Is consistency really an imperative in Strategy and in Intelligence?

Consistency. Such a strong word. Many of us, at least in Western cultures, were raised on a mindset where consistency is a must. You can't constantly change your thoughts or opinions. You have to stick to your practical choices. If you're not consistent, you're just "blowing in the wind". Your backbone might break. Philosophically, this is an Enlightment-influenced cultures, and even somewhat scientific-influenced.

For practitioners of Strategy and Intelligence, in national security and in business, this is also often the case. You can't constantly change your strategy, and if you do, it's not really a strategy. You can't constantly change your intelligence assessments about the environment, and if you do, your analytical foundations are fragile.

But my experience has taught me that this is a wrong perception, in Strategy and in Intelligence. Of course, consistency is important. But only in some cases. And not to the extreme. Once again, I think the "Middle Ground Philosophy" should be applied.

Let's think, for instance, about Startegy and Intelligence in national security. Strategy is all about changing the environment. It is all about shaping, not just sense-making. If it is successful, it creates a change. And this is exactly when it needs revision! This is exactly where critical thinking is required, more than consistency. This is exactly when a new startegy must be formulated. Clausewitz referred to a similar point as the "Culmination Point".

In Intelligence work, the need to balance consistency with critical thinking to create new concepts is as important. Intelligence analysts are ofter required to produce consistent assessments. But at least in Strategic Intelligence, I believe that one of the main tasks of analysts is to recognize changes in the environment. In more philosphical words, analysts must "translate" an ontological change into an epistemological one. This requires the opposite of consistency. Analysts must acknowledge that the environment has changed, and that their current analysis requires revision. They must produce new explanations, or as I often refer to it, they must apply Abductive Reasoning. This requires, just like Thomas Kuhn has taught us, to let go of previous paradigms and create new ones. And just to add a specific case, this was probably one of the main factors for the failure of Israeli Defense and Intelligence establishments prior to October 2023.

In business, I believe, this is rather similar. Even if not identical. More about this next week...