTELLIGENCE COMMUNITY IN
ROMANIA

ne of the aims of any project for changes within the

intelligence analysis domain should be the
development of an analytical culture in the national
intelligence community, in order to implement measures that
generate added-value in the products and process of
analysis, as well as enhancement of the professional training
level of analysts.
The development of an analytical culture certainly needs
time, given the fact that for the most part in the postcommunist period the main institutional objective was to
target products (intelligence activity outcomes) and not
processes, much less regarding personnel. According to
Treverton, analysts should become a dynamic for changing,
working successively in other security agencies, employing
personnel from outside, and organizing brainstorming with
other personnel as routine actions, not as an exception.
They should spend time outside not in their offices, sharing
assessments with other experts and verifying their agendas
with decision makers.22
Adjusting the analytical component of the intelligence
process to security environment changes requires
development of an analytical culture on three levels:

As a former analyst said (one of the few who had the

opportunity to become later a beneficiary): We have to
understand that we all make mistakes. We so easily admit
the idea that our predecessors were wrong, and history is
full of accepted errors (producers and consumers of

American Intelligence Journal

Page 65

-At the individual level, through reshaping the training

and developing programs and attending courses/
changes of experience with other structures of the
national security system, foreign services, and
academic environment;
-Evaluating the potential and developing new
competencies and skills of analysis that require a
coherent program for career development resulting in
well-shaped character at some stages of initializing,
training, and permanent development;
-At the institutional (organizational) level, through
reshaping current practices in the intelligence analysis
domain, as well as developing an analytical culture. In
this domain, a critical area is represented by developing
mechanisms and assimilating the outcomes of some

Vol 30, No 2

processes and lessons learned that draw out the

needs for change through assessing previous errors
and mistakes;
-With regard to the external environment, through
supporting analysts attendance both as observers
and as lecturers at activities, courses, and programs
conducted by the academic and scientific community;
encouraging the analysts attendance at events with
their counterparts in foreign partner services,
community or Euro-Atlantic security organizations,
symposia, seminars, and other forums of foreign
cooperation; developing the intra-institutional
cooperation through flexible mechanisms of
coordination and developing tools for timely
communication between analytical and operational
sectors.

The world is changing from an essentially (quantifiably, visibly)

threatening one to one dominated by diffuse, formless, and less
predictable risks and surprises (impossible to anticipate); from
classical wars to cyber, economic, cognitive ones; from linear,
predictable, quantifiable developments to non-linear, accidental,
diffuse ones; and from symmetry to multiple asymmetries.
Surprises, known in the specialty literature as black swans,
will be increasingly present in our life.

Actually, The 3 P Project furthers, on the one hand, a

permanent adjusting of intelligence analysis (on the three
above-mentioned levels) in order to cope with challenges in
the security risk domain and, on the other hand, to introduce
scientifically confirmed tools in the analytical process
(methods and techniques from other disciplines), products
(adjusting the message to the beneficiarys profile and the
consumers profile too), and the personnel selection and
training process.
As for the analytical managers on different levels, a subject
not covered in this article, I feel they should be permanently
focused on the improvement of performance from the
perspective of the three key factors and they should
advance from the stance of delivering analytical products to
supplying knowledge. They are not leaders (heads) of
departments any more, but also of knowledge. Their
authority will be less and less formal and bureaucratic and
increasingly anticipative and informal. They should not
indicate the way to act but the way forward for the
structures and personnel they lead.
They should encourage dynamic forms of organization and
ensure the transition from hierarchical, rigid structures to
flexible working groups, since the modern intelligence
services are less hierarchical and increasingly of the
network-centric type.23 Any intelligence analysis manager
should cease his current activity to forecast his future and to
encourage other individuals to act in reaching future
desirable persons.

Any reform, adjustment plan, etc., should be developed to

meet the future or futures, since it is more and more
difficult to anticipate what the future will bring. In a world
of uncertainties, the intelligence structures are not relying
exclusively on the former succeeding strategies to project
the future strategies.24

Vol 30, No 2

The event black swan has these attributes: it is an isolated

case, beyond the usual current expectations since in the past
nothing indicated the possibility for it to occur; and it has a
significant impact and retrospective (not inclusively
prospective) predictability that allow us to explain it after it is
occurring.25 We already face a real tsunami in the information
technology domain (it is not an accident that the Romanian
Intelligence Service named its strategic vision for 2011-2015
SRI in the informational era). Who anticipated the Wikileaks
event? And the explosion of social networks? Facebook and
Twitter enhancing their use not only in socializing but also in
targeting the political arena (see the Facebook effect on young
people or the Twitter revolution in the Republic of Moldova)
will result in reshaping social theories. Who thinks that these
spontaneous, unstructured, and virtual forms of association
without obvious political aims, without a registered office,
without leaders and political platforms, could become
significant non-state actors in sociological or international
relations theories? The influence of an idea or an objective
posted on Facebook could be stronger than the one promoted
by a state institution. The Internet is intended to replace the
written media and soon the audio and video ones too.
Richard Betts states that intelligence is a domain in which
failure is unavoidable, as the planning of resources and data
collecting are realizable only based on current priorities and not
on future ones. Automatically, the intelligence agencies focus
their efforts only on current risks and not on future ones which
has always led to strategic surprises.26 This is the reason we
should change our approach in seeing reality from many angles
(perspectives). We should train our analysts better for facing
future (not current) risks. We should introduce scenario
analysis and simulations in intelligence analysis (several federal
agencies in the U.S. use simulations with analytical scenarios)
as standard procedures in current activities. The future is for
the futurologists, if they can be integrated into analysts teams
and also placed among authors, film directors, and scenesetters whose opinions should be periodically asked by
analysts.

Besides, at the national security level, methods for

inventorying the futures (probable, improbable) futures
should be invented. Although national security is not only
a responsibility of certain state institutions but also of the
entire society (it is a common asset), certain domestic
vulnerabilities (duplicated by probable errors or lacking

Page 66

American Intelligence Journal

some decisions) and the development of the security

environment equally influence the state, society, and the
citizen. In Romania the concept of resilience is not yet
operational. Resilience should be part of the countrys
National Defense Strategy and be transposed in modalities
of post-event acting, with very clear implementing
procedures, which allows an immediate intervention (any
second of delay could result in multiplication of
consequences).
I do not want to conclude in a pessimistic tone, but it is
necessary to mention I have attended many international
conferences and symposia. In those situations, at the same
table there were state (governmental and parliamentary)
institutions, intelligence services, NGOs, academics/
scientists, and individuals from the private security sector.
In Romania, this situation is difficult to imagine as a
possibility. International traditions or pure vanity prompt us
to work with us and for us. We live in a suspicious,
apprehensive, anxious society that is fighting the future (or,
at any rate, it does not intend to shape or develop the future)
and its (often unpredictable) consequences implicitly. The
future is uncertain as it is a development of self-interests.
We do not determine what will be our image or our make-up
20-30 years from now (by the way, we have no significant
study regarding the future image of Romania in 20-30 years),
in order to plan how to influence that future through
investing already in research, education, infrastructure, etc.
In the political programs and security strategies of Romania,
from 1990 to the present, there has been no word future.
Therefore, Romania is not thinking about or interested in this
specificity. We have no courses on strategic thinking for
civil servants and we have no think-tanks specializing in
national security. In all probability, now is the moment for
planning that infrastructure to ensure the desired future.
Notes
1
Toffler, Alvin (1970), Future Shock, Random House, New York.
2
Baylis, John, and Smith, Steve (2001), The Globalisation of World
Politics: An introduction to International Relations, Oxford University
Press, UK.
3
Cummings, T.G., and Huse, E.F. (1989), Organizational
Development and Change, West, St. Paul, Minnesota.
4
Mullins, L.J. (1989), Management and Organizational Behavior,
Pitman Publishing, London.
5
Allison, Graham, and Zelikow, Philip (1999), Essence of Decision:
Explaining the Cuban Missile Crisis, Addison Wesley, Logman, Inc.,
New York.
6
Carnall, C.A., Managing Change in Organisations, Prentice Hall
International, New York, 1990.
Burke, W.W., Organization change: Theory and practice. 2nd ed. Sage
Publications, 2008.
7
Treverton, Gregory F. (1993), Reshaping National Intelligence for an
Age of Information, Cambridge University Press, UK.
8
Barger, Deborah G., Towards a Revolution in Intelligence Affairs,
www.rand.org.

American Intelligence Journal

Heuer, Richards J., Jr. (1999), Psychology of Intelligence Analysis,

Center for the Study of Intelligence, Central Intelligence Agency,
Washington, DC.
10
Allison, Graham, and Zelikow, Philip (1999), Essence of Decision:
Explaining the Cuban Missile Crisis, Adison Wesley, Longman, New
York, pp. 145-147.
11
Treverton, Gregory (2005), The Next Step in Reshaping Intelligence,
Rand Corporation.
12
Dolghin, Nicolae (2004), Geopolitics: Dependence of energy
resources, UNAp Publishing House, Bucharest, Romania.
13
Rob Johnston (2005), Analytic Culture in the U.S. Intelligence
Community: An Ethnographic Study, Center for the Study of
Intelligence, Central Intelligence Agency, Washington, DC.
14
Ibid., p. 3.
15
Ibid. p. 85.
16
Ibid., p. 78.
17
Maior, George Cristian, coord. (2010), A Brains War: Intelligence,
Information Services and Strategic Knowledge in the XXI Century,
RAO Publishing House, Bucharest, Romania, p. 59
18
Heuer, Richards, Jr. (1999), Psychology of Intelligence Analysis,
Center for the Study of Intelligence, Washington, DC, pp. 45-99.
19
Johnston, Rob (2005), op. cit., p. 86.
20
Ibid., p. 87.
21
Maior, George Cristian, coord. (2010), A Brains War: Intelligence,
Information Services and Strategic Knowledge in the XXI Century,
RAO Publishing House, Bucharest, Romania, p. 31.
22
Treverton, Gregory F. (2003), Reshaping National Intelligence for
an Age of Information, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK,
p. 246.
23
Clark, Robert M. (2007), Intelligence Analysis: A Target-Centric
Approach, CQ Press, Washington, DC.
24
Maior, George Cristian (2010), op. cit., p. 27.
25
Taleb, Nassim Nicholas (2008), Black Swan: The Impact of the
Highly Improbable, Curtea Veche Publishing House, Bucharest,
Romania, p. 13.
26
Betts, Richard K. (1978), Analysis, War and Decision: Why
Intelligence Failures Are Inevitable, World Politics 31, no. 1, October
1978, p. 78.

Ionel Nitu graduated from the Romanian National

Intelligence Academy Mihai Viteazul and the National
Defence College (both in Bucharest). He has a master of
arts degree in International Relations and European
Integration from SNSPA Bucharest and another masters in
Security Studies from the University of Bucharests Faculty
of Sociology. He also earned a PhD in Military Science
and Intelligence. He teaches at the National Intelligence
Academy Mihai Viteazul and is a guest trainer for the
Faculty of Sociology. Dr. Nitu is an expert in intelligence
analysis (head of the Analysis Department of the Romanian
Intelligence Service) and has published several studies
regarding management of the analysis process and various
intelligence prognoses.

Page 67

Vol 30, No 2