[Goose]

I agree with almost all, except the part about politics and strategic thinking. It has nothing to do with what party you belong to wants but what the people at the top believe and want.  Long ago, far away in another galaxy, I was told, face to face by a three star that the intelligence report my unit had put together was contrary to what the NCA wanted to hear and I was to withdraw it. 

I understand what you say here, I think :-). My point was that the NCA, at least at the very top, doesn't often chose it's foreign policy based on what they believe will get them the most votes. They generally want do "do the right thing", although what that is will be determined partially by the president's biases, values, and "knowledge". They do want to minimize immediate negative consequences to the public, but they will also look at "the threat" long-term and chose a policy that will minimize the threat's overall ability to damage the US. There are exceptions where the NCA just did what they thought the public wanted, but they are rare.
 
OTOH those that serve the NCA quickly find out what the NCA wants to hear. Those that want to get promoted ensure that their actions conform to the "desired" NCA solution. This process is a "political" process inside the government that is similar to politics inside businesses. Choosing not to please the boss because you disagree with him isn't an easy choice and unfortunately not often made. Sometimes not sending "unwanted" data upstream is justified by the assertion that it won't do any good. Of course, if you didn't know the three star pretty well, you couldn't calibrate whether he was just trying to avoid a "black mark", agreed but really didn't believe it would help, or disagreed and needed a plausible excuse to shoot it down :-).

Your point about the fact that it is imperative that the "political" side of the strategy succeed is probably by far the most important comment in all of this.  Too often it doesn't turn out the way the political side wanted. Too often the political side in office won't listen to those with differing opinions. Human nature makes tough decisions even tougher.

Agree, especially with the last two. I have been involved in that at several different levels, and it is often quite discouraging. For some reason saying "I told you so" doesn't feel too good 10 years later, especially when the "mistake" will simply be buried, not acknowledged. However, the "political" side I was concerned about in this particular case is attempting to ensure your strategy will not fail because after a certain point the public simply won't let you do it. It may be necessary to ensure they are continuously well-informed. That often isn't easy to do.

[Goose]

I agree with almost all, except the part about politics and strategic thinking. It has nothing to do with what party you belong to wants but what the people at the top believe and want.  Long ago, far away in another galaxy, I was told, face to face by a three star that the intelligence report my unit had put together was contrary to what the NCA wanted to hear and I was to withdraw it. 

I understand what you say here, I think :-). My point was that the NCA, at least at the very top, doesn't often chose it's foreign policy based on what they believe will get them the most votes. They generally want do "do the right thing", although what that is will be determined partially by the president's biases, values, and "knowledge". They do want to minimize immediate negative consequences to the public, but they will also look at "the threat" long-term and chose a policy that will minimize the threat's overall ability to damage the US. There are exceptions where the NCA just did what they thought the public wanted, but they are rare.
 
OTOH those that serve the NCA quickly find out what the NCA wants to hear. Those that want to get promoted ensure that their actions conform to the "desired" NCA solution. This process is a "political" process inside the government that is similar to politics inside businesses. Choosing not to please the boss because you disagree with him isn't an easy choice and unfortunately not often made. Sometimes not sending "unwanted" data upstream is justified by the assertion that it won't do any good. Of course, if you didn't know the three star pretty well, you couldn't calibrate whether he was just trying to avoid a "black mark", agreed but really didn't believe it would help, or disagreed and needed a plausible excuse to shoot it down :-).

Your point about the fact that it is imperative that the "political" side of the strategy succeed is probably by far the most important comment in all of this.  Too often it doesn't turn out the way the political side wanted. Too often the political side in office won't listen to those with differing opinions. Human nature makes tough decisions even tougher.

Agree, especially with the last two. I have been involved in that at several different levels, and it is often quite discouraging. For some reason saying "I told you so" doesn't feel too good 10 years later, especially when the "mistake" will simply be buried, not acknowledged. However, the "political" side I was concerned about in this particular case is attempting to ensure your strategy will not fail because after a certain point the public simply won't let you do it. It may be necessary to ensure they are continuously well-informed. That often isn't easy to do.