What do intelligence analysts and weather forecasters have in common?

Been trapped by the snow in my duct-taped room wondering what weather forecasters and intelligence analysts have in common that causes them to so often be wrong. Thought others might know and offer opinions.

Because intelligence analysts deal with imperfect and incomplete information, and they get those few relevant drops of data from a fire hose of unrelated or unimportant information.

It is easy to criticize intelligence analysts as a Monday morning quarterback, but the fact is that omniscience is not in the budget - No matter how big the budget is.

It's a risk-reward thing. If a forecaster predicts a foot of snow and you get a sprinkling, you're not all that upset. If the government warns of an impending terrorist attack, and it doesn't come, you're happy. Plus, the government takes credit for preventing it. Now, in cases of both weather and terror predictions, if they predict nada and you get a bad outcome, you ain't gonna be too happy.

What do intelligence analysts and weather forecasters have in common?

Matthew 16:2-4

He answered and said unto them, When it is evening, ye say, It will be fair weather: for the sky is red. And in the morning, It will be foul weather to day: for the sky is red and lowring. O ye hypocrites, ye can discern the face of the sky; but can ye not discern the signs of the times? A wicked and adulterous generation seeketh after a sign; and there shall no sign be given unto it, but the sign of the prophet Jonas [="dove" = "columbia"]. And he left them, and departed.

I can't speak for the meteorological crowd, but intelligence analysts are right more often then not. Some of it comes down to indications and warnings, i.e. enemy units or agents engaging in suspicions activity. You can see that something is up right now, but not know what they are about to do tomorrow.

With many of our enemies, decisions are made by individuals, not institutions or committees, so leaks are not forthcoming. Until that one guy makes up his mind, no one knows what is going to happen. The only indicators may be coming from subordinates trying to guess what is about to happen, which is rarely more accurate then what we would guess ourselves.

With terrorists, their plans are shoddy, flexible and compartmentalized, so it's hard to figure them out. Some things that look dangerous are just so much talk, the really dangerous stuff can look like an everyday event.

The problem with trying to predict the actions of people who are dangerous, irrational, poorly educated, or desperate is that they often don't make a lick of sense. You're often stuck just observing their immidiate actions.

intelligence analysts are right more often then not

That's a good point - One of the problems with current criticism of intelligence organizations is that, while failures like 9/11 are usually obvious, successes are usually not publicized. Our intel organizations are right more often than not - but it is the failures that we read about. Like the IRA told Margaret Thatcher: "You have to be lucky every day; We only have to be lucky once." The "once" is discussed ad nauseum - but the "every day" is seldom talked about.

In the case of a warning of an attack that fails to materialize, it could well be that the publicized alert causes the terrorists to change their plans. Is that a failure, or a success?

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.