{"id":81673,"date":"2023-08-14T06:00:38","date_gmt":"2023-08-13T20:00:38","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.aspistrategist.ru\/?p=81673"},"modified":"2024-01-15T13:38:42","modified_gmt":"2024-01-15T02:38:42","slug":"presenting-intelligence-from-iraq-wmd-to-the-new-era-of-strategic-downgrades","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.aspistrategist.ru\/presenting-intelligence-from-iraq-wmd-to-the-new-era-of-strategic-downgrades\/","title":{"rendered":"Presenting intelligence: from Iraq WMD to the new era of \u2018strategic downgrades\u2019"},"content":{"rendered":"
<\/figure>\n

Recent research from ASPI<\/a> finds that Philip Flood\u2019s 2004 inquiry into Australian intelligence agencies proved an inflection point in the national intelligence community<\/a>\u2019s development. In addition, the Flood report grappled with a matter at the heart of the intelligence failure on Iraqi weapons of mass destruction, and one of significant contemporary relevance: public presentation of intelligence for policy purposes.<\/p>\n

Flood laid out cons, including risks to intelligence sources and methods, sensitivities of intelligence-sharing arrangements and partnerships, and the possibility that public exposure could distort the intelligence-assessment process by making analysts more risk-averse. He might have added a few other negatives to the list:<\/p>\n