learning with professionals - Higgins Counterterrorism Research ...


learning with professionals - Higgins Counterterrorism Research ...

ies out a significant part of Sherman Kent’s vision for an intelligence literature. The

Defense Intelligence Journal also frequently gives voice to Community leaders and senior

analysts on an inclusive menu of topics and issues. In neither of these media, though, are

rebuttals or counter-rebuttals published. Any debates that may arise in pre-publication

review remain hidden from readers.

It does appear that only in Community schools, such as the Kent school and the JMIC,

do debates occur among those whose views may not yet have been hardened by solitary

experience. Commenting on the Kent school and its promise for “socializing” new hires

and exploring ways to capture CIA DI corporate knowledge, Stephen Marrin expresses a

hope for the emergence of a “CIA University.” 9 The JMIC, as suggested above, already

exists as the Community’s College, and is recognized as the core for at least a virtual university.

10 Only here are students and faculty from CIA, State, NSA, NRO, DIA, as well as

all the military and law enforcement intelligence organizations and congressional oversight

staff able to put on display, for discussion, their personal interpretations without

themselves being viewed through the lens of their organization’s reputed culture.

JMIC classroom debates over intelligence processes, salient issues in international

relations and domestic intelligence and law enforcement applications, and the developing

environment of international intelligence cooperation all put on display student and faculty

experience in operational intelligence practice. From these debates, principles of

intelligence practice are each day further defined and subjected to peer criticism. At the

same time, JMIC students try their hand at applying research and writing that rest on

time-tested scientific method.


As Sherman Kent notes, although “‘security’ and the advancement of knowledge are in

fundamental conflict...many of the most important contributions to this literature need not

be classified at all.” 11 From the typical, free-wheeling challenge of debate in its classrooms,

the College has begun to add a dimension to the literature on government intelligence.

Thus far, this contribution focuses on process and organization. This new

Community literature resource, some of it classified and some not, now preserves a portion

of the institutional knowledge generated in the school environment. Since 1996, the

9 Stephen Marrin, ““The CIA’s Kent School: A Step in the Right Direction,” Intelligencer: Journal of U.S.

Intelligence Studies (Winter 2000): 56.

10 Lloyd Salvetti, Director of CSI, “Teaching Intelligence: Working Together to Build a Discipline,” in

Teaching Intelligence at Colleges and Universities, Conference Proceedings, 18 June 1999 (Washington, DC:

JMIC, 1999): 18.

11 Kent, 1955: 9. A recent argument for carefully limiting the openness of national intelligence services is in

a Commentary article by Thomas Patrick Carroll, “The Case Against Intelligence Openness,” in International

Journal of Intelligence and Counterintelligence 14, no. 4 (Winter 2001-2002): 559-574. However, his premise

sees intelligence only as information (p. 561) — or “knowledge,” in Kent’s terminology — rather than as process

(activity) or organization. For Kent, all three terms are equally valid labels for the phenomenon of government

intelligence. Further, intelligence process need not be equated with intelligence methods, particularly in

the usual, collection-oriented sense of “sources and methods.”


More magazines by this user
Similar magazines