Exploiting Intelligence

Identifying, Neutralizing, and Exploiting the Intelligence Activities of Adversaries

Nations of the world employ intelligence agencies to collect and analyze information in order to exploit the weaknesses of other nations and further each nation’s own objectives. Counterintelligence is utilized to combat the intelligence activities of other nations and to circumvent the exploitation of each nation’s secrets. Nations must maximize the funds spent on counterintelligence and devise successful means to identify, neutralize, and exploit the intelligence activities of other nations. Employing effective doctrine and training methods, making use of operational and communication security procedures, and empowering intelligence agencies to take affirmative action are steps that nations must employ to recognize, neutralize, and take advantage of foreign intelligence agencies activities directed at them.

Effective training begins with proper doctrine. Current intelligence agencies teach operational and communication security. Recognized since the times of Sun Tzu and Thucydides, securing lines of communication during warfare and peacetime continues to be an important military and civilian effort. However, according to Gregory Jacobsen, U.S. Army doctrine provides little guidance to commanders and mission planners for maintaining secure lines of communication in the battlefield.[1] Vague communication policies make it incumbent on each commander to develop his or her communications security individually. Further, without a standard operational policy in place, providing effective initial raining to the operators becomes difficult to accomplish. Doctrine should include descriptions of the proper use of classified and unclassified networks and systems and communication mediums for the secure transfer of sensitive information.

The principles fundamental to operational security are found throughout history. U.S. operational security practices trace back to the colonial period and the Revolutionary War and continue to be an important part of modern warfare. George Washington was known as an operational security practitioner and recognized that even seemingly unimportant information can be used to exploit the enemy, "Even minutiae should have a place in our collection, for things of a seemingly trifling nature, when enjoined with others of a more serious cast, may lead to valuable conclusion."[2] Likewise, foreign intelligence officers seek to obtain as much information as possible, with the hopes that their collection and analysis may “lead to [a] valuable conclusion.” Counterintelligence officers must perform a two-part function in operational security. First, by denying sensitive information from foreign intelligence agencies and second, by finding out how the enemy obtains sensitive information counterintelligence officers work to identify and neutralize the efforts of the nation’s enemies.

Both communications security and operational security are designed to secure important data, therefore, in order for a nation to effectively identify, neutralize, and exploit the intelligence activities of other nations, it must assess the situation to identify the potential threats. Then the nation must ascertain the information the foreign intelligence agencies may attempt to acquire and by what means they could acquire the data. Next, it must access the security measures in place and determine if those measures are sufficient to the threat. Cost/benefit analysis should be utilized to determine if public funds are being utilized in the most effective manner concerning the threats and vulnerabilities of the nation and finally, gaps in security should be filled appropriately. By studying the potential threats and information valuable to them, analyzing weaknesses in security and implementing countermeasures, nations can effectively thwart the intelligence activities of other nations directed at them.

Empowering intelligence agencies to conduct effective counterintelligence and countermeasures to prevent the collection and subsequent exploitation of sensitive information is the final element required for a successful program to neutralize and exploit the intelligence activities of a nation’s adversaries. In the United States, the House of Representatives initiated a bill known as the Intelligence Oversight Act. This bill requires U.S. intelligence agencies to make certain Congressional committees aware of intelligence operations who conduct ongoing, thorough oversight over the operational, legal and budgetary aspects of intelligence programs.[3] This oversight program is designed to regulate the affairs of intelligence agencies and ensure they do not violate the trust of the American public. Committee members, charged with empowering counterintelligence agencies to protect the public, are entrusted with the job of balancing the nation’s needs for security and privacy.

Creating a successful counterintelligence program that balances the requirements for security and privacy yet, allows a country to identify, neutralize, and exploit the intelligence activities of adversaries is not an easy task. However, with proper planning and oversight, a nation can create intelligence doctrine that allows for both civil liberties and effective prosecution of national enemies. Once the counterintelligence doctrine is established, training and standards will quickly become an integral part of national security programs. Strengthening operational and communication security measures, as allowed by Congress, will aid in the successful identification, neutralization, and exploitation of the intelligence activities of other nations.

---

[1] Gregory Jacobsen, Lines of Communication Security in the Contemporary Operational Environment. Army Command and General Staff College, Fort Leavenworth KS Schools of Advanced Military Studies, May 2005, abstract.

[2] An Operational Security (OPSEC) Primer, U.S. Department of Energy, accessed December 07, 2006 online: http://www.defendamerica.mil/articles/a021202b.html

[3] Intelligence Oversight Act (H.R. 5954), 109^th Congress, 2^nd Session, July 28^th 2006.