Discussion reply to
U.S. intelligence collection programs are a robust collaboration of specificalities that span both literal and non-literal to single source and all source mediums. The five main collection specialties highlight specific pillars within the enterprise that provide substantial and clearly defined value. It is interesting to note that these specialties (OSINT, HUMINT, MASINT, SIGINT, and IMINT) are not necessarily organic to the HSE, but more as technical enablers to supplement the intelligence work already being conducted.
Dr. Clark provides examples of how very different literal and nonliteral intelligence are and the limitations of both. (Oleson 2016) With literal collection (HUMINT and COMINT) there is no need for technical interpretation as the information is in a medium, we understand. When discussing information of a highly technical nature (HUMINT, ELINT, FISINT, etc.) a high degree of processing is required and thus another level of interpretation. Highly technical collections are in high demand and require a level of prioritization to even be able to make the target decks.
If I had to narrow down only two of the five main intelligence disciplines, I would stick with both HUMINT and SIGINT. Matt Mayer (2016) makes a solid case for "enhanced" HUMINT in solving encryption and other technical limitations of the other specialties. Working through social relationships and putting humans into those spaces provides the necessary early warning to focus follow on efforts. SIGINT is important in that it helps to define relationships and through contextual cuing can also shed light on intentions. Humans love to talk, and someone will always say too much either through some type of technical medium or face to face to another person.