Lessons From a Chess Grandmaster
In any situation, it is important for people to balance the “here and now” vs long term consequences of a potential decision. This is extraordinarily important for homeland security professionals. Thinking about, and analyzing the potential second and third order consequences of options shows maturity and intelligence in the homeland security enterprise. Of course, not every professional has the luxury of time to sort of the consequences of their actions. For example, if police officers are being fired upon, they cannot afford to roundtable to determine to best course of action. In that scenario, the police officer needs to immediately fire back until the aggressor is no longer a threat.
But what about in a situation where policy makers have the luxury of time to weigh options, and consider the potential second and third order effects of those consequences? It would seem that not all decision makers analyze potential outcomes without bias. Some decision makers choose paths for political posturing, others because it reaps immediate short term gains. While we can’t take the politics out every organizational decision, or ignore the benefits of more immediate security gains, we cannot ignore the impact of our decisions on the future of homeland security.
We Don’t Negotiate With Terrorists
In late May, a confused Bowe Bergdahl was released into US custody in exchange for five senior Taliban leaders. This is in stark contrast with US policy that we do not negotiate with terrorists. I am not saying that there is never a time to back down from our policy, but was this the right time (and reason) to do so? By trading Bergdahl for the senior Taliban leaders, the US set a precedent. Apparently we will negotiate with terrorists. We also unintentionally incentivized terrorist organizations to increase instances of kidnapping US citizens.
President Obama stood by his decision for the prisoner exchange by stating that “…we were concerned about Bergdahl’s health.” This is likely not the case, but rather political posturing to gain popularity for the Democratic Party. It seems that the political move backfired, as many within the US were furious that the President swapped five senior Taliban leaders for a deserter. Even if the prisoner exchange had gained the President and the Democratic Party popularity, was it worth it? Did those involved in the decision making process ask the tough questions that needed to be asked?
Bombs Away
On September 10, President Obama spoke to the nation about his plan to destroy ISIS through a bombing campaign in both Iraq and Syria. ISIS is definitely wreaking havoc in the Middle East, and they may certainly pose a threat to the US homeland in the near future. However, the President has been criticized as engaging in tactics not strategy. He has also been criticized for not complementing the airstrikes with ground troops.
I am all for airstrikes against ISIS, but I believe more thought should have gone into the President’s plan. For example, in using airstrikes and no ground troops, ISIS fighters will likely take a lesson from Al Qaeda and the Taliban and hide amongst civilians for a human shield. If we accidently take out a lot of civilians in our airstrikes against ISIS fighters, will we not create more enemies? What about the threats to the families of US service members?
Let’s say the airstrikes are successful, and ISIS is defeated, or at least degraded to the point of being ineffective. Then what? Which horse do we back in Syria? I do not believe that things will just “work themselves out” if we defeat ISIS in an air campaign. In fact, we could just create a security vacuum in which Al Qaeda and its affiliates can thrive in. Again, did President Obama’s advisers consider the options and the potential consequences of those options?
Lessons From a Chess Grandmaster
19 year old Magnus Carlsen broke a record for being the youngest chess grandmaster in history at age thirteen. In an interview, Carlsen admitted that he can sometimes anticipate 15–20 moves ahead in certain situations. To be fair, Carlsen is a master of strategy in a vacuum, so we are not talking an apples to apples comparison.
Policy makers in organizations have many things to consider when weighing options and the potential second and third order effects of those options. To be a master of strategy in organizations, policy makers must consider all the stakeholders, the end game, changing landscapes and much more. Any decision the policy makers makes will likely result in criticism. However, it is hard to fault decision makers who take the time to weigh the long term consequences of their actions, instead of simply pursuing short term wins without an endgame in mind.
