Organizations

United States have so many different intelligence agencies[]

Unsurprisingly, nations historically follow either a Western or Eastern model when it comes to intelligence modeled after the American and Soviet systems, respectively. The two approaches reflect separate visions of society.

The Soviet model is more suited for an authoritarian state. Under the Soviets, all non-military intelligence activities, foreign and domestic, and and a variety of other security service mandates were consolidated under a single body: the KGB. This system effectively gave the KGB total control over Soviet life. Power was so consolidated in the KGB after Stalin that all other branches of the government effectively answered to the KGB leadership. This gave the KGB unrivaled power, because there was no other organization in the Soviet government capable of locking horns with it.

By contrast, Western nations tend to follow a model that favors both specificity and checks and balances. As fields progress, they become increasingly specialized. In a major philosophical shift, the US opted to separate foreign intelligence and domestic intelligence. When the US set up its intelligence agencies, the government did so with the belief that they should treat US citizens radically different than those of adversarial nations. As result, the US decided to separate the CIA and FBI, so that the two could focus on different doctrinal, legal and tactical approaches.

The US was also very conscious to distribute law enforcement and intelligence functions across a broad variety of bodies, so as to ensure that no single law enforcement or intelligence agency could overwhelm the others and the court system. As a result, the US distributed law enforcement and national security functions broadly through civilian bodies like the DHS, Treasury, DEA and Department of Energy.

All of these Departments as a matter of business come into contact with intelligence that other government agencies might be interested. They also have a need to coordinate with other government agencies for intelligence purposes. As a result, they all maintain relatively small intelligence units.

The Department of Defense maintains the National Security Agency, Defense Intelligence Agency, National Reconnaissance Office and National Geospatial Intelligence Agency as stand-alone agencies due to the specialized nature of their work. All of those agencies have specific focuses that are peripheral to the core DoD business line of defending the US and its allies. As a result, the US feels it is prudent to allow those agencies to have autonomy to focus on their core business lines.

By contrast under the Russian/Soviet system most defense intelligence functions fall under the Main Intelligence Directorate of the Russian Armed Forces. The GRU is most directly analogous in the functions to the DIA. However it also has separate departments that perform the functions of the NSA and National Geospatial Intelligence Agency.

Since the fall of the Soviet Union, the Russian Federation has adopted a structure more along Western lines that separates out foreign intelligence and domestic intelligence. Nevertheless, in the current structure, the FSB, Russia’s domestic intelligence and law enforcement agency is far more powerful than the FBI. The FSB is allowed some degree of a foreign policy mandate, especially in Russia’s near abroad, that encroaches to a degree on the SVR. For instance, all of the spetsnaz units tasked with foreign operations are attached to the FSB, not the SVR, Russia’s Foreign Intelligence Service.

The Russian leadership is currently discussing plans to merge the FSB, SVR and the Federal Protective Service (FSO) back into a body analogous to the KGB. For the past 2 decades, all power in the intelligence services has vested stably in Putin, who is well liked among the state organs. However, as Russia looks to the future, the leadership is considering consolidating many of the former departments of the KGB under the Ministry of State Security or MGB.