{"id":30069,"date":"2016-12-26T06:00:59","date_gmt":"2016-12-25T19:00:59","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.aspistrategist.ru\/?p=30069"},"modified":"2016-12-26T09:53:17","modified_gmt":"2016-12-25T22:53:17","slug":"editors-picks-2016-reviewing-intelligence-send-red-team","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.aspistrategist.ru\/editors-picks-2016-reviewing-intelligence-send-red-team\/","title":{"rendered":"Editors’ picks for 2016: ‘Reviewing intelligence: send in the red team’"},"content":{"rendered":"
\"red\"<\/figure>\n

Originally published 6 October.<\/em><\/p>\n

By all accounts, there\u2019s to be another review of Australia\u2019s intelligence agencies in the near future. The \u2018major independent review\u2019 will be the third in 15 years and it\u2019s variously reported that the focus will be on cyber threats<\/a> or the balance between short-term operational counter-terrorism and long-term strategic intelligence<\/a> or, well, pretty much everything<\/a>.<\/p>\n

I\u2019m not going to hold my breath waiting for a dramatic change to the way Australia\u2019s intelligence agencies are structured. The last couple of major reviews have been disappointing, seemingly more about keeping the status quo and minimising criticism than seriously examining the roles and functioning of the Australian Intelligence Community (AIC). They failed to deliver for quite different reasons, but taken together they show the inherent difficulty in getting to grips with the prickly\u00a0questions confronting intelligence agencies and the polity they support.<\/p>\n

Let\u2019s start with the easier of the two to dissect. The 2011 Independent Review of the Intelligence Community Report<\/em><\/a> (PDF), conducted by intelligence outsiders Rufus Black and Robert Cornall, said essentially nothing. Graeme Dobell bluntly described it<\/a> as a \u2018eunuch report, bowdlerised to the point of banality\u2019. Graeme was right to note that it contained no serious discussion of the question of contestability that was at the heart of the 2004 Report of the inquiry into Australian intelligence agencies<\/em><\/a> conducted by Phillip Flood, a former Director-General of the Office of National Assessments (ONA).<\/p>\n

While it\u2019s true that it tackled some of the big issues, including the all-important subject of contestability, the Flood report isn\u2019t beyond reproach either. After all, it followed the biggest intelligence and strategic policy failure of recent times\u2014the invasion of Iraq based on fears of active Iraqi WMD programs. Yet the net result was to recommend more money for the AIC, as well as some organisational changes that (in my view) made contestability less<\/em> effective.<\/p>\n

Flood concluded that the AIC (and its international partners) drew the most likely conclusions from the data at hand<\/p>\n

\u2018\u2026 and generally presented them with appropriate qualification. The obverse conclusion\u2014that Iraq did not have WMD aspirations and capability\u2014would have been a much more difficult conclusion to substantiate\u2019.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

In fact, a critical reading of the available material shows that the Defence Intelligence Organisation (DIO) was substantially less wrong than ONA, especially in the crucial\u00a0period immediately before the 2003 war. A 2004 Parliamentary Committee report<\/a> (PDF) notes that \u2018the detailed reports from DIO after the middle of September 2002 remain more sceptical and circumspect than those of ONA in the same period\u2019. (para 2.29) That key\u00a0difference between the two agencies should\u2019ve been reason enough to give pause regarding the reliability of the assessments. But the Flood recommendations reduced the overlap of responsibilities between the two organisations, making it harder for divergences of views to be observed\u2014the opposite of improved contestability.<\/p>\n

So we have reviews carried out by a deep intelligence insider on one hand, and a couple of outsiders on another. Neither of them produced large scale changes, and neither of them served the wider polity particularly well, though the AIC was probably happy enough with both. But it begs the question as to how the government should approach a review of intelligence. If there was suspected widespread misbehavior and lack of accountability, it\u2019d be easy enough\u2014not just one<\/a> but two<\/a> Hope Royal Commissions certainly can\u2019t be faulted for having no impact on the AIC. But they produced a robust set of effective oversight mechanisms<\/a>, and there\u2019s no sense of moral turpitude creeping back into the AIC, so there\u2019s no need to repeat that exercise.<\/p>\n

I think there\u2019s a substantial case to be made that some lateral thinking about intelligence is required today. The 24\/7 news cycle and the breadth and depth of information available to everyone means that intelligence agencies more than ever are competing for attention and influence. But secrets are still important for some questions, and the ability to blend them with information distilled from huge open-source datasets and produce rigorous assessments is at the heart of modern intelligence. It\u2019s a quite different world than the AIC of the Hope years.<\/p>\n

Alan Gyngell, another ex-ONA Director-General, is the tip for this review. He brings vast experience to bear and is a thinker\u2014I get my graduate students in intelligence at ANU to read Gyngell\u2019s thoughtful 2011 speech on the future of intelligence<\/a>. But it\u2019s hard for someone who has lived the work to step back and suggest hard changes or to identify flaws in well-entrenched practices. On the other hand, as the Black\u2013Cornall report showed, it\u2019s such an arcane business that outsiders have little chance of really getting to grips with profound structural changes.<\/p>\n

The best answer might be to borrow a technique that\u2019s sometimes useful in intelligence practice and set up a \u2018Red Team\u2019 to conduct the review, with a brief to come in and challenge the status quo. By putting together a team, you could include a former insider, as well as smart outsiders (including, I\u2019d suggest, someone from the cutting edge of information analytics). The danger, of course, is that it\u2019d turn into \u2018review by committee\u2019, and come down to a common denominator view that changes little. But that\u2019s what we got the last two times anyway, so let\u2019s give it a shot.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Originally published 6 October. By all accounts, there\u2019s to be another review of Australia\u2019s intelligence agencies in the near future. The \u2018major independent review\u2019 will be the third in 15 years and it\u2019s variously reported …<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":6,"featured_media":30070,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_mi_skip_tracking":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[1],"tags":[1828],"class_list":["post-30069","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-general","tag-editors-picks-2016"],"acf":[],"yoast_head":"\nEditors' picks for 2016: 'Reviewing intelligence: send in the red team' | The Strategist<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.aspistrategist.ru\/editors-picks-2016-reviewing-intelligence-send-red-team\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Editors' picks for 2016: 'Reviewing intelligence: send in the red team' | The Strategist\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"Originally published 6 October. By all accounts, there\u2019s to be another review of Australia\u2019s intelligence agencies in the near future. The \u2018major independent review\u2019 will be the third in 15 years and it\u2019s variously reported ...\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.aspistrategist.ru\/editors-picks-2016-reviewing-intelligence-send-red-team\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"The Strategist\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/ASPI.org\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2016-12-25T19:00:59+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-12-25T22:53:17+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/www.aspistrategist.ru\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/12\/red.jpg\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"1024\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"681\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Andrew Davies\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@ASPI_org\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@ASPI_org\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Andrew Davies\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"4 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\/\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.aspistrategist.ru\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.aspistrategist.ru\/\",\"name\":\"The Strategist\",\"description\":\"ASPI's analysis and commentary site\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\/\/www.aspistrategist.ru\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":\"required name=search_term_string\"}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-AU\"},{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-AU\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.aspistrategist.ru\/editors-picks-2016-reviewing-intelligence-send-red-team\/#primaryimage\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.aspistrategist.ru\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/12\/red.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/www.aspistrategist.ru\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/12\/red.jpg\",\"width\":1024,\"height\":681},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.aspistrategist.ru\/editors-picks-2016-reviewing-intelligence-send-red-team\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.aspistrategist.ru\/editors-picks-2016-reviewing-intelligence-send-red-team\/\",\"name\":\"Editors' picks for 2016: 'Reviewing intelligence: send in the red team' | The Strategist\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.aspistrategist.ru\/#website\"},\"primaryImageOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.aspistrategist.ru\/editors-picks-2016-reviewing-intelligence-send-red-team\/#primaryimage\"},\"datePublished\":\"2016-12-25T19:00:59+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-12-25T22:53:17+00:00\",\"author\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.aspistrategist.ru\/#\/schema\/person\/08a9125f7af3039520d264e965235a73\"},\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.aspistrategist.ru\/editors-picks-2016-reviewing-intelligence-send-red-team\/#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-AU\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.aspistrategist.ru\/editors-picks-2016-reviewing-intelligence-send-red-team\/\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.aspistrategist.ru\/editors-picks-2016-reviewing-intelligence-send-red-team\/#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/www.aspistrategist.ru\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Editors’ picks for 2016: ‘Reviewing intelligence: send in the red team’\"}]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.aspistrategist.ru\/#\/schema\/person\/08a9125f7af3039520d264e965235a73\",\"name\":\"Andrew Davies\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-AU\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.aspistrategist.ru\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/bbb47ebb41d4978346dbf2e1d21b992a?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/bbb47ebb41d4978346dbf2e1d21b992a?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Andrew Davies\"},\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.aspistrategist.ru\/author\/andrew-davies\/\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Editors' picks for 2016: 'Reviewing intelligence: send in the red team' | The Strategist","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.aspistrategist.ru\/editors-picks-2016-reviewing-intelligence-send-red-team\/","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Editors' picks for 2016: 'Reviewing intelligence: send in the red team' | The Strategist","og_description":"Originally published 6 October. By all accounts, there\u2019s to be another review of Australia\u2019s intelligence agencies in the near future. The \u2018major independent review\u2019 will be the third in 15 years and it\u2019s variously reported ...","og_url":"https:\/\/www.aspistrategist.ru\/editors-picks-2016-reviewing-intelligence-send-red-team\/","og_site_name":"The Strategist","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/ASPI.org","article_published_time":"2016-12-25T19:00:59+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-12-25T22:53:17+00:00","og_image":[{"width":1024,"height":681,"url":"https:\/\/www.aspistrategist.ru\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/12\/red.jpg","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Andrew Davies","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@ASPI_org","twitter_site":"@ASPI_org","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Andrew Davies","Est. reading time":"4 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.aspistrategist.ru\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.aspistrategist.ru\/","name":"The Strategist","description":"ASPI's analysis and commentary site","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.aspistrategist.ru\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":"required name=search_term_string"}],"inLanguage":"en-AU"},{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-AU","@id":"https:\/\/www.aspistrategist.ru\/editors-picks-2016-reviewing-intelligence-send-red-team\/#primaryimage","url":"https:\/\/www.aspistrategist.ru\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/12\/red.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.aspistrategist.ru\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/12\/red.jpg","width":1024,"height":681},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.aspistrategist.ru\/editors-picks-2016-reviewing-intelligence-send-red-team\/","url":"https:\/\/www.aspistrategist.ru\/editors-picks-2016-reviewing-intelligence-send-red-team\/","name":"Editors' picks for 2016: 'Reviewing intelligence: send in the red team' | The Strategist","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.aspistrategist.ru\/#website"},"primaryImageOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.aspistrategist.ru\/editors-picks-2016-reviewing-intelligence-send-red-team\/#primaryimage"},"datePublished":"2016-12-25T19:00:59+00:00","dateModified":"2016-12-25T22:53:17+00:00","author":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.aspistrategist.ru\/#\/schema\/person\/08a9125f7af3039520d264e965235a73"},"breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.aspistrategist.ru\/editors-picks-2016-reviewing-intelligence-send-red-team\/#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-AU","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.aspistrategist.ru\/editors-picks-2016-reviewing-intelligence-send-red-team\/"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.aspistrategist.ru\/editors-picks-2016-reviewing-intelligence-send-red-team\/#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.aspistrategist.ru\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Editors’ picks for 2016: ‘Reviewing intelligence: send in the red team’"}]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.aspistrategist.ru\/#\/schema\/person\/08a9125f7af3039520d264e965235a73","name":"Andrew Davies","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-AU","@id":"https:\/\/www.aspistrategist.ru\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/bbb47ebb41d4978346dbf2e1d21b992a?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/bbb47ebb41d4978346dbf2e1d21b992a?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Andrew Davies"},"url":"https:\/\/www.aspistrategist.ru\/author\/andrew-davies\/"}]}},"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.aspistrategist.ru\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/30069"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.aspistrategist.ru\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.aspistrategist.ru\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.aspistrategist.ru\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/6"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.aspistrategist.ru\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=30069"}],"version-history":[{"count":2,"href":"https:\/\/www.aspistrategist.ru\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/30069\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":30142,"href":"https:\/\/www.aspistrategist.ru\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/30069\/revisions\/30142"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.aspistrategist.ru\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/30070"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.aspistrategist.ru\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=30069"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.aspistrategist.ru\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=30069"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.aspistrategist.ru\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=30069"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}