'U.S. THREAT ASSESSMENT REPORT HAS SEVERAL BLIND SPOTS'

The challenge is that the report needs more strategic and integrated intelligence to appropriately describe today's threats to the United States and its partners and allies, says Jack Gaines.

- CLEO PASKAL

Every year, the United States’ Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI) releases a public “Annual Threat Assessment of the U.S. Intelligence Community”, known as the ATA. It is supposed to provide an unclassified summary of the intelligence community’s evaluation of current threats to U.S. national security. To understand more about what was included in—and missing from—this year’s assessment, in this edition of Indo-Pacific: Behind the Headlines we spoke with Jack Gaines, a foreign policy consultant out of Washington D.C.

Q: You just finished reviewing the U.S. Office of National Intelligence Threat Assessment?
A: Yes, and I am more concerned about the report than the threats.

Q: Please elaborate.
A: Sure. The Director of National Intelligence oversees all U.S. Intelligence Communities’ reporting. Still, the report seemed to focus heavily on military assessments with either minor or no input from the rest of the community. As a result, it has unnecessary blind spots.

Q: The sort of intelligence blind spots that the 9/11 Commission report discussed?
A: Yes and no. Before 9/11 the Cold War era intelligence construct missed the terrorism indicators, which resulted in a devastating attack on U.S. soil. The current ODNI Threat Assessment shows that the intelligence community is more apt to spot that sort of threat now. For example, the community warned about the upcoming attack in Moscow and the invasion of Ukraine. This is great for spotting and preventing violent attacks.