This paper examines the five mission objectives established in the 2005 National Intelligence Strategy (NIS) under Director of National Intelligence John Negroponte. The objectives — defeating terrorists, countering weapons of mass destruction, supporting democratic governments, developing innovative intelligence methods, and enhancing strategic forecasting — are each described and illustrated with real-world examples. The paper then evaluates these objectives through a strategic intelligence framework drawn from Rolington's system of abilities, which includes foresight, visioning, system thinking, motivating, and collaborating. While the NIS demonstrates strengths in foresight, visioning, and system thinking, the paper argues that the objectives fall short by neglecting stakeholder motivation and international partnership development.
The paper demonstrates applied framework analysis: it introduces a theoretical model (Rolington's five-part system of abilities) and systematically maps each element onto the policy document under review. This technique allows the writer to produce an organized, criteria-driven evaluation rather than an impressionistic critique, and it shows how academic theory can be used to assess real-world government strategy.
The paper opens by contextualizing the NIS and then devotes one section to each of the five mission objectives, blending policy description with illustrative examples. The second half shifts to evaluation, working through Rolington's five-part framework — acknowledging what the NIS gets right (foresight, visioning, system thinking) before identifying what it lacks (motivating, collaborating). The paper closes with a recommendation to incorporate those missing elements.
Under the leadership of Director of National Intelligence John Negroponte, the National Intelligence Strategy (NIS) was developed in 2005. The strategy provided a clear description of how the United States intelligence community was going to overhaul its functions both inside and outside the country. It established five Mission Objectives aimed at predicting, penetrating, and preempting the possible threats facing the security of the United States. The five objectives were: defeating terrorists; countering the spread of weapons of mass destruction; supporting democratic governments; developing innovative intelligence methods; and increasing the role of strategic forecasting for policymakers (National Intelligence, 2005).
The first mission objective called on the intelligence community to ensure that all efforts by terrorists to carry out attacks against the United States were defeated. This was to be accomplished through the destabilization of terrorist support systems, leadership structures, and entire networks. The strategy identified the National Counterterrorism Center as the body responsible for carrying out this objective. The objective was clearly driven by past terrorism events whose consequences the United States suffered fatally — most notably, the September 11, 2001 attacks, which consisted of simultaneous strikes launched against New York City and Washington, D.C.
The second objective aimed at eliminating or drastically curtailing the use and spread of weapons of mass destruction. The NIS acknowledged that this was a complex challenge with no single approach, instead requiring a multi-faceted strategy. While the document did not provide explicit details on all methods of execution, it stated that the focus was to be on the transportation and movement of these weapons. A notable example is the chemical weapons manufactured and used by Iraq, which the United States intercepted and recovered in its commitment to this objective. The National Counter-Proliferation Center was designated to lead implementation, working in conjunction with the analytical efforts of the broader intelligence community.
The third objective was built on the hypothesis that failed states foster the spread of extremism, which is a primary driver of terrorism. The NIS stated that the intelligence community was to support new and aspiring democratic governments by providing intelligence on possible threats to their economies and governments. It was also to support military and diplomatic efforts whenever intervention was necessary, and to assist legislatures in promoting democratic governance. The Deputy Director of National Intelligence was assigned responsibility for following up on implementation. A clear example of this objective in practice is the sustained support the United States provided to Afghanistan in rebuilding the country and empowering the Afghan people.
The fourth objective sought to develop new methodologies of intelligence collection, particularly to improve human intelligence gathering, given that the United States now faces a diverse and rapidly changing adversarial landscape. The effort also included developing mechanisms to assess the intelligence capabilities of adversaries in order to maintain a competitive edge. One historical context where this objective applied was the early Cold War between the Soviet Union and the United States (Catino). Responsibility for carrying out this objective was shared among the Deputy Director of National Intelligence for Collection, the Deputy Director of National Intelligence for Analysis, the National Counterterrorism Center, and the National Counterintelligence Executive, all working in mutual liaison and support.
Considering the five mission objectives, it is not clear what partnerships have been considered for initiation with like-minded groups or countries in the fight against terrorism. The objectives appear to take a mono-approach, treating the United States primarily as an individual actor committed to combating terrorism. However, this framing is insufficient, because terrorism is a global problem that many countries and groups are actively struggling to address. If the two missing elements — motivating and collaborating — are incorporated into the five mission objectives of the National Intelligence Strategy, the result will be a far stronger and more comprehensive framework to help the United States combat its enemies and the enemies of the world at large.
Catino, M. S. Strategic Intelligence: The Soviet Union and Strategic Intelligence in the Early Cold War, 1945–1953. Henley Putnam University.
National Intelligence. (2005). The National Intelligence Strategy of the United States of America: Transformation through Integration and Innovation.
Powell, J. H., & Bradford, J. P. (2000). Targeting intelligence gathering in a dynamic competitive environment. International Journal of Information Management, 20, 181–195.
Rolington, A. (2013). Strategic Intelligence for the 21st Century: The Mosaic Method. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Always verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.