Geopolitics, Wargaming, & FICINT

Geopolitical analysis can be difficult because of the abundant variables that can impact the outcomes of events. This is a reason that analysts will use forecasting scenarios to more easily describe possible ways a situation can unfold, and to aid in scenario development, analysts should consider the use of wargames and fictional intelligence. Dietrich Dörner’s The Logic of Failure is a brilliant exploration of why analysts need to work through all the relevant variables through scenarios. Dörner gave participants in a study the ability to make policy decisions to help a struggling country deal with a drought, failing crops, etc. Many times, participants would focus on fixing one problem, which would lead to other problems arising. So many variables were present that most participants could not attempt to compensate for all of them. Geopolitical risk analysts need to keep that in mind, and that is where scenario development through wargames and fictional intelligence can help.

In 1987, Andrew Marshall—then head of the Office of Net Assessment—initiated a series of wargames to assess how power dynamics would change over the coming years (Herman, Frost, & Kurz, Wargaming for Leaders, p. 36-40). The first game in the series successfully predicted the end of the Cold War that would start two years later. Predictions that came true included: all of eastern Europe opening to the West without Soviet objection, the reunification of Germany, collapse of the Warsaw Pact, and implosion of the Soviet Union. Interestingly, the CIA analyst - the “expert” in the group - regarded the wargame’s conclusions as unrealistic because some players did not react “rationally.” This is where wargaming can be really effective, though. Decision making is rarely purely rational, and including people’s less rational or even irrational mechanisms into the war game can help analysts understand the way events might unfold.

A critique of wargames is that the number of variables make them non-quantifiable (Burke, Appleget, & Cameron, The Craft of Wargaming, p. 20), but that’s actually what makes them so useful. Analysts need to understand that many decisions in geopolitics are not rational or quantitative in nature. “[A] wargame’s focus is typically on qualitative data, human behavior, interactions, and decisions produced by the human players.”

Doing Wargames

The definition of wargaming used by the US government for joint planning is a “dynamic representation of conflict or competition in a synthetic environment, in which people make decisions and respond to the consequences of those decisions” (The Craft of Wargaming, p. 4). While wargames typically conjure images of expensive, multiday roleplaying involving several groups or organizations, wargames do not have to be expensive and big. They just have to be realistic (Gilad, Business War Games, p. 13). The point is to bring practical ideas to the table by roleplaying how decisions are made, specifically to understand: What will the adversary do? And what is the organization’s best option?

The easiest way that analyst groups can do wargames are through seminars. Seminar wargames (kind of like tabletop exercises) are the most straightforward mechanism to produce and helpful for intelligence analysis (Business War Games, p. 45). To do a seminar wargame, the team needs to choose the specific subject to be discussed, the relevant characters, and a bounded question. E.g., if the game is about China’s possible invasion of Taiwan, the question could be: “Will China invade Taiwan within the next 18 months, and if so, what factors will most likely lead to the invasion?” In this seminar, the team should likely include the United States, China, Taiwan, and EU. If the team is large enough or more players can be added, then this seminar could include India, Japan, tech companies, and others.

Each analyst would need to take on the mindset of their character (see below), and the team will go around and explain their character’s perspective on the question. An assigned leader will then guide the ideation on how the scenario will take place, and a recorder will note the relevant variables being discussed from each perspective. After the ideation is complete, the team can then work through the likelihood of the scenario and each of the variables present that increase/decrease the likelihood. That will help the analysts to understand what variables to track. Not only do wargames help with forecasting scenarios, they also can highlight intelligence gaps that the organization has, which will let analysts focus on what information to collect and analyze.

Importantly, whenever a team is doing a wargame, the team will need a contrarian thinker who challenges the ideas of others. Benjamin Gilad referred to this contrarian as the troublemaker; troublemakers are those “who are less conforming than others, who passionately advocate an unpopular position, who may obsess about a specific issue, and who stand up to group think and team pressure even at the cost to their career” (Business War Games, p. 122). Good analysis should always have someone challenge assumptions and conclusions in order to improve the conclusions and argumentation.

Adversarial Mindset

Wargames and fictional intelligence require analysts to get into the mindset of both adversaries and other players. Essentially, analysts need to take on the mindset of various players and characters. This can be difficult and requires research and planning, and analysts can this by starting with some useful questions:

• What is the culture/religion of the person, institution, or government?

• What is the ideology of the person, institution, or government?

• What are the psychological and moral traits that they have?

• What are their intentions and objectives?

• What are the ways you differ/agree with the person, institution, or government?

• How does language impact how the entity engages the issues?

• Why are they upset with the status quo or actions by other actors?

A particularly useful technique to help get into the mindset of adversaries or characters is to answer the above questions and write out a manifesto of sorts where the analyst fully articulates each of the answers. That will allow the analyst to create a framework by which to analyze the information within the wargame and determine the character’s most likely decision.

Fictional Intelligence

Another alternative to a seminar wargame that is cost effective for intelligence teams to do is what’s called fictional intelligence (FICINT). FICINT is the use of storytelling to imagine scenarios surrounding threats or futuristic problems, and it can help with visualizing trends in geopolitics. What separates FICINT from normal storytelling is that the narrative is based in reality rather than fanciful possibilities. Such an intelligence report blends fiction and fact to help analyze a situation. As Peter W. Singer and August Cole put it, FICINT helps “to identify trends and problems in the world of tomorrow, packaged in a compelling way that is actually going to be read, may be intended to keep those imagined outcomes from ever coming true.”

Let’s use the same example above of China invading Taiwan. A FICINT report could be a dramatic telling of how China would use force and the fallout of the conflict. Depending on the needs of the client, this story could focus on the impact to the company, how supply chains are disrupted, a worst-case scenario, or the perspective of China’s military. This FICINT can play multiple roles in an intelligence or security team. Such a report can stimulate thinking for other scenarios, what variables need to be tracked, what indicators of an event taking place there will be, and the impacts to the client. Or it could be the basis for a seminar wargame as the starting point for discussing the next steps of the scenario. Similar to wargames, FICINT requires taking on the mindset of various characters to understand how they would make decisions. This is where diversity plays a critical role in the story. The writer needs to make sure that different perspectives are represented because analysts need to see the problem from every angle.

Note: Singer and Cole have written an excellent novel doing FICINT titled Burn-In. If one is interested in a novel that represents approaching a problem from different and contrarian perspectives, see Richard Osman’s The Thursday Murder Club.

Data Capture – Most Important

Wargames and fictional intelligence offer a practical, cost-effective mechanism for scenario development in forecasting geopolitical issues. However, these tools are only useful if analysts and security professionals assiduously capture the important and relevant data during the games, discussions, research, and reading. Analysts need to track why decisions are made (i.e., the reasoning used by players and the frameworks of interpretation) and the consequences of those decisions (i.e., how did other players respond and what were the effects). Data capture is most important in wargames and FICINT because that will form the basis for analysts’ assessments on geopolitical issues. Wargames and FICINT are tools to increase the comparative advantage of the client, and the data gathered from them will help analysts do just that.

Post Script: If you're interested in getting this newsletter through email instead of LinkedIn, please see here.