The United States has always been a country that prided itself on the excellence of its military excellenc and precision. The defense and national forces have been at the heart of military intelligence throughout the years starting with 2001, in September. Many government agencies, for example, have joined forces with more traditional military forces to help combat both minor crime forces with those of a more sophisticated body of crime throughtout the United States and the world. A historical examination of the various elements related to U.S. intelligence during military intense times reveal that more attention to social or human concerns during the times involved might have created a greater drive towards caring for those left destitute by a focus on military or social concerns during World War II, the military inquiries of the 1970s, and the invasion of Iraq started in 2003. When examining the events associated with these three paradigms, it becomes clear that all involved perceived little choice in the actions they perpetrated, regardless of how heinous and unnecessary they may appear to the modern eye. However, many of the acts that are currently considered as unacceptable were viewed in a different light for the times in which they occurred. .
During World War II, for example, Military Intelligence had a somewhat paradoxical aspect, as indicated by Finnigan (2001). However, this was hardly a perfect system, as the Admiaral Ernest King pointed out that there was a large amount of wasted effort to achieve similar results, as shown in the graphic displays of the time. To ensure that the United States had a competitive edge, it was therefore determined that wasted time and effort were to be implemented in such a way as to ensure that lessons were learned from historic events such as World War II, the 1970s investigations, and the reponse to 9/11 in order to create a society whose future was secured while the basic rights determined at the start of the 20th century remained guaranteed.
World War II
During World War II, there were rapid changes not only in society, but also in the military itself (Finnigan, 2006). After Pearl Harbor, a Joint Intelligence Committee was created to ensure the cooperation of all military units in the United States and to prevent future disaster and especialy terrorist difficulties. When joint Chiefs of Staff were apointed, other entities, s uch as the JIC and ONI were implemented to ensure the highest level of secrity after the Pearl Harbor event. What is interesting at this time is that the British intelligence played an important part in the dissemination of classified information to the United States' intelligence forces.
A joint structure was then formed within the United States to ensre that interervice cooperation was achived. Interrogation facilities were, for example, set up to ensure the uniform extraction of information from prisoners of war. This expanded in 1942 to form a joint Amry-Navy Intelligence service in order to acquire nontactical information that could be used in Washington.
Finnigan (2006) also pointed to the various traditions at the time that created a barrier to evolution in the military services. Even within the various defense forces, for example, intelligence was not shared universally, even among intelligence sources. According to Finnigan (2006), for example, the Navy did not share all its information with the Army. Indeed, there were significant discrepancies among armed services in the intelligence field, as well as between the Nave and other intelligence agencies within the field. Indeed, there are significant amounts of distrust among the various intelligence agenices, inlcuding the military, as well as the general public regarding the ways in which the country can be usefully regulated and ruled.
The beginning of this was the creation of a new intelligence agency that cultivated the minimal amout of public trust. Indeed, Finigan (2006) implies that various aspects of inteligence software were used to influence the public opinion on the guilt or innocence of varios members of the intelligene community. TORCH, for example, was credited for the invasion of North Africa, while the Joint Inbtelligence Committee was left out of any mention that could affec its reputation in terms of human rights focus points. Rather than displaying a unified frond by the military and its related agencies, a joint image was provided by intelligence support to the Joint…