STRATEGIC

106 Strategic Choices for a Turbulent World: In Pursuit of Security and Opportunity
less surprised by recent events—from 9/11 and the Arab Spring to the
rise of ISIS and Russia’s entry into the Syrian conflict—than their predecessors
were 30 years ago when the United States failed to anticipate
the collapse of the Soviet Union. Today’s policymakers find themselves
increasingly frustrated by jobs that involve more crisis management—
suppressing system shocks—than strategic thinking, 5 and by the difficulty
(especially in the current political environment) of mustering the
consensus, trust, and thus the resources necessary to prevent and/or prepare
even for those developments that can be foreseen. 6 The large influx
of resources since 9/11 has helped the intelligence community in one of
its primary missions: intelligence relevant to counterterrorism. However,
it does not appear to have improved the U.S. ability to anticipate other
kinds of developments or prevent surprise. 7 And many things that surprise
us are not actually “intelligence failures”—rather, they result from
a broader inability to pair foresight with action. Yet the more turbulent
the times, the more acute the need for U.S. leaders to look ahead, contemplate
actions that could be taken in the present to improve future
outcomes, and anticipate events rather than respond to them. 8
Contrary to popular belief and the needs of policymakers, intelligence
is not about predicting the future. It is about collecting and
analyzing information that helps explain the physical and political
5 Julianne Smith, “Our Overworked Security Bureaucracy,” Democracy Journal, No. 40,
Spring 2016. She concludes that, “While it is no doubt impossible to predict how and when
the next crisis will unfold, our government must do a better job of assessing risk, testing core
assumptions, and preparing itself for potential contingencies.”
6 The U.S. difficulty in funding a response to the Zika virus is a recent example. Nora Kelly,
“The Senate Goes Home Without Funding Zika,” The Atlantic, April 29, 2016.
7 Known strategies used to reduce surprise include relying on experience, reducing the
number of variables in a problem, adopting a measured response to preserve future options,
and teamwork. Dave Baiocchi and D. Steven Fox, Surprise! From CEOs to Navy Seals: How a
Select Group of Professionals Prepare for and Respond to the Unexpected, Santa Monica, Calif.:
RAND Corporation, RR-341-NRO, 2013.
8 The Project on Forward Engagement has been working on a systems-based approach to
“anticipatory governance” since 2011. Leon Fuerth and Evan M. H. Farber, Anticipatory
Governance, Practical Upgrades: Equipping the Executive Branch to Cope with Increasing Speed
and Complexity of Major Challenges, Washington, D.C.: The Project on Forward Engagement,
October 2012.