WMD Intelligence Analysis of Lessons from Iraq to Iran: Only Dot the I's - Don't Cross the T's
On January 29, 2010, former British Prime Minister Tony Blair gave evidence to the Iraq Enquiry in London, which was broadcast worldwide on satellite TV by the BBC. He emphasized the need to learn the lessons of weapons of mass destruction (WMD) from the case of Iraq for the case of Iran. In his words “propping up one dictator to handle another dictator is not the way, we must get rid of the dictator.” More interesting is how many intelligence analysts are being instructed to dot the I’s but in the case of Iraq the analysis went to far and also crossed the T’s. Here is the previously untold story of what really happened.
Program for Culture and Conflict Studies at NPS-Online Journal
The American grand strategic experience has been framed largely as the historic triumph of democracy over tyranny, and in its evolution as a state, from agrarian society to modern-industrial superpower, it has wedded capitalism with democracy into its favored ideology. But a less often told but every bit as salient tale of America’s formative experience is that of the conquest by the emergent American state of the many fractious indigenous tribes whose homelands became American territory through war, conquest, and unequal (and highly coercive) diplomacy.
Systems Methodology a Holistic Language of Interaction and Design Seeing through Chaos and Understanding Complexities
What is going on? Nobody seems to know. Some are winning while others are losing both for the wrong reasons. A looming prospect of randomness is creating a nasty feeling of insecurity. Even the successful ones are not sure of themselves any more. Games keep changing, but despite all the rhetoric to the contrary, a dominant management culture, by default, keeps reproducing the same non-solutions all over again. We see the world as increasingly more complex and chaotic because we use inadequate concepts to explain it. When we understand something, we no longer see it as chaotic or complex. Maybe playing the new game requires learning a new language. During the last 50 years we have been confronted with a dual shift of paradigm. Not only there has been a shift in our understanding of the nature of the beast from a mindless mechanical system to a multi-minded socio-cultural system. But, there has also been a profound shift in our way of knowing: from analytical thinking, the science of dealing with independent sets of variables, to systems thinking, the art and science of handling interdependent sets of variables. While the analytical approach has remained essentially intact for nearly four hundred years, systems thinking has gone through three generations of change: from Operations Research to Cybernetics and finally Interactive Design. This evolution has been a response to challenges of socio-cultural systems. Systems methodology had to deal not only with the imperative of interdependency and the complexities of self-organizing systems, but also with the question of purposeful behavior of multi-minded systems. The realities of highly developed social systems are fundamentally different from those of other forms of living systems. Members of societies that have outgrown the secure, unifying web of a paternalistic culture display real choice. Unless we understand the implications of multi-level purposeful behavior, the multi-minded beast will out-maneuver any attempt to tame it. On the other hand, contrary to a widely held belief, the popular notion of a multidisciplinary approach is not a systems approach. In fact, the ability to synthesize separate findings into a coherent whole seems far more critical than the ability to generate information from different perspectives. Without a well-defined synthesizing method, however, the process of discovery using a multi-1 Although my work has its origin in the colorful tradition of Russ Ackoff, but it also has been greatly influenced by the works of Stafford Beer, Kenneth …