Skip to main content

The Uselessness of knowing the other side's attack plan in advance.


Three distinct events. Very different, but oddly the same. Three parallel controversies.   

December 1941. Japanese forces attack the US naval base at Pearl Harbor. Evidence indicates that the Office of Naval Intelligence was aware of Japanese carrier movements in the days before the attack -- that the attack should not have come as a complete surprise to Admiral Kimmel and others in command in Hawaii.  There is a theory that goes much further, contending FDR knew about Japan's plans and decided no counter-measures would be taken because this looked like a quick way to get the US fully engaged in the war.

September 2001. Islamofascist terrorists attack New York and the Pentagon. Evidence indicates a failure of communication, again, between intelligence and operations. A number of theories quickly develop going much further than that: one of them is , again, that the government knew exactly what would happen and allowed it, thereby also allowing its own imperialist "war on terrorism."

October 2023. Hamas terrorists cross the border between Gaza and Israel and kill roughly 1,200 Israelis, two-thirds of them civilians, taking 250 hostages. This was in accordance with a meticulous plan which the government of Israel had in its possession for a year. The usual range of theories is already on display. 

Can we generalize? I think so. Western nations exist under the protection of military and quasi-military bureaucracies, sometimes in a confusing net. These bureaucracies are sometimes aimed at gathering intelligence, at other times aimed at directing military operations. Those two parts of the confusing net do not communicate well with one another. 

The fact that a nation's intelligence knew of a coming attack, in general or even in great detail, does NOT by itself do a western power, otherwise vulnerable to such an attack, any good. 

This is an explanation for why certain events take place as they do in ways that allow and encourage the thriving of conspiracy theories. 

 

Labels:

Comments

  1. Paul D. Van PeltDecember 12, 2023 at 8:20 AM

    There is possibly another generalization. Strategists, military or otherwise, don't necessarily put all eggs in one basket. A single plan, no matter how well-conceived, has room for error of some kind or other. Therefore, back up is advisable. Depending upon contingency, plan B may be superior to plan A.

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

A Story About Coleridge

This is a quote from a memoir by Dorothy Wordsworth, reflecting on a trip she took with two famous poets, her brother, William Wordsworth, and their similarly gifted companion, Samuel Taylor Coleridge.   We sat upon a bench, placed for the sake of one of these views, whence we looked down upon the waterfall, and over the open country ... A lady and gentleman, more expeditious tourists than ourselves, came to the spot; they left us at the seat, and we found them again at another station above the Falls. Coleridge, who is always good-natured enough to enter into conversation with anybody whom he meets in his way, began to talk with the gentleman, who observed that it was a majestic waterfall. Coleridge was delighted with the accuracy of the epithet, particularly as he had been settling in his own mind the precise meaning of the words grand, majestic, sublime, etc., and had discussed the subject with William at some length the day before. “Yes, sir,” says Coleridge, “it is a maj...
9 comments
Read more

Searle: The Chinese Room

John Searle has become the object of accusations of improper conduct. These accusations even have some people in the world of academic philosophy saying that instructors in that world should try to avoid teaching Searle's views. That is an odd contention, and has given rise to heated exchanges in certain corners of the blogosphere.  At Leiter Reports, I encountered a comment from someone describing himself as "grad student drop out." GSDO said: " This is a side question (and not at all an attempt to answer the question BL posed): How important is John Searle's work? Are people still working on speech act theory or is that just another dead end in the history of 20th century philosophy? My impression is that his reputation is somewhat inflated from all of his speaking engagements and NYRoB reviews. The Chinese room argument is a classic, but is there much more to his work than that?" I took it upon myself to answer that on LR. But here I'll tak...
17 comments
Read more

Recent Controversies Involving Nassim Taleb, Part I

I've written about Nassim Taleb on earlier occasions in this blog. I'll let you do the search yourself, dear reader, for the full background. The short answer to the question "who is Taleb?" is this: he is a 57 year old man born in Lebanon, educated in France, who has been both a hedge fund manager and a derivatives trader. He retired from active participation from the financial world sometime between 2004 and 2006, and has been a full-time writer and provocateur ever since. Taleb's writings for the general public began where one might expect -- in the field where he had made his money -- and he explained certain financial issues to a broad audiences in a very dramatic non-technical way. Since then, he has widened has fields of study, writing about just about everything, applying the intellectual tools he honed in that earlier work. As you might have gather from the above, I respect Taleb, though I have sometimes been critical of him when my own writing ab...
4 comments
Read more