As an example, we tend to assign tremendous resouces to look at specific problems. "You guys look at China, you guys look at AQ, etc."
But who is looking at the big picture? And for those looking at specific problems, who is looking at the context of things within those problems against the big picture? Who is assessing strategic risks and effects across the cumulative effects of how all these many, often seemingly unrelated, but all ultimately connected, things so that the guys starring down their respective soda straws can have some context?
Even within the specific lanes, you don't find the understanding of the larger problem that you would expect. Guys who focus on GWOT don't really have a tremendous understanding of the nature of insurgency, and insurgency related conflicts. They just focus on the players. If you also don't understand the game being played, there is no way you are going to make the right assessments of what the players moves mean.
But then pull up a level from that and ask, ok, so how does this AQ thing pan out in the larger mix of competitors, challengers, friends, threats, risks, opportunities, etc around the globe? What effect on overall national security to all threats if we take this particular course on this threat? (answer: I just look at this threat, and then only in the narrow context of what they can do to us and what we can do to them, so not only do I not really understand what their actions mean or what the likely second order effects of executing the actions I propose, but I certainly don't have an opinion as to how it would impact our relations with some party, friend or foe, on the other side of the globe...)
Obviously better interaction and fusion within staffs, between staffs, between agencies, and between states all serves to mitigate this effect. But if they all start by shaping the left and right limits of their interaction by a very narrow intel product....
I have thoughts on areas and considerations, just seeing if others have considered this as well.
Bookmarks