In December 1941, the U.S. suffered one of the most infamous failures of national intelligence in history. Seventy-five years later (almost to the anniversary of Pearl Harbor itself) President-elect Trump has surprisingly trained his rhetorical fire on the U.S. intelligence community itself.

The most recent development in this row – and surely not the last – is Trump’s contempt for the president’s daily briefing. "I'm a smart person," the president-elect said during an interview on Fox News Sunday. "I don't have to be told the same thing in the same words every single day for the next eight years.” He has apparently only received four such briefings.

ADVERTISEMENT

It is tempting to see Trump’s recent statement as yet another provocation from an individual who is painfully unaware of himself. But this is too simplistic a read. Trump’s statement could be actually read as a wake-up call to the U.S. intelligence community to provide deep insights and creative interpretations of reality rather just information or news.

Trump’s statement is reminiscent of a critique made by the late Israeli leader Shimon Peres regarding Israel’s intelligence community. Reflecting on his years as prime minister, he said: “I read the intelligence reports the way I read The Economist, Le Monde or the New York Times.” Mr. Peres’s argument was that the intelligence community should humbly provide a clear and simple picture of reality rather than interpret it – let alone make actionable recommendations to decision-makers.

Trump takes the completely opposite position: In an era of information overload where one can consume the most up-to-date information via smartphone, one does not need another news agency or “presidential newspaper” to provide intelligence. This is especially true when dealing with decision-makers who are concerned with strategic-level challenges: What they need isn’t just more data, but someone to help them sift through oceans of information and help them make sense of reality. They need a partner – not another data supplier.

What Trump expresses is a progressive approach to the role of intelligence in national security. Regrettably, intelligence agencies are still directed by a conservative approach in which they attempt to merely present a clear and unbiased picture of reality.

The foundations of this approach were set out in 1949 by Sherman Kent in his influential book Strategic Intelligence for American World Policy. In that book, Kent articulated the concept of the “intelligence cycle,” which sees the intelligence establishment as a “producer” of intelligence products (i.e., reports) and the decision-maker as a passive “consumer” thereof. Almost 70 years after publication, this basic dichotomy between the intelligence producer and the decision-making consumer remains the popular expression of a well-functioning intelligence community.

Intelligence agencies would appear to have an inherent advantage over news agencies when it comes to information. The former may have access to unique and intimate information the latter does not possess. But the world has changed. One might rightly argue that news agencies – and even members of the general public – often have access to more timely and accurate information than do intelligence agencies. Just imagine the extensive production process of such intelligence briefs: Until they are presented to the reader, there is a good chance that most of the information is no longer relevant or accurate.

In this day and age, most strategic-level issues aren’t resolved around secrets that need to be revealed but around mysteries that need to be solved. Secrets indeed usually require state resources and apparatuses to be revealed, but mysteries require something else – i.e., sense-making. This requires collaboration, brainstorming and structured discussion – all enriched with information but which produce higher-order insights.

This in particular is what Trump needs and what the powerful U.S. intelligence community could provide: a partner to (a) help the White House understand deep underwater currents, (b) analyze the aspirations, motivations and limitations of strategic-level actors, and (c) design successful policy and strategy in that light. Strategy formulation should be a joint operation led by the policymaker in which intelligence plays a unique role, presenting analysis and providing strategic insights.

It is therefore better to read Trump’s statements not as a surprise attack but rather as an early warning should the U.S. intelligence community like to be relevant during this administration. To shape and influence U.S. grand strategy, it needs to move away from its own perception as an information supplier towards being a partner in an ongoing collaborative process of knowledge development.

Dr. Shay Hershkovitz is chief strategy officer at Wikistrat, Inc. and a political science professor at Tel Aviv University specializing in intelligence studies. He is also a former IDF intelligence officer whose book, "Aman Comes To Light," deals with the history of the Israeli intelligence community.

The views expressed by contributors are their own and are not the views of The Hill.