When Bill Russell was a color commentator for NBA basketball he used to call the slam dunk a high percentage shot.
Michael Schrage asks about George Tenant assuring the President that the case for WMD in Iraq was a “slam dunk. “What percent”, he asks, “is a slam dunk?”
“…to require national security analysts to assign numerical probabilities to their professional estimates and assessments as both a matter of rigor and of record. Policymakers can't weigh the risks associated with their decisions if they can't see how confident analysts are in the evidence and conclusions used to justify those decisions. The notion of imposing intelligence accountability without intelligent counting -- without numbers -- is a fool's errand.”
I’m inclined to agree that a written statement such as there is a 90% chance of snow tonight is more useful than one that say’s it is going to snow . Advocating that intelligence analysts state their conclusions in terms of subjective probability raises questions in philosophy, personality theory, and organization theory, as well as from my own experience.
The question is an old one. Aristotle wrote:
Ethics: Senior Leader’s Responsibility
Some comments from working level professionals prompted me to post this quote from Army FM22-03 LEADERSHIP and COMMAND at SENIOR LEVELS
"Senior leaders and commanders have specific ethical responsibilities to their organizations. These responsibilities flow directly from the attributes required of senior leaders to successfully implement their vision. First, they are worthy role models. Second, they promote the ethical development of their subordinates by teaching them how to reason clearly about ethical matters. Finally, they sustain an ethical climate that promotes trust and professional commitment." (Page 18)
Senior, in this context usually means three star general officers.
February 25, 2005 in Intelligence Ethics and Intelligence Reform, Quote without Comment | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)