ATP 2-33.4, page 109

Emerging Analytic Techniques 18 August 2014 ATP 2-33.4 A-5 A-27. The steps within “what if” analysis look similar to the steps within the high impact/low probability analytic technique once the analyst has established the event itself:  Step 1. Assume the event has happened or is already happening.  Step 2. Select some triggering events that permitted the scenario to unfold to help make the “what if” more plausible (for example, the death of a leader, a natural disaster, an economic event that might start a chain of other events).  Step 3. Develop a chain of reasoning based on as much on logic as on evidence to explain how this outcome could have come about.  Step 4. Think backwards from the event in concrete ways, specifying what must actually occur at each stage of the scenario.  Step 5. Identify one or more plausible pathways to the event; it is likely that more than one will appear possible.  Step 6. Generate a list of indicators or signposts in order to detect the beginnings of the event.  Step 7. Consider the scope of positive and negative consequences and their relative impact.  Step 8. Monitor the indicators you have developed on a periodic basis. RED HAT ANALYSIS A-28. Analysts seek to forecast the actions of a threat or a competitor. In doing so, they need to avoid the common error of mirror imaging, the natural tendency to assume that others think and perceive the world in the same way as they do. Red hat analysis is a useful technique for trying to perceive threats and opportunities as others see them, but this technique alone is of limited value without significant cultural understanding of the threat involved. Facts A-29. The chances of a red hat analysis being accurate are better when one is trying to foresee the behavior of a specific person who has the authority to make decisions. Authoritarian leaders as well as small, cohesive groups (such as terrorist cells) are obvious candidates for this type of analysis. A-30. Red hat analysis is a reframing technique that requires the analyst to adopt—and make decisions consistent with—the culture of a foreign leader or group. This conscious effort to imagine the situation as the target perceives it helps the analyst gain a different and usually more accurate perspective on a problem or issue. Reframing the problem typically changes the analyst’s perspective from that of an analyst observing and assessing, to that of a leader who must make decisions within the operational culture. The Method A-31. On issues that lend themselves to red hat analysis, gather a team of analysts with in-depth knowledge of the operating environments, the target’s personality, and the style of thinking used. The team should consist of people who might have experienced the culture, shared the ethnic background, or have worked in a similar environment. It is desirable, although not absolutely necessary, to include those who understand the target’s language. Once established, the team members should—  Present the team members with a situation and ask them how they would respond were they the threat.  Emphasize the need to avoid mirror imaging. The question is not, “What would you do if you were in the threat’s place?” but, “How would this person or group in that culture and circumstance most likely think, behave, and respond to the situation?”  In presenting the results, describe the alternative considered and the rationale for selecting the path the person or group is most likely to take. A-32. Red hat analysis is usually organized and done by any analyst or analyst team that needs to understand or forecast threat behavior and that has or can gain access to the required cultural experience. Red hat analysis exploits the available resources to develop the best possible analysis of a threat’s intent.