Views and Opinions

The Canadian Press/Sean Kilpatrick/19117592

Arndt Freytag von Loringhoven, NATO Assistant Secretary General for Intelligence (right), and Rear-Admiral Scott Bishop, Commander of Canadian Forces Intelligence Command and Chair of the NATO Intelligence Committee, speak at a conference in Ottawa, 24 May 2018.

The Need for Intelligence Education

by James Cox

Print PDF

For more information on accessing this file, please visit our help page.

Introduction

This brief article argues the need to establish and nurture a serious defence intelligence education program in the Department of National Defence (DND) and the Canadian Armed Forces (CAF).

Cover of 'Strong, Secure, Engaged'.

National Defence/Government of Canada

Discussion

Strong, Secure, Engaged: Canada’s Defence Policy 1 (2017) (SSE) seems to prioritize defence intelligence development, but not to the extent required. SSE prioritizes enhancements to joint intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance (JISR), the integration of information and analytical assets into an integrated system of systems and increasing the ability of Canadian Forces Intelligence Command (CFINTCOM) to deliver advanced intelligence support. A number of projects are underway to do all that. As well, CFINTCOM is engaged in a Defence Intelligence Enterprise Renewal (DIER) study, although reports indicate results may be ‘underwhelming.’ However, amid this enthusiasm, there is a significant shortcoming. Apart from promising talk about enhancing intelligence training, there is no discussion of intelligence education.

DND

Canadian Armed Forces Professional Development System.

Click to enlarge image

The CAF Professional Development System 2 (CAFPDS) is built upon four pillars: experience, self-development, training, and education. It defines training as “the provision of specific skills, knowledge and attitudes required to perform assigned tasks and duties.” Training teaches one how to do a job. Education is different. It produces understanding about the body of knowledge within which the job exists. According to the CAFPDS, education is “the provision of a body of knowledge and intellectual skill sets, upon which judgement among competing facts, information and ideas can be critically examined, assessed and interpreted.” Within defence intelligence, the education pillar is ‘missing in action.’

Without an established intelligence education program, DND and the CAF run the risk of an inadequately-prepared intelligence workforce, led by mediocre journeymen, and directed by less than intelligence-savvy operational leaders. Without a competent education component, the defence intelligence enterprise can hardly be considered a fully-professional enterprise.

With rampant global intelligence activity by friends and foes alike, it is disappointing to see DND and the CAF restrict their efforts simply to intelligence tradecraft training, mainly at low and mid-career levels. There is no serious intelligence training at senior levels, and there are no intelligence education programs at any level. There are at least seven graduate level courses relating to intelligence listed in the Royal Military College of Canada (RMCC) War Studies Programme3, but they are neither regularly conducted nor attended by many. There is one intelligence course offered in the Joint Command and Staff Programme 4 (JCSP) Residential Syllabus at the Canadian Forces College (CFC), but not in the distance learning version. There is no intelligence course or module offered on the senior National Security Programme 5 at CFC. At lower levels, intelligence practitioners are taught how to do tactical level intelligence at CAF and allied schools. At senior levels, no one is taught much about intelligence qua intelligence.

Base Photo CFB Toronto

Canadian Forces College Toronto.

What is defence intelligence? How did it come about? Where does it come from? What does it do? Why is it here? How does it work? How is it best organized? How do we sustain effectiveness? In what manner should we adapt to exploit it? What are the normative criteria that might guide development? These questions invite philosophical and professional reflection. DND and the CAF require a serious program of intelligence education in order for the function to reach optimal significance and effect.

If defence intelligence is to be considered a truly-professional endeavour, in which leaders and intelligence practitioners enjoy deep understanding of an overall conceptual framework and its modern application, the intelligence function needs a universally-accepted and respected definition, and a tested theoretical base. At present, it has neither, largely because no one is thinking about it deeply enough. Despite literally tens of centuries of material, Canadian academic research in the field of intelligence is scant at best.

Beyond conceptual understanding, successful application of intelligence theory by leaders and practitioners requires that they know and understand the extended context in which intelligence must work. Within government one must learn about the entire intelligence eco-system involving departments; agencies; capability development and delivery; the evolving nature of conflict, warfare and the security environment at home and abroad; applicable legislation and regulations; relevant policies and objectives; processes and protocols; and technological development. As well, for self-preservation, there is a need for intellectual reflection with respect to the future of the intelligence function itself, and how it might evolve and adapt effectively.

Conclusion

Through lack of action, DND and the CAF find themselves in a bit of a tough spot here. If defence intelligence is to ‘walk the talk’ of the CAFPDS and reach the professional academic heights demanded by today’s security environment, it must be served and enabled by an embedded education program. It has nothing of the sort right now, so the effort could be difficult and costly, but nonetheless necessary. Circumstances are ripe for an effective remedy. Consideration of and implementation of imaginative recommendations for a truly world-class defence intelligence education program should be pursued within the framework of the current Defence Intelligence Enterprise Renewal study, and workable options aggressively developed.

If not un-educated, the Defence Intelligence Enterprise is at least an under-educated endeavour. This shortcoming can be eliminated if leadership truly wants a sustainable professional intelligence workforce. Intelligence education programs exist in allied intelligence enterprises. It can be done here. It needs to be done here.

Brigadier-General (Ret’d) James Cox, OMM, CD, Ph.D., completed a 38-year military career in operationally-oriented command and staff positions, including a variety of UN and NATO missions on four continents. After leaving the Canadian Armed Forces, he served for a number of years as a Library of Parliament analyst supporting House of Commons and Senate security and defence committees, and, as Vice-President Academic Affairs with the Canadian Military Intelligence Association, Dr. Cox is currently a Conference of Defence Associations Institute Research Fellow, and teaches graduate-level intelligence courses in national security and public safety programs at the Norman Paterson School of International Affairs, and Wilfrid Laurier University. He holds a Ph.D. and MA in War Studies from the Royal Military College of Canada.

Notes

  1. Strong, Secure, Engaged: Canada’s Defence Policy at https://www.canada.ca/en/department-national-defence/corporate/reports-publications/canada-defence-policy.html
  2. Canadian Armed Forces Professional Development at http://www.forces.gc.ca/en/training-prof-dev/index.page
  3. Royal Military College of Canada (RMCC) War Studies Programme at https://www.rmc-cmr.ca/en/registrars-office/war-studies-programmes
  4. Joint Command and Staff Programme at https://www.cfc.forces.gc.ca/118/406/cfc300-46-eng.pdf
  5. National Security Programme at https://www.cfc.forces.gc.ca/119/187/323/331-eng.pdf