Kill lists, Scorecards and the lack of Human Intelligence

Earlier today an anonymous US official confirmed the death of Abu Yahya al-Libi.  Now, I don't have a lot to say about al-Libi - other than to say wait for an al-Qaeda confirmation before getting too excited - because A.) despite my flirtation with Urdu and Persian I don't really speak or read any of the languages of Pakistan and Afghanistan B.) I haven't spent significant time on the ground in Pakistan, Afghanistan, Libya or Mauritania and C.) I haven't spend a significant amount of time studying al-Libi or his writings. 

There are plenty of other smarter and better qualified people - such as Will McCants, Brian Fishman, Leah Farrall and so on - to talk about al-Libi and his role in AQ and to speculate on who comes next.  But Monday's reported drone strike does give me an opportunity to post on something I have been thinking a great deal about recently and that is the idea of keeping score in the war against al-Qaeda.

Keeping score in the war against al-Qaeda and knowing if the US is winning has become something like an obsession within foreign policy circles in the US.  Everyone, it seems, has an opinion, which may be why we on the outside of government are treated, every few months, to some intelligence official claiming al-Qaeda is only a few leaders away from being eradicated. 

Two overlapping barometers, it seems to me, have been used to justify this sort of public chest-thumping.  

1.  Attacks or lack thereof on the US and US interests abroad

2.  Crossing names off the kill list.

I want to focus on the latter, because it is here where I believe the US often makes the mistaken assumption that killing the people on its list is a near perfect correlation to keeping the US safer.

While I think this is a mistake, I understand the temptation.  Imagine, if you will, a list with several names - let's say, 37 - on it.  These, you are told, are the names of the top leaders in al-Qaeda all of whom are actively plotting to carry out attacks against the US.  The idea, I think, is that if the US could somehow kill all 37 people on this list the threat to the US would be eliminated or nearly eliminated.  

I'm not saying killing these individuals has no relation - just that it isn't the whole story.  The US only focuses on what it knows, but in a war like this the US doesn't have perfect knowledge.  This means two things. 

First, sometimes the terrorists the US doesn't know are more dangerous than the ones it does know.  (This happened in 2006 in Yemen, when the US focused on Jamal al-Badawi and Jabir al-Banna instead of Nasir al-Wihayshi and Qasim al-Raymi - the real threats.) 

And second, in the desire to kill everyone of the list - 37, in our fictitious example - the US runs the very real risk of creating more terrorists, who in the long term can not only replace those the US killed but also have the potential to present more of a threat to the US. (Think of how in its desire to destroy AQAP in Yemen since 2009 the US has carried out several missile strikes, which at the very least have contributed to the rapid growth of AQAP as it has more than tripled in size in less than three years.  

The US, as the recent report by Jo Becker and Scott Shane makes clear, is not unaware of a version of this problem:

“One guy gets knocked off, and the guy’s driver, who’s No. 21, becomes 20?” Mr. Daley said, describing the internal discussion. “At what point are you just filling the bucket with numbers?”

The related problems touched on above are one of the major reasons that I think kill lists can lead to mistake conclusions about the threat that al-Qaeda poses. 

There is, unfortunately, no simple solution.  But there is a solution.  And that, I believe is human intelligence.  The less the US has of it, the more it is just guessing and basing its conclusions on crossing names off of a list.  And that is far from an accurate scorecard.   

Befriend your ideological opposite. It’s fun.

Step inside the unlikely friendship of a former ACLU president and an ultra-conservative Supreme Court Justice.

Sponsored by Charles Koch Foundation
  • Former president of the ACLU Nadine Strossen and Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia were unlikely friends. They debated each other at events all over the world, and because of that developed a deep and rewarding friendship – despite their immense differences.
  • Scalia, a famous conservative, was invited to circles that were not his "home territory", such as the ACLU, to debate his views. Here, Strossen expresses her gratitude and respect for his commitment to the exchange of ideas.
  • "It's really sad that people seem to think that if you disagree with somebody on some issues you can't be mutually respectful, you can't enjoy each other's company, you can't learn from each other and grow in yourself," says Strossen.
  • The opinions expressed in this video do not necessarily reflect the views of the Charles Koch Foundation, which encourages the expression of diverse viewpoints within a culture of civil discourse and mutual respect.
Keep reading Show less

3 ways to find a meaningful job, or find purpose in the job you already have

Learn how to redesign your job for maximum reward.

  • Broaching the question "What is my purpose?" is daunting – it's a grandiose idea, but research can make it a little more approachable if work is where you find your meaning. It turns out you can redesign your job to have maximum purpose.
  • There are 3 ways people find meaning at work, what Aaron Hurst calls the three elevations of impact. About a third of the population finds meaning at an individual level, from seeing the direct impact of their work on other people. Another third of people find their purpose at an organizational level. And the last third of people find meaning at a social level.
  • "What's interesting about these three elevations of impact is they enable us to find meaning in any job if we approach it the right way. And it shows how accessible purpose can be when we take responsibility for it in our work," says Hurst.
Keep reading Show less

Physicist advances a radical theory of gravity

Erik Verlinde has been compared to Einstein for completely rethinking the nature of gravity.

Photo by Willeke Duijvekam
Surprising Science
  • The Dutch physicist Erik Verlinde's hypothesis describes gravity as an "emergent" force not fundamental.
  • The scientist thinks his ideas describe the universe better than existing models, without resorting to "dark matter".
  • While some question his previous papers, Verlinde is reworking his ideas as a full-fledged theory.
Keep reading Show less

UPS has been discreetly using self-driving trucks to deliver cargo

TuSimple, an autonomous trucking company, has also engaged in test programs with the United States Postal Service and Amazon.

PAUL RATJE / Contributor
Technology & Innovation
  • This week, UPS announced that it's working with autonomous trucking startup TuSimple on a pilot project to deliver cargo in Arizona using self-driving trucks.
  • UPS has also acquired a minority stake in TuSimple.
  • TuSimple hopes its trucks will be fully autonomous — without a human driver — by late 2020, though regulatory questions remain.
Keep reading Show less