In September, when drones forced Copenhagen Airport to close, the immediate questions were clear: was Russia responsible, and how was the attack executed? Within hours, conspiracy theories flooded social media, suggesting that authorities had deliberately turned a blind eye. This pattern—shock, questions, accusations—has become grimly familiar after every attack on Western soil.
Following the attack on Heaton Park Synagogue in Manchester, it was expected that the media would investigate the extent of the authorities’ prior knowledge about the terrorist. What was his motivation? Were there accomplices? Will there be further attacks? As the shock wears off, however, a sharper question emerges: could the attacks have been prevented?
Political Implications and Intelligence Processes
After the collapse of the prosecution of two individuals in the United Kingdom on official secrets charges, where Chinese intelligence was alleged to be involved, the questions turned political. Did the previous government, in office when the alleged offenses occurred, assess China as a national security threat? What intelligence evidence supported the prosecution, which the government has now published?
When answers come, they will emerge from a careful multi-stage process of intelligence activity. However, it is in the nature of human intelligence that those answers may be incomplete, fragmentary, and sometimes wrong. Not everything can be made public, as revealing sources and methods could allow targets to dodge and deceive them in the future. Equally, the inferential nature of reasoning applied to an intelligence judgment may not meet the evidential standards of a criminal court.
The Intelligence Cycle: Stages and Challenges
Western countries face the challenge of using intelligence effectively to thwart threats from terrorists and hostile powers. Understanding how intelligence judgments are formed reveals much about national security success and failure, and how narrow the path is between them. Intelligence warnings follow several linked stages, and problems at any one of them can lead to failure.
The process begins with the existence of information that may reveal adversary acts, intentions, and plans. Then comes the capability of human and technical intelligence sources to spot, access, and collect that information. The third stage involves analysts assessing the reported intelligence, integrating it with other data from both open and closed sources, and from allies and partners. The primary goal is to explain what is happening and whether it involves hostile intent.
From Analysis to Action
Following the analysis, the next stage involves making forward-leaning, probabilistic judgments about how events may unfold. This analysis should not only present the most likely course of events but also flag strategic notice of less likely, yet potentially more serious, long-term developments.
Next, these analytic judgments must be reported to senior customers clearly and without spin, with any warnings of trouble ahead highlighted. In the UK, this is the task of the Joint Intelligence Committee. However, good intelligence reporting is not a case of ‘fire and forget’. Follow-up is crucial to ensure that senior political and military leaders fully understand the assessments, even if the message is unwelcome.
Learning from Historical Intelligence Failures
History is replete with examples of intelligence failures. In 1945, Soviet schoolchildren presented the US ambassador in Moscow with a wooden carving of the US Great Seal as a goodwill gift. Despite thorough security checks, a hollow resonating cavity in the carving allowed the Soviets to eavesdrop on conversations in the ambassador’s office for seven years.
Another example is the surprise attack on Israel during Yom Kippur in 1973. The Egyptian army established a pattern of mobilizing and demobilizing reserves to confuse Israeli intelligence. The head of Israeli military intelligence discounted an impending attack based on the absence of Russian support indicators, missing Egypt’s strategic aim.
Modern Challenges and Technological Advances
In today’s digital world, intelligence agencies face challenges such as recognizing deception and dealing with vast amounts of data. The advent of generative AI offers the ability to extract patterns from large datasets and apply automated causal reasoning, providing analysts with alternative explanations to test against available evidence.
Even when clues of an adversary’s intentions are obtained, their significance may be overlooked. Before the 9/11 attacks, flight instructors reported Zacarias Moussaoui’s suspicious behavior to the FBI, but the opportunity to unravel Al Qaeda’s intentions was missed.
The Complexities of Intelligence Judgments
When it comes to writing up and reporting analysis results, understanding the distinction between secrets, mysteries, and complexities is crucial. Secret intelligence can reveal what adversaries hide, while mysteries involve data points that don’t yet exist. Complexities require analysts to consider potential responses from adversaries, using their experience and expertise.
Decisions on issuing intelligence warnings or changing alert states involve weighing the evidence and anticipating potential threats. Analysts must navigate institutional skepticism and the risk of ‘crying wolf’ while ensuring that their assessments are understood and acted upon.
Conclusion: The Narrow Path Between Security and Disaster
Intelligence can significantly improve decision quality by reducing ignorance about potential threats. It is a vital component of statecraft, public safety, and security. However, intelligence is challenging to acquire, analyze, and use wisely. Failure at any stage can have calamitous results.
Somewhere tonight, analysts will be weighing fragmentary evidence, deciding whether it merits waking a Cabinet minister. They balance institutional caution against the imperative to warn. They may get it wrong, but the odds are that they will get it right. In that tension between fallibility and necessity lies the irreducible nature of intelligence work—and the narrow path between security and disaster.
