Andere Kunden interessierten sich auch für
![Defining Counterintelligence. CI, Security and non-governmental actors]( "Defining Counterintelligence. CI, Security and non-governmental actors")
Defining Counterintelligence. CI, Security and non-governmental actors17,95 €![The Fourth Man]( "The Fourth Man")
The Fourth Man25,99 €![Behind the Enigma]( "Behind the Enigma")
Behind the Enigma33,99 €![We Are Bellingcat]( "We Are Bellingcat")
We Are Bellingcat23,99 €![Dependency Theory. History, Principles, Perspective and Criticism]( "Dependency Theory. History, Principles, Perspective and Criticism")
Dependency Theory. History, Principles, Perspective and Criticism15,95 €![Triple Cross]( "Triple Cross")
Triple Cross24,99 €![The Epistemology of Violence]( "The Epistemology of Violence")
The Epistemology of Violence42,99 €
Essay from the year 2017 in the subject Politics - International Politics - Topic: Peace and Conflict Studies, Security, grade: 60.00, Brunel University (College of Business, Arts and Social Sciences), course: MA Intelligence & Security Studies, language: English, abstract: The relationship between the study of history and the field of intelligence is intriguing and multi-faceted at the same time. The general assumption is that "by studying history, intelligence agencies can learn from past mistakes and aim to improve their performance" (Efren Torres). However, the truth of this belief must be weighed against some limitations that historians meet and that could affect their work. Foremost, there is the problem of the bias of historians and how it can affect the objectivity of their work; secondly, the lack of applicable patterns in using history as a source from which to glean lessons learned; lastly, the inevitable gaps that historians encounter in seeking evidence of the past. This essay focuses on these limitations and on the extent to which they can affect the intelligence performance. It will be argued that the study of history is a double-edged sword to the intelligence field.