But their first job should be to protect their reputation, by rejecting stuff like this. This is embarrassing.
I for one don't want an analyst worrying about their reputation, as they then lose their independence and courage to form an option outside of group think. They need to trust in their craft, but to be exposed to peer review and reflectively hone their craft over time. To continue to inductively reason and identify credible hypotheses where everyone else wants to follow the deductive route. Intelligence failures happen when group think is formed and no one is looking outside of the box.
With that said, I think the most important word here is
'credible'. A RAAF B-2 option is just not credible on so many levels (multiple failed inferences). A proper analyst MUST test their argument and have it peer checked- red hat. The hyposisis is supported by a pyramid of inferences and premises, like a stacked house of cards, but when one or more of those stacks/supports is logically flawed, the supporting argument behind the overall hypothesis fails like a house of cards and your credibility and influence goes with it.
When lost (as it is now), it's quite often with the decision makers themselves and you'll end up like an ignored
'mushroom'. When that happens you might as well pack your bags, leave and try academia instead. Operational and strategic level intell is a tough unforgiving world, but when done properly, it informs considered decision making and generally effects and improves real world outcome. It's important that we get it right.
The thing is, Euan and many within ASPI know this. It's not new and should be 101 of their craft.
ASPI itself has changed a lot since the being listed on the PRC Ambassador's grievance letter. They went through a government review. Peter Jennings left and Justin Bassi took over. Justin Brassi's
CV is mixed. Maybe he is too ambitious or political and failing in the job he's tasked with? As with all organisations, the buck stops with him and since he's taken over there has been a lot of change and standards look to have dropped. It's a bad time for the organisation to lose influence considering how important their public role is. At least there is still ONA but we cant read that.
I wonder what the PRC Ambassador thinks now?
www.aspistrategist.org.au
breakingdefense.com
