This morning’s WaPo story on missed 911 warnings reminded me of the Aesop’s fable about the boy who cried wolf. I suspect every retired intelligence officer harbors this thought: “They didn’t listen to me when I warned them.” I have.
As readers of this blog know, I contend that our failure to analyze the status of WMD programs is at least part of the reason for our troubles in Iraq. Techniques for analyzing programs were well developed during the cold war and seem to have been forgotten since.
Donald Sensing is now arguing the that North Korean nuke weapons program may not be mature enough to be a immediate threat.
Intelligence analysis might be improved by requiring regular reflection on selected Aesop’s fables. In this case we can compare warnings officers with the little boy who cried wolf and policy officials with the villagers who discounted the boy’s warning. The fable is an opportunity to examine our own motives.
The boy was trying to attract attention and laughed at the villagers when his warning fooled them. Initially, he might have been over cautious and enjoyed the attention. Does anyone else remember an intelligence officer who saw a big story and issued warnings? How many of those officers enjoyed the attention and hoped they could ride the story to prominence?
The villagers quickly learned to distrust the boy and discounted his warnings. After all, chasing after imaginary wolves is a waste of resources. They probably mocked the boy behind his back. Their mindset of him as a frivolous boy misled them when the wolf really was coming.
Aesop’s moral to the story is “There is no believing a liar, even when he speaks the truth.”
Herb’s corollary is: "Warnings officers who overstate the case cause policy officers to underestimate the threat."
All of us act out of mixed motives. Reflection of the fables may help us to make ethical decisions by being aware of our own motives.
Comments