Chapter 8 aims at uncovering the intelligence worldview, the way that worldview directs the analytical choices made by the analysts, and what that worldview implies for the framing of concepts, terms and that which it is important to create knowledge about. In this chapter I argue that the intelligence worldview is rooted within the ontological position of political realism. Therefore the first section of the chapter provides a short overview of the general characteristics of a political realism. Thereafter the following sections of the chapter provide argue and expose that the realist perspective is imbued in the estimates. The chapter concludes with a discussion of what the intelligence realist position implies for intelligence knowledge – what is viewed as problematic, what it implies for the process of articulation, and what this position implies for how the knowledge should be argued and proved.

POLITICAL REALISM

It is widely accepted that intelligence analysis is located within an overall frame of international political realism. I agree with this position, and argue that realism is the general frame of reference for intelligence analysis. The theoretical tradition of realism is perhaps the most influential theory in international relations and over its long and rich history has come to encompass a variety of theoretical variations and positions. The early ideas of realism originate in what is referred to as ‘classical realism’, dating as far back as the ancient Greek, Thucydides. Since then, realism has been challenged and refined (with new approaches through structural realism, modern realism and neo-realism), although for the purpose of this study it is sufficient to outline the core assumptions of classical realism, which still remains vital to the understanding of realism today. I have no ambition to cover the overall evolution of realist thought, but merely to sketch the core assumption of it in order to be able to identify traces of realist thought in the estimates.

Statism

From classical realism and onwards, the central actor is the state. The characteristics and functions for the state are considered to differ deeply between the domestic and the international arena. Domestically, the state is considered as the supreme power in a hierarchical system.