What's new

Coordinating National Intelligence

Xestan

SENIOR MEMBER
Sep 25, 2009
1,993
3
2,865




Reports suggest that Prime Minister Imran Khan has approved the formation of a National Intelligence Coordination Committee (NICC). The committee will be headed by the Director-General of Inter-Services Intelligence (DGI) who will function as its chair.

The ostensible reason for setting up such a coordination committee is to improve (as the name suggests) coordination among several intelligence agencies. As one report put it, quoting sources: “The move is part of the long-awaited reform of the intelligence apparatus, which aims at clarifying the role of respective agencies, improving their coordination, and optimising their capabilities.”

Most observers agree that effective coordination has been the weakest link in Pakistan’s counterterrorism and counterintelligence efforts since the so-called war on terror began some two decades ago. The lack of coordination has often resulted in delays in collating and analysing information, disseminating it through the web of the intelligence community and ensuring last-mile distribution and action.

Given this, the formation of such a committee should be welcome. If it seeks to improve efficiency, reduced time to relay information and results in quicker coordinated action, we are all set.

If only. Let’s consider.

This is not the first time a government has tried something like this. In fact, only last year in March, the Ministry of Interior issued a notification for establishing a National Intelligence Committee, which was also meant to improve coordination within the ambit of the MoI. There have been efforts by previous governments too — we aren’t debating whether they were well- or ill-conceived. Nothing came of them. Hence, the NICC.

Coordination is not a simple function. You cannot improve coordination by simply putting together a committee! Put another way, setting up a committee is not akin to waving a magic wand that will wish away the many problems that cause lack of coordination in the first place.

What it means is that unless the government has studied the problem and the many factors that cause it, which I doubt highly, putting the heads of several intel agencies in one room won’t produce the desired result. If anything, putting the DGI as the lead is likely to increase rather than decrease intra-agency rivalry.

Organisations often work in a complex and uncertain environment. This is truer of intel organisations. Studies have shown that to cope with complexity, the organisation also grows complex: multiple departments/sections dealing with complex operations and performing compartmentalised functions. The idea is for all subsets to work in a way that can then be collated and structured. Instead, it often creates opacity. So even when the different parts toil to optimise their functions, doing different things, it becomes difficult to put the Humpty-Dumpty together. Results can clash, uncertainty increases requiring more information, decisions get delayed even when activity increases.

This is about one organisation. Replicate it when you put together several with reasons for intra-agency rivalries and you can be certain that the confusion will be compounded.

Furthermore, of all the intel agencies operating in the country, the ISI has already emerged, over the years, as the most powerful. While technically the DGI reports to the prime minister, de facto he holds office at the pleasure of the Chief of Army Staff. That skews the ISI’s work in favour of GHQ, rather than PMO. At any given point, the COAS will have more information than the PM.

Unlike most other agencies, the ISI combines in itself the twin functions of external, strategic intelligence and internal, counterintelligence and counterterrorism. To complicate things even more, it combines in one body intelligence collection, analysis, policymaking and implementation. Add to that many other internal policy functions it has appropriated over the years and we have a colossus that towers over other intel agencies. To have the head of ISI (a stakeholder) to chair the coordination committee is to (a) defeat the very purpose of independent assessment of incoming intel and (b) reduce other intel agencies to becoming subsets of ISI.

Put another way, to create such a committee and make the DGI its chair is to ask other intel agencies to surrender whatever little independent operational space they might still enjoy. Anyone who has read organisation theory would tell the government that such a committee will be a non-starter. We already have NACTA (National Counterterrorism Authority), a body that was put together with much fanfare but now lies all but defunct. [NB: apparently, NACTA is also to come under the NICC.]

The crucial requirement is to find the causal nexus. But that’s also the most unclear and difficult to unravel. In his book, The Art of Action, Stephen Bangey says: “Are people searching for more information and avoiding decisions because of the complexity of the environment? Or is the search for information creating complexity and rendering decision making more difficult? Or is the difficulty of taking decisions leading to the search for more information and creating more complexity?”

Is there a “hierarchy of cause and effect” or do we have “a set of reciprocal relations within a system: every cause is also an effect and vice versa.” If it’s the latter, which is what happens in a complex system, then finding linear cause-and-effect solutions are unlikely to work.

Then there’s the problem of the number of intel agencies Pakistan has. Do creating layers of agencies actually work? Take the case of Iran. That country is a highly securitised state with multiple layers of intel agencies. And yet, going by how hit squads have been able to take out protected targets on Iranian territory, it seems as if increasing the numbers may not result in optimisation; in fact, it may result in sub-optimal performance — especially, where there are also lopsided hierarchical relations among the different layers.

So, while we get to improving coordination, perhaps the starting point should be studying the plethora of agencies to see whether they are actually required. If, for instance, we find that out of nearly two dozen such agencies, at least 12 (supposed number) can be done away with, we will have already moved closer towards improving coordination.

Secondly, the government must understand that every organisation develops its own culture, worldview, organisational interests etc. And it guards them. That is a major reason for organisations ‘satisficing’ (to use Graham Allison’s term) instead of optimising.

Studies of western intelligence agencies have shown that they have grown beyond their optimal size; budgets are bloated; interests have expanded; rivalries have increased. To top it, given the secretive nature of the work they do, oversight has become a major problem. This is about systems of governance where legislatures have much better oversight mechanisms. In Pakistan, with its lopsided civil-military relations (hybrid or non-hybrid), absence of any oversight and no mechanism for independent inquiry, intelligence agencies already play an oversized role without any accountability.

This is a long discussion and we haven’t really delved into other aspects of intel work and organisation that make coordination difficult. The point of this broad overview is simple: the government, as always, is going in for an easy, linear solution that will add another layer (with budgets/interests etc.) without solving the problem for which it is forming a committee. Over time, this committee too will become defunct while continuing to draw a budget (like NACTA) until another government comes along and sets up another body along the same lines without addressing the real problems.

The writer is a former News Editor of The Friday Times with interest in defence and security affairs. He reluctantly tweets @ejazhaider

 

Zarvan

ELITE MEMBER
Apr 28, 2011
50,489
81
55,782
Country
Pakistan
Location
Pakistan
Can't agree more. #DGISI should not be chairman of this agency. Either a new ministry should be created to head it. Or it should be under either defence minister, or interior minister or national security advisor.
 

Pakistan Ka Beta

FULL MEMBER
Aug 7, 2019
1,550
3
4,114
Country
Pakistan
Location
Pakistan
Lol . Propaganda has been started from day 1 against the decision . I support the PM decision as it was taken after alot of dicsussion between govt and agencies .
 

Zarvan

ELITE MEMBER
Apr 28, 2011
50,489
81
55,782
Country
Pakistan
Location
Pakistan
Lol . Propaganda has been started from day 1 against the decision . I support the PM decision as it was taken after alot of dicsussion between govt and agencies .
Trust me I can guarantee you no other agency would be happy with DG ISI being head of this committee. Yes this organization was needed. I have also talked about its need for sometime, but sorry DG ISI himself is head of one of the agencies which will be part of it. Therefore he should not be head of it.
And who the *** is this author..
It's a wise decision
Try debating with him and he would school you in next few minutes. He is a liberal guy but knows strategic matters inside out.
 

Svartr Warg

FULL MEMBER

New Recruit

Aug 2, 2015
32
0
53
Country
Pakistan
Location
Pakistan
People saying it's a wise decision, how so?
Granted, ISI holds maximum power in intelligence matters in Pakistan, that doesn't mean that other agencies consider themselves less than ISI. Coordination can never happen if the concerned parties are not fully on board and considered equal, this is why there needs to be an impartial head of this committee.
You can't say that Punjab, Sindh and Balochistan are all integral parts of Pakistan and they should equally coordinate their matters with each other and at the same time make Punjab their leader. This creates a biased approach and smaller agencies feel discriminated against, even if this committee is made the other agencies will never share everything they should unless their head is an impartial person or a ministry.
 

Silverblaze

SENIOR MEMBER
Nov 25, 2012
2,168
3
2,565
Country
Pakistan
Location
Pakistan
Trust me I can guarantee you no other agency would be happy with DG ISI being head of this committee. Yes this organization was needed. I have also talked about its need for sometime, but sorry DG ISI himself is head of one of the agencies which will be part of it. Therefore he should not be head of it.
You are right, Pakistan ideally needs someone like the director of national intelligence position in US or director of office of national intelligence like in Australia. Ironically Australian director of office of national intelligence also heads the Australian National Intelligence Coordination Committee.

But in Pakistan the military establishment will not be comfortable with it. They even disbanded federal security force which was a good idea if properly handled.

Pakistan establishment in their assessment still wants to operates like the centralized KGB.

The solution is not copy pasting the australian or US model because it demands complete civilian oversight.

So a humble suggestion is a creation of something like a modern FSB of Russia. Which handles all internal and no external security but it is headed by former KGB officials.

This new force could include Rangers as part of it and another force for internal control. This could be headed by Chief of general staff and that way the army will maintain oversight and CGS will not be seen as a head of a single intelligence agency.
 

khansaheeb

ELITE MEMBER
Dec 14, 2008
9,511
0
11,062
Country
Pakistan
Location
United Kingdom
Can't agree more. #DGISI should not be chairman of this agency. Either a new ministry should be created to head it. Or it should be under either defence minister, or interior minister or national security advisor.
Unfortunately Pakistan needs to accept the reality that some civilian agencies have become tools of the ruling elite and are ordered not to work for the Pakistani people but for the greed and desires of a few. We do have rotten apples who take brief cases of dollars and exit visas for lavish lifestyle overseas in exchange for high level secrets.

Coordination is good as long as it doesn't compromise national security. The coordination should be one way only with the DGISI directing the civilian agencies as it sees fit. However , PA should be mindful that if any position is compromised it mustn't have a cascading domino effect of undermining security. It's great that PA is taking the initiative as we are facing tremendous challenges by Indian and foreign agents who are throwing money around like confetti to achieve their nefarious designs. PA also needs to be mindful of corrupt Prime Ministers/ Ministers who can do more damage to Pakistan through sheer greed, corruption and nepotism than an enemy over 10 years.

More importantly, we need to tap into and use the patriotism and nationalism of the Pakistani people who are each volunteer agents.
 

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Total: 1, Members: 0, Guests: 1)


Top Bottom