Future limitations on intelligence have become a key issue being subjected to debate and discussion by scholars. As it stands now, it is obvious that there are potential challenges facing the intelligence community (Agrell 2012, 130).
On the same note, the community will still be vulnerable to other numerous challenges in future is drastic actions are not put in place. Research studies on intelligence matters reveal that the conduct of intelligence has been transforming dramatically since the advent of the 20th century.
However, there are still a number of misconceptions and social ignorance on the importance of information. Due to the immense expansion of intelligence collection, researchers have pointed out that technological hitch might pose a major challenge to the community in future.
In other words, technology has been misused and regarded as a universal tool that can be employed in handling every aspect of intelligence (Agrell 2012, 130). As a matter of fact, overreliance on technology may not be a pragmatic approach of addressing issues related to intelligence.
Even as the Intelligence Community stresses the invaluable role played by technology, the future of the community mighty is bleak if a robust human resource pool is not put in place.
At the moment, the entire design of intelligence cycle is quite wanting bearing in mind that public participation continues to pose a major threat to national intelligence (Omand 2012, 155).
According to the past performance of the Intelligence Community, there is minimal effort being put in place in order to develop viable scientific methods that can aid collection of intelligence information.
The future operations of the community will still suffer due to poor comprehension of case-specific problems and how they can be handled in case they arise (Omand 2012, 154). Agrell (2012, 130) laments that “there has been only limited and scattered development of the field since the publication of Sherman Kent’s classical book on strategic intelligence in 1949”.
From this assertion, it is evident that the current ignorance of the operations of the Intelligence Community may stretch into the future and cause subsequent challenges. Omand (2012, 156) predicts that lack of appropriate scientific approaches on intelligence will be a striking feature throughout the 21st century era.
It might be impossible to examine how non-development of scientific approaches can lead to unsatisfactory state of intelligence. However, potential challenges will eventually become visible and explicit (Omand 2012, 155).
It is crucial to note that the relevance of intelligence in society will never dissipate (Agrell 2012, 132). The intelligence platform will continually undergo transformations and proliferation. For instance, intelligence will eventually become a social activity.
Due to such transformations, it is irrefutable that the scientific strategies embraced in intelligence affairs will be able to handle the much-anticipated upheavals and equally meet the expectations of the society. In spite of the growth prospects of the community, the challenge of dealing with bioterrorism is still a glaring reality.
The IC has not been bale to manage the threats posed by acts of terror. While discussing the future challenges of the community, bioterrorism tops the list. If bubonic plague can be used to clear a large population after a short while, then the community still faces a cumbersome task ahead of curtailing all forms of terror.
Moreover, threats leveled against governments by anarchists will continue to affect the Intelligence Community in future. Additional challenges within the IC teams include competition for scarce resources and an exploding population growth beyond the capacity of the Intelligence Community.
References
Agrell, Wilhelm. 2012. “The Next 100 Years? Reflections on the Future of Intelligence.” Intelligence and National Security l27, no1 (February): 118-132.
Omand, David. 2012. “Into the Future: A Comment on Agrell and Warner.” Intelligence and National Security 27, no. 1 (February): 154-156.