Hi,



1) It's unclear to me whether the drafters of the NIE had any political motivation one way or the other. I can think of many, all plausible, but in the absence of additional information, it seems to me impossible to infer the drafters' intentions from the finished product. Additionally, people might not be angels, but they also often take pride in their work and their identity as "professionals." Maybe this betrays incredible naivete, but it does not seem beyond the realm of the possible that the drafters assessed the best available evidence, and made their conclusions accordingly. I recognize this may well not be the case, but I do think, as with all these hypotheses, it is probably difficult to rebut absent additional information.

2) I think the NIE does a reasonably good of acknowledging it is assessing issues that are uncertain - that is, cannot be quantified with any degree of precision. Moreover, I think the NIE does a reasonably good job of acknowledging, and trying to overcome, the difficulty of trying to convey that uncertainty via inevitably imprecise language. I think Sherman Kent once wanted percentages placed on intelligence estimates. I'm not sure about the practicality of that, but again, I think the scope conditions at the beginning of the NIE move in that direction.

3) Because of 2) I think to a certain extent, it is probably not particularly useful to parse particular word choices too much, and even less useful to do so without reference back to the scope conditions outlined at the beginning of the documents.

4) To use the same reasoning as to 1), I'd be wary of inferring a state's motives from its actions, just as I'd be wary of inferring drafters' intentions from the final product. Aggregates can produce different outcomes than individuals simply acting together. (Put more simply, the sum can be different than the whole of the parts.) A state's motives may not be transparent. Moreover, "states" consist of suborganizations, and their interplay (e.g., bargaining, conflict) may result in actions neither suborganization (or only just one suborganization) intended. (See Graham Allison, Essence of Decision, for the classic cite on this.) To me, it's actually easier to find a rational explanation for every state's behavior, than it is to determine every (or any) action taken by a state is "irrational." And I can think of lots of rational reasons why people within a state, rather than the state per se - say, Ahmadinejab - might display given behavior. And finally, my suspicion is that since I know little about Iran or Ahmadinejab, and have never been Ahmadinejam, most of those rational reasons would probably be wrong.

My $.02.

Regards
Jeff