{"id":27616,"date":"2016-07-12T11:00:37","date_gmt":"2016-07-12T01:00:37","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.aspistrategist.ru\/?p=27616"},"modified":"2016-07-12T15:39:18","modified_gmt":"2016-07-12T05:39:18","slug":"understanding-limits-intelligence","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.aspistrategist.ru\/understanding-limits-intelligence\/","title":{"rendered":"Understanding the limits of intelligence"},"content":{"rendered":"
<\/p>\n
Last week, Sir John Chilcot\u2019s<\/span> review<\/span><\/a> revealed that in 2003 the then British Prime Minister, Tony Blair, committed his country to the US-led invasion of Iraq based on \u2018<\/span>flawed intelligence and assessments<\/span><\/i>\u2019. After the report\u2019s release, former Australian Prime Minister John Howard made a<\/span> statement<\/span><\/a> that when he sent Australia to war with Iraq in 2003 \u2018[<\/span>T]here were errors in intelligence, but there was no lie<\/span><\/i>\u2019.<\/span><\/p>\n Neither the Chilcot review, nor Howard\u2019s statement, address the intelligence tradecraft and policy factors that created the perceived intelligence flaws and errors.<\/span><\/p>\n The secretive nature of the intelligence profession means many are curious, but ill-informed, about its inner workings.<\/span><\/p>\n Over the last twenty or so years I\u2019ve been regularly asked \u2018<\/span>what\u2019s strategic intelligence analysis all about<\/span><\/i>\u2019. These days I have a well-rehearsed stock answer to the question.<\/span><\/p>\n Imagine for a moment that I give you 10,000 jigsaw puzzle pieces. Then imagine I tell you that an indeterminate number of these pieces belong to a single 1,000 piece jigsaw puzzle. Then imagine I ask you to tell me what the 1000 piece jigsaw puzzle picture is of: but I am not going to give you any more clues. No easy task. But it\u2019s easy compared to the great intelligence game where the adversary is constantly trying to deny you the opportunity to collect.<\/span><\/p>\n In 2002, then United States Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, tried to address the Iraq weapons of mass destruction intelligence challenge with his now infamous \u2018<\/span>known knowns<\/span><\/i>\u2019 and \u2018<\/span>unknown unknowns<\/span><\/i>\u2019<\/span> comments<\/span><\/a>. But in doing so, Rumsfeld unintentionally demonstrated that he didn\u2019t understand the uses and limitations of intelligence.<\/span><\/p>\n On rare occasions intelligence can be used as conclusive evidence that something’s a fact. In reality though, seldom does intelligence afford you a full picture: and often what’s collected appears contradictory. More often than not, the intelligence available to an analyst or decision maker is insufficient in quality and accuracy to conclusively prove anything.<\/span><\/p>\n In hindsight, intelligence is almost always flawed to some extent.<\/span><\/p>\n Good intelligence tradecraft involves a range of analytical techniques that ensure that the validity and reliability of different assessments or explanations are tested. In the end what is presented to the decision maker by intelligence agencies is neither hard evidence nor fact but a hypothesis with an associated assessment of its likely probability.<\/span><\/p>\n