Talk:Intelligence cycle

This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles

This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: criterion not met Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met

Associated task forces:
/
	Intelligence task force

This item seems somewhat idiosyncratic in its definition, and probably does not come from an authoritative source. 'Intelligence cycle' is defined in the NATO Glossary (AAP-6), together with definitions for each of the five activities in the all important 'processing' step of the cycle.

Nfe 02:47, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Intelligence information[edit]

The article starts: "The Intelligence cycle is a cyclical set of procedures for the production of intelligence information".

The second last paragraph says: "Referring to 'intelligence information' is fundamentally wrong. Intelligence is processed information."

It really needs to be harmonised!

User: Bathrobe Not logged in (10 April 2007)

The 'Intelligence Cycle Management' entry is an interesting essay although patchy in its coverage (not least because most nations reveal very little) and probably misnamed 'Intelligence Management' might be more appropriate. The entry here is narrow in focus and merely attempts to provide a reasonably succinct explanation about what the Intelligence Cycle is, albeit from a NATO perspective. Nfe 02:33, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

NATO-centric and No Merging![edit]

This article is far too NATO-centric. In fact, NATO has no internal intelligence collection ability of its own. That alone almost makes this article moot. This should focus on the cycle concept as it pertains to the many intel agencies in the world. Separate articles could then be created for the specific nations as needed (i.e. the US Intelligence Cycle).

Furthermore, this article should not be merged with the ICM article. 1) The ICM article is not well written. 2) The ICM article does nothing to achieve the goal it is to accomplish, namely defining what ICM is. 3) The Intelligence Cycle is much more than what this article poorly describes. T geier (talk) 12:07, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not entirely true, while "NATO' may not have an intelligence collection fuction its international staffs (and national framework HQs assigned to tasks with an international staff) at most if not all levels include an intelligence function. The fact of not having a collection capability in no way prevents these staffs from applying the intelligence cycle. The comment suggests at lack of understanding about how NATO functions, a typical intelligence failure.

The NATO cycle is reasonably generic and its key terms are defined in AAP6, which is in the public domain. This means it is entirely appropriate for the wiki context. It is, of course, possible to expand most wiki entries to infinite length and detail. Nfe (talk) 02:37, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've modified the structure of this article to Wikify it and to de-emphasize the NATO and military roles in the cycle. They play a part, as does law enforcement, but they aren't the primary model. The model was initially developed as a concept for nation states and the interaction between policymakers and an intelligence service. Management of the intelligence cycle is a fuzzy concept more related to training than to an encyclopedia. The management article is overly broad. The term intelligence cycle needs to appear in Wikipedia, so I'm also opposed to any merger of articles. Management probably belongs in Wikiversity. --Pat (talk) 17:16, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think the assertion that the origins were at the national level is extemely dubious, particularly in the basic form now outlined in the article. Research into pre WW2 MI manuals required. Nfe (talk) 09:36, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

John Prados, "Intelligence And Counterintelligence," in Encyclopedia of American Foreign Policy, ed by DeConde, Burns, and Logevall, 2003, has a whole chapter on the Intelligence Cycle. On p. 227, Prados suggests that the British brought the idea of all-source analysis to US intelligence around the time of WWII. It then says,"In contrast, prior to WWII intelligence reporting remained episodic, focused on a single (or a few) sources, and did not explicitly aim at information for policymakers, except where given reports seemed to demand it." So that source clearly suggests that the US national level use of the intelligence cycle to deliver goods to policymakers did not predate WWII. It doesn't say whether the military had a cycle before that. Google Books W. Dirk Raat, "US Intelligence Operations And Covert Action In Mexico (1900-1947)," in Journal of Contemporary History, Vol 2 No 4, p. 634, hazards that before 1936, MID and ONI had the functional equivalent to what Walter Laqueur (in a 1985 book) calls the intelligence cycle. He also says it wasn't working so well after 1936. I say 'hazards' because he claims it is a tentative observation based on limited information. He then cites Lequeur's definition of the cycle as "the process by which information is acquired, converted into intelligence, and made available to policymakers." I agree that an early field manual would be important in sorting this out. While one might go back in time and identify a functioning model with available evidence, the intelligence cycle concept could just as easily not been promulgated until after the National Security Act of 1947. Maybe the article needs to differentiate between the process and the named concept? I'm basically agreeing with you, I think, Nfe. I'd just like more info, too. --Pat (talk) 11:35, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]