Book review

Understanding the Globalization ofIntelligence, Adam N.M. Svendsen. PalgraveMacmillan, London, 2012, 238 pp.

The literature on intelligence is characterized by aduality. It contains both works of excellent qualitywritten by scholars who view intelligence from theoutside looking in and similarly excellent works writtenby intelligence professionals who look at intelligencefrom the inside and look outward. The former grouptends to emphasize theory and seek to locate intelli-gence within the broader literature on internationalpolitics.The latter group, while often possessing schol-arly credentials, emphasizes personal experience andorganizational histories in their narratives. Adam N.M.Svendsen takes note of this duality and argues for agreater integration of intelligence studies into socialscience theories. In Understanding the Globalization ofIntelligence, he explicitly seeks to ground his study in theliterature on intelligence and that on globalization. Hisparticular focus is on intelligence liaison, a topic hecharacterizes as a form of overt–covert action andfollowing Michael Herman he identifies as a ‘slightlyfenced off mystery’ (Herman, 1996, p. 215).

Svendsen begins his compact and thoroughly re-searched book (155 pages of text, 47 pages of notes,and 29 page bibliography) with a fast-paced first chapterthat provides an overview of the literature on intel-ligence leading to a discussion of the meaning ofintelligence liaison, its dynamics, strengths, and weak-nesses. In the second chapter, Svendsen evaluatesthe record of intelligence liaison in the early 21stcentury with special attention to counter-terrorismand weapons of mass destruction counter-proliferation.Here, attention is directed at issues of liaison risks, thenature of multilateral liaisons, and challenges to connec-tivity. Many of the ideas introduced in this chapter areextended in the discussion of intelligence liaison whichoccurs in following chapter. It is argued that intelligence(and most particularly intelligence liaison) needs to beviewed less as a topic on the periphery of the policy-making process and playing only a supporting role topolicy to one that increasing plays a leading and direct-ing role. An important aspect of this increased signifi-cance of intelligence liaison Svendsen notes here is the

growing cooperation and coordination of activitiestaking place between international and domestic secu-rity organizations, a pattern that continues down tolocal levels of policing.The discussion next moves to aninitial conclusion in which Svendsen unpacks intelli-gence liaison into eight attributes that constitute‘building blocks’ that collectively contribute to theglobalization of intelligence (p. 99).

Collectively, the three chapters on the globalizationof intelligence converge to create what Svendsen char-acterizes as ‘a generic theory of optimized (intelligenceand security) reach’ (p. 109). A word of caution is inorder. The theoretical ride that Svendsen takes thereader on in reaching this point is not for the intelli-gence novice nor the theoretically faint at heart. Thereview of the literature touches on all the key issuesand presents the leading alternative viewpoints butdoes so in a manner that seems to presuppose knowl-edge of that literature. Svendsen is writing to those inthe field urging them to adopt a more theoretical focusto their study of intelligence and intelligence liaison andnot introducing someone to intelligence studies. In pre-senting his theoretical construct, Svendsen introducesthe reader to what at times takes on the feel of anoverwhelming series of concepts, ideas, and principleswith little or no development. They are referenced soreaders may pursue them but time is not taken in thenarrative to familiarize readers with them.Two differentfactors contribute to this sense of theoretical overdose.One is that Svendsen is writing from a theoreticalperspective that not all readers are familiar with. Theconcepts of reach enhancement and reach engagement,for example, are not commonly found in the interna-tional relations literature while they may be common inthe literate of crisis mismanagement and public admin-istration. The second contributing factor is the sheernumber of concepts introduced and the qualificationsand subcategories introduced. In introducing the eightattributes of intelligence liaison, the rationale behindintelligence liaison is divided into five categories and thetype and functions of intelligence liaison are divided intotwo categories and six subcategories. Parsimony intheorizing is absent. We return to the original modelof decision making in which virtually all factors andpossibilities were identified but insufficient guidance is

Journal of Contingencies and Crisis Management Volume 21 Number 2 June 2013

© 2013 John Wiley & Sons Ltd DOI: 10.1111/1468-5973.12015

provided as to their relative importance (Snyder, Bruck,& Sapin, 1954).

In the final two chapters, Svendsen partly addressesthe problem of lack of focus by presenting sugges-tions for the future and looking more closely at theglobalization–intelligence nexus. Among the areas forinvestigation suggested in Chapter 5 are accountability,oversight, and monitoring of intelligence liaison (pp.122–25); better promoting ongoing problem solving orissue management tools over time (p. 126); and greateruse of scenario methodologies and increasing risk resil-ience (p. 127). The author’s valuable insights into thefuture study of intelligence liaison are not restricted tothis chapter but can be found sprinkled throughoutthe book.Among the earlier key ideas he introduces isthe need for intelligence to return to being more similarto architects and engineers in its outlook and less likefirst responders and firefighters (p. 72); the potentialimportance of flattening intelligence hierarchies (p. 55)and thinking of intelligence liaison in terms of hubsand spokes and the international standardization andhomogenization of intelligence practices and processes(p. 45).

In the final chapter, Svendsen views intelligence andglobalization largely through an international politicslens. He observes that the intelligence world is notisolated from other general trends taking place in thecorporate/business world (p. 141) and that a ‘moreglobalized intelligence capability is needed, namely onethat is able to comprehensively provide a more holisticand timely picture of the threats and challenges faced

now and into the future’ (p. 140). One aspect ofglobalization not incorporated by Svendsen into hisanalysis is that raised by Susan Strange’s phrase‘casino capitalism’ (Strange, 1986). Globalization notonly means political borders lose much of their signifi-cance, connections deepen and broaden simultaneously,and that the consequences of events are felt morerapidly around the world, but that it is hard – if notimpossible – to identify who is in control over political,social, and economic events. The world had become agiant casino in which governments and citizens are littlemore than gamblers. If this is the case, intelligenceliaison faces a very serious intelligence challenge toprovide more holistic and timely information on threatsand challenges.

In summary, Svendsen has presented readers with aprovocative and challenging work that takes time todigest.There is much to be gained from taking that time.

Glenn HastedtDepartment of Justice Studies

James Madison UniversityHarrisonburg, Virginia

USA

ReferencesHerman, M. (1996), Intelligence Power in Peace and War, Cambridge University

Press, Cambridge.Snyder, R., Bruck, H.W. and Sapin, B. (1954), Foreign Policy Decision Making: An

Approach to the Study of International Politics, Free Press, New York.Strange, S. (1986), Casino Capitalism, Basil Blackwell, Oxford.

126 Book Review

Journal of Contingencies and Crisis ManagementVolume 21 Number 2 June 2013 © 2013 John Wiley & Sons Ltd