Open Source Intelligence (OSINT): merged thread

[Jedburgh]

The quick answer is that contracting out capabilities that should be developed internally weakens rather than strengthens our national intelligence structure.

We've already done long-term damage to military intelligence by "outsourcing" critical capabilities while concurrently reducing internal capabilities for expediency's sake. As we continue to reform and develop our national intelligence capabilities, the last thing we need to do is step out along that path across the IC.

Also, as Rex stated, and I thought was implied in my post, open source information isn't assessed in a vacuum - it is simply one of many sources of information that the analyst must absorb. That is why I said that outsourcing of collection is justified (but only for the short term, until we effectively modify and develop effective internal structures within the IC) but not the outsourcing of analysis.

The "acceptance" of the value of OSINT within the IC is mainly a generational issue. Many "senior" guys are uncomfortable with the broad spectrum of open source media (both currently available and emerging) and prefer working with traditional sources, while the young'uns are perfectly capable of working in both worlds and of effectively integrating the two.

Myself, I find the view of those old boys kind of odd, as OSINT has long played a critical role in strategic intelligence analysis. I'm sure there's a couple of Cold Warriors on the board who recall the effort put into anayzing and interpreting articles published in the official Soviet media to support assessments of powershifts and policy changes in the Kremlin.

[selil]

As has been said the OSINT is but one collection mechanism among many. I take issue with outsourcing it or further diluting the variety information in consideration, but more importantly I take issue with creating another non-permeable barrier in the collection process. If I had to put my finger on the issues with intelligence analysis and processing it is not the volume of information or the speed it is the number of analysts looking at any one area at a time. We need more highly trained analysts inside the intelligence organizations with better tools to do their job better. Outsourcing is not the answer it is only a band-aid over leprosy.

[Penta]

Myself, I find the view of those old boys kind of odd, as OSINT has long played a critical role in strategic intelligence analysis. I'm sure there's a couple of Cold Warriors on the board who recall the effort put into anayzing and interpreting articles published in the official Soviet media to support assessments of powershifts and policy changes in the Kremlin.

To make the elders here feel really old...My advisor at Scranton was (in 61-62) a Soviet analyst for the CIA.

Old-fashioned Kremlinology was often talked about, in a "for those of you who were too young to notice" fashion, in classes. Basically, as history.

Example which sticks out: The immense effort put into getting...photos of the reviewing stands for the May Day and October Revolution parades. Hats or no hats, the positioning of various people, whether they were sitting or standing, analyzed to seemingly-absurd lengths.

How much of that actually produced insights of value, might I ask my elders?

*whistles the Soviet National Anthem boredly*

(I'm young enough to say that...I miss the Cold War. When things were simple, and you knew your enemy was at least sane (and could even be worked with on occasion!). Yes, this points out my youth.)

[JeffC]

The quick answer is that contracting out capabilities that should be developed internally weakens rather than strengthens our national intelligence structure.

We've already done long-term damage to military intelligence by "outsourcing" critical capabilities while concurrently reducing internal capabilities for expediency's sake. As we continue to reform and develop our national intelligence capabilities, the last thing we need to do is step out along that path across the IC..

Too late. DIA and CIA are heavily outsourced - well over 50% by some estimates.

Also, as Rex stated, and I thought was implied in my post, open source information isn't assessed in a vacuum - it is simply one of many sources of information that the analyst must absorb.

As I said to Rex, many analysts are already specialists, not generalists, and they like it that way. The agencies specialize as well (NRO, NSA, NGA, to name a few). It may not be the ideal, but that's how it is and it isn't changing anytime soon.

The "acceptance" of the value of OSINT within the IC is mainly a generational issue. Many "senior" guys are uncomfortable with the broad spectrum of open source media (both currently available and emerging) and prefer working with traditional sources, while the young'uns are perfectly capable of working in both worlds and of effectively integrating the two.

Agreed, and we don't have the time to wait for that "generational issue" to cease being an issue, which means that it's currently a problem which isn't going away.

I'm not suggesting that is a permanent fix, however considering how far behind we are, we need to run, not walk, towards getting up to speed to confront the variety of technological threats that threaten the U.S., and that are growing daily and that fact should compel us to keep an open mind as to where solutions can be found.

[Jedburgh]

IMINT, MASINT and SIGINT require a degree of specific technical expertise other than the relatively straightforward tradecraft of intelligence analysis for analysis of the raw product. OSINT does not. There is zero need for a specific "OSINT analysis" discipline; as I stated before, it falls easily within the skillset of the traditional intelligence analyst.

However, speaking to assertions of interdisciplinary rivalries, in my personal experience I have not seen any general trend of professionals in those fields "looking down their noses" at the all-source analyst. Certain individuals, perhaps, but not a general attitude. On the contrary, In my previous life as a HUMINT collector, I have often personally worked with IMINT, SIGINT and all-source analysts across a spectrum of operational missions and never had any issues. (I can't say anything about the MASINT guys, though) At times we've all worked together as a multi-disciplined body to address specific issues and it always worked well. The rivalries that do pop up are generally good natured and positive in that they drive competititon to succeed. The real problems that do exist are at a higher interagency level, where very senior egos drive the turf battles.

Yes, several agencies are already involved in outsourcing. However, rather than calling up someone else to cut the grass while sitting down with a beer to watch football, those with power to influence decisions should be exerting their efforts to halt that process and to expedite the necessary internal restructuring. Short-term expedient solutions feed into long-term strategic dangers. By outsourcing to a growing degree we are set on the road to committing strategic damage to our national intelligence capabilities. We need to stop the parasites who continue to lobby for increasing this trend. Fear-mongering to derail carefully thought-out restructuring in favor of quick fix solutions is a common tactic. Their goals are not national security, but personal profit.

The real long-term solution, as I've stated several times before, is in personnel management. Hire good people, train and mentor them well, ensure that they have regular opportunities to travel within their areas of focus (for those who aren't already regionally-based) and have in place functional professional-development programs that ensures they keep up with emerging technology and methodology within their respective fields.