User:Stottlemyre/sandbox

Definition
The intelligence studies literature broadly agrees that intelligence as a state apparatus engages in multiple activities, including collection, analysis, dissemination, and protection of intelligence. Dr. Sherman Kent, an historian and former Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) officer widely considered to be "the father of American intelligence analysis," divides intelligence into three separate categories, (1) knowledge, (2) activity, and (3) organization.

Intelligence as Knowledge
Knowledge definitions reduce intelligence to a special category of facts or information. Walters (1978) argues that “Intelligence is information [...] relating to the strength, resources, capabilities and intentions of a foreign country that can affect our lives and the safety of our people.”28 Similarly, Troy (1991) concludes that “Intelligence is [...] knowledge of the enemy.”29 The addition of caveats like “of the enemy” preclude these definitions from use in multiple contexts. For example, it would be inaccurate for a police intelligence unit to refer to intelligence about the local populace as knowledge of the enemy. Likewise, limiting the definition to information about a foreign country disqualifies its use with non-state actors or in domestic contexts. These definitions are not generalizable within the discipline and study of intelligence.

Intelligence as Activity
Activity definitions typically recognize intelligence as something other than knowledge. Johnson (2009) describes it as “a set of activities conducted by government agencies that operate largely in secret,”30 Bimfort (1995) as “collecting and processing [of information],”31 Breakspeare (2013) as “a corporate capability to forecast change.”32 Warner (2002) as a “[secret] state activity,” Wheaton and Beerbower (2006) as an externally focused “process.”33 In their authoritative work, Intelligence in an Insecure World, Gill and Phythian (2006) default to the broadest possible definition that fits within the confines of Anglo-American intelligence community activities:

[Intelligence can be defined as a] mainly secret activities—targeting, collection, analysis, dissemination and action—intended to enhance security and/or maintain power relative to competitors by forewarning of threats and opportunities.34

Intelligence as Organization
Organization definitions usually reduce intelligence to the realm of the state. This implies that Intelligence is a secret state activity that aims to understand or influence foreign entities.35 Eriksson (2018) suggests that “Intelligence ‘should bring pacts to the table’, ‘speak truth to power’ and ‘objectively explain current events or predict future ones’, in order for policy-makers to make informed decisions.”36

The above quote raises an interesting truth about the progress of both concept and theory in intelligence studies: scholarship and practice have been heavily influenced by the “intelligence cycle” model. That is, information must be special or converted somehow to be considered intelligence. This has led scholars to choose between (1) stretching their definition of intelligence to meet the needs of the entire cycle or (2) reducing their definition to something that results from another process (e.g., knowledge creation). Sherman Kent himself did both:

Although there is a good deal of understandable mystery about it, Intelligence is a simple and self-evident thing. As an activity it is the pursuit of a certain kind of knowledge; as a phenomenon it is the resultant knowledge [emphasis added].25

To be sure, most intelligence scholars grapple with properly defining “intelligence.” The literature is replete with definitions that reflect the personal experiences of their authors. This paper seeks to create a definition that avoids the pitfalls of previous definitions. Thus, a generalizable definition of intelligence, which embraces parsimony and attempts to avoid occupation-specific biases, is presented here.

A review of several active, prominent journals (the American Intelligence Journal, Intelligence & National Security, and the International Journal of Intelligence & Counterintelligence) reveals only two specific efforts to define intelligence,26 and one to reject any definition of it whatsoever.27 The decades-old search for a single, grand definition of intelligence has not resulted in much scholarly debate on the subject, which now seems to be up to every practitioner and scholar to analyze for themselves. Scores of intelligence papers discussing a multitude of topics come to their own conclusions about the definition of intelligence, pulling from such various sources as personal experience, Dr. Sherman Kent, and classical Greek philosophy.