Sept. 16, 2024, marked the first in the history of Türkiye; the National Intelligence Academy (MIA) started its education life.
The National Intelligence Academy, the intellectual foundations of which were laid during the term of Dr. Hakan Fidan, foreign minister of Türkiye and the former head of the National Intelligence Organization (MIT), became a reality after professor Ibrahim Kalın took over the presidency of MIT, first by completing feasibility studies and then by completing its conceptual and institutional infrastructure. The MIA opened its doors in January with a meeting open to the press, marking a new reform in the pages of Turkish intelligence history. Of course, there was a very legitimate question about the opening and functioning of the MIA. Was it logical to accept civilian students to intelligence when it is a field that should be highly classified by its nature? In fact, aside from the educational life of the students, was it suitable for the MIA to make its reports available to the public as open source?
The answer to these questions was like embarking on an adventure full of reservations and uncertainties for those who wanted to maintain a traditionalist approach to intelligence. However, for those who closely follow the state of intelligence in the 21st century, this was not a choice but a necessity. Therefore, the so-called reformists were of the opinion that Turkish intelligence should not be limited to operational expansion. For an intelligence organization lacking analytical depth, operational victories were only short and medium-term. However, for the National Intelligence Organization to achieve long-term victories with transformative effects, it needs a strong analytical mind capable of strategic thinking and planning, where insight and foresight are integrated.
For this reason, the MIA was born as an initiative to develop and strengthen the intellectual and analytical capital of Turkish intelligence. So why are analytical studies gaining more and more value in intelligence literature and activities?
First, after World War II, intelligence studies and activities were divided into war and peace periods. In this context, intelligence has ceased to be a field confined to military and defense issues. Therefore, intelligence is no longer a field of duty and activity that is produced and consumed by institutions and organizations operating mostly in the field of military and defense.
Second, the perception of security and strategy has changed. The formerly dominant understanding that prioritized state security has been replaced by a multidimensional and multilevel security phenomenon. This has led to the emergence of new fields of study, such as transportation security, critical infrastructure security, cybersecurity, food security and environmental security, which are directly related to intelligence work. Undoubtedly, as the perception of security has changed, the strategic approach to adapt to this change has also changed, and a new institutionalization process has emerged to produce strategic solutions to strategic problem areas.
Third, the information age and the new digital era have presented opportunities and challenges. Today, there is a flood of data that spreads instantaneously around the world through digital platforms. Therefore, access to information, which was the main problem for intelligence agencies in the past, has been replaced by a cautious and vigilant (defensive) position in the face of untimely and intense information flow. It is no longer about access to information but about analyzing it in an accurate, unbiased and actionable manner. In this sense, the main challenge is not the tactical and operative consumption of current knowledge but the management of existing knowledge, its analysis and reproduction at a long-term and strategic level with an interdisciplinary approach.
Fourth, there is the issue of the privatization of knowledge sources, instruments and production. In this sense, a new era has emerged in which technology firms play a critical role in information gathering, classification, processing, valorization and analysis. Many companies today offer geospatial intelligence activities and solutions that used to be a state monopoly. One of the best examples is that during the ongoing Russian-Ukrainian War, many private companies that produced satellite imagery and analyzed geospatial intelligence provided services to relevant agencies and organizations in Kyiv.
Fifth, there is change and transformation of intelligence agencies. Countries that do not deny the existence and power of the intelligence industry prefer to cooperate with the private sector rather than push it out of the system. In these countries, cooperation with the intelligence community, the private sector and academia is not seen as the end of the intelligence profession; on the contrary, it is considered an element that alleviates the pressure on intelligence agencies to produce alternative decisions in terms of subject matter, time, human resources and choices. For this reason, in countries that want to benefit from the intelligence industry, the private sector and academia are not treated with an exclusionary approach but with a manageable perspective.
Considering the reasons summarized in the main headings above, it is possible to say that MIA, while preserving the Turkish intelligence tradition, has shifted to a manageable intelligence industry understanding with a reformist approach. In this sense, as emphasized by MIT Director Kalın in his opening speech of the training year, MIA will provide strategic inputs to the raison d'état on the one hand and invest in intellectual capital that can create its own set of concepts and references on intelligence studies and practices on the other. Likewise, as professor Talha Köse, president of the MIA, explained, the human resources at the MIA, which gain an interdisciplinary and multidisciplinary perspective that combines social sciences with science and engineering sciences, will be Türkiye's strategic asset shaping future generations.
In this respect, MIA will prove that professional prowess in intelligence is not only reduced to the operative skills of field officers; as a branch of science, it will prove how valuable those who produce analytical thoughts at the desk are. In this sense, MIA will undoubtedly serve as a center of attraction for the country in terms of both intelligence discipline literacy and analysis methodology.
