The Search for Strategic Intelligence

[Bill Moore]

Some thoughts on this as I work on some projects in my lane:

1. What types of Competitors are associated with a problem, probably laid out in 3 tiers from those directly engaged, those 1 degree of separation away, and those 2 degrees of separation away.
a. Who are the state actors?
1. Nuclear States
2. Non-nuclear States
3. Failing States
4. Criminal States

The above list looks more like a typology than information that would inform a strategy. However, I know if you're working on this there is more to it than meets the eye. A list of all States under the classification of nuclear and non-nuclear doesn't inform strategy, but if a nuclear state is at risk of failing, then that becomes strategically important.

Then the pressing issue is determining why the State is failing, and using Steve the Planner's post as an example, I tend to agree that we don't do this well. Our IC is enemy focused, and that is still a critical component of intelligence for the military (probably still the most critical), but that doesn't provide the necessary information needed to rebuild Iraq or Afghanistan for example. Now we're getting more into what has been coined human terrain or human geography along with economics, politics, etc. and as Jedburgh pointed out how all these various items combine to provide a functional context. Not sure if that is rates as operational or strategic intelligence, just know that we need it.

I think there are two components that strategic planners/advisors require. One is a strategic design and the other is a list of our known strategic interests (security, economy, etc.)

A Strategic Design process that parallels Operational Design would potentially provide strategists a context to better understand whether a particular situation actually warrants a response on our part. Is this situation that actually threatens one of our strategic interests to begin with?

This step is critical, especially since the Joint Operating Environment (JOE) informs us that numerous trends are converging in troubling ways, so we'll be faced with more "potential" crises in the near future than we can ever hope to effectively deal with, so a strategy and strategic design is essential to inform our triage process. The IC would be responsible for continuously updating the design, which would require a reorganization process on their part, as this is not a simple undertaking.

Immediately following WWII the world was still complex, but our strategic priorities were more black and white. It was determined by our national leadership that rebuilding Japan and Germany to counter the growing communist threat was in our national interests, and IMHO it was a well informed strategy that resulted on substantial return on our investment.

Now jumping to the post Cold War era, we responded to the crisis in Somalia in the early 90s presummably because our leadership thought it was in our national interest to do so, but we accomplished little, and on the other hand we didn't respond to the crisis in Rwanda, why? This is the post Cold War era strategic gray area that we still live in.

One of advantage of having a strategy and strategic design (which should provide a common understanding of the issues to the U.S. Government, thus help facilitate consensus) is that once the leadership determines a particular effort is in our strategic interests then we should invest fully in it. Our design already tells us the risks if we don't do so. That begs the question do we get involved if it isn't in our strategic interests? Realpolitic suggests yes, but at least I would hope we would invest lightly and keep one hand on the eject button, so we don't get stuck in a quagmire that isn't truly in our long term interests. That means we would limit our public objectives so we don't box ourselves in with our own rhethoric.

In many ways the debate over Afghanistan relates back to a lack of strategy and strategic design. The key question now seems to be is it in our national interests to rebuild Afghanistan as stable state? Unfortunately there is no consensus, because we don't have a common understanding of the strategic context. If the answer is yes, then it will most likely call for a substantial investment, much like the investment we made in Germany and Japan. After eight years of fighting we still having fully committed to one approach or the other.

Strategy, Strategic Design and Strategic Intelligence are important, even if we can't define what it is :-).