Reading the news

In 1979 I visited Turkey for the first time. I like Turkey - it's a great and beautiful country with lots of history. It also shows how Islam and extremism don't go hand-in-hand and how an Islamic country can also be a liberal democracy. Like all free countries, it has its share of extremists who spout forth nonsense that would guarantee a jail sentence or death in the autocracies that govern most of the world. However that is not what this post is about - although Turkey is the seed for the post.

It was August 1979, and I was backpacking, staying in cheap hostels. A standard item of conversation back then was whether it was safe to travel through Afghanistan on the overland route to India. Turkey was one of the first stopping places on this route that travelled through Iran, Afghanistan, Pakistan and on to India.

From a 1970s Trailfinders brochure showing suggested routes to India

Travellers were talking about the attacks on tourists journeying through the country and how some tourist buses had been shot at. 

A postcard sent to me by a friend I'd met when travelling through Europe who wanted to go on the overland routes to India. Karla had hoped to go through Afghanistan but as I've highlighted, felt it wasn't safe. This postcard was sent the day before the Iran hostage crisis and shows the atmosphere in Iran at the time. 

I knew nothing about Afghanistan at all and when I got back to the UK started to read up. There was very little in the press - and certainly no headlines. However reading between the lines, I realised that not only was there a civil war going on, but that this was threatening the Southern borders of the Soviet Union. The situation was unstable and something had to happen. 

Over Christmas in 1979, Soviet tanks rolled into Afghanistan with the aim of bringing back order to the country. The Soviet aim was not to colonise the country but to prevent the ferment from spreading and leading to sectarian movements on the Soviet borders. However that is not how the world, led by the USA saw things. This was the time of the cold war. Any way that the West could score points against the Soviet bear was legitimate. The initial response was massive anti-Soviet propaganda, ignoring the initial context. Later on, the US funded the Mujahaddin fighting against the Soviets, including Osama Bin Ledin - a case of the enemy of my enemy is my friend. 

My response however was different. I saw that the Soviet incursion had been an obvious solution to a problem that they faced, and that the correct approach was to treat it as such, rather than as a global problem. Afghanistan had been a flashpoint that the world had seemingly ignored. It led, eventually, to the break-up of the Soviet Union, when it became impossible to hide the costs in both lives and money by the secretive Soviets. I believe that Perestroika and the 1991 fall of the Soviet Union was partially a result of the Soviet's Afghan adventure. 

The point of all this is that newspapers publish 

1. what their editors view as of interest to their readership 
2. news when they have sufficient information for a story.

This is important for competitive intelligence, business analysis and common sense. Without this realisation people are likely to jump to incorrect conclusions based on what they read. The only way to read a newspaper is to question each story and ask why it was published - to understand the hidden agenda. 

When there is insufficient information or where it is dangerous for journalists to publish a news story, then however potentially important that news story is, it won't get published. That is why so few bad news stories highlighting lack of freedom, atrocities and so on are published on the autocracies that rule much of the world. Instead, news focuses on countries where there is a relative freedom to publish, and journalists can report on what is happening unimpeded by the authorities.

If something is not fashionable then it won't be published or what is published will correspond to what people want to read. This is the case with much reporting on Israel. Israel is now seen as a "shitty little country" (as described by a former French Ambassador to the UK). It's definitely not fashionable to support it - despite the fact that it is the only full democracy in its region with a free and functioning press, Arab parliamentarians, and equal rights for all its citizens. It has also been at war for over 60 years - with its enemies being countries that, in general, are totalitarian and that imprison, torture and execute dissenters. It has been attacked with missiles fired daily at its cities, yet is lambasted when it responds - most recently by blockading the territories from where the missiles were fired (Gaza). Israel is condemned for trying to protect its citizens and for fighting a territory ruled by a group, Hamas, that is viewed as a terrorist group by Western countries, including the US, the EU, Japan and Canada.

In contrast to the situation in Israel - where every action is microscopically analysed and hits the headlines, much less appears on newspaper front pages and as headline news about the very recent massacres of Uzbeks in Kyrygyzstan. Virtually nothing came out about the Syrian destruction of the city of Hama in 1982, in contrast to the blanket reporting of the events at Sabra & Chatila in the same year. Even in this case, Israel is blamed for the actual attacks while in reality the massacre was carried out by Christian Phalangists in revenge for earlier attacks on them by the Palestinians. The reason for all these examples is that much less information was available from Syria and Kyrygyzstan. Both countries don't have the free press that Israel has, and in both cases, publishing such news could lead to the journalists being arrested, and probably tortured or killed. As a result very little is seen.

The same selectivity appears in the business press too. Currently BP is under the spotlight for its responsibility for the US oil spill. Although I'm sure that BP bears much of the blame for this disaster, very little has been written about the other companies involved including Transocean and Halliburton. Although BP was the largest shareholder in the well, Texas based Anadarko Petroleum owned a quarter and the Mitsui Oil Exploration Company via its MOEX Offshore subsidiary owned 10%. Transocean owned the rig and of the 126 people working on the rig, 79 were Transocean employees (against only 7 BP employees). Halliburton cemented into place the casing for the well that blew. In fact, the other companies bear some of the blame - if only by not ensuring that best practice was followed and allowing BP to cut corners (if that is what happened). The US regulator, the Minerals Management Service, that had approved the well should also shoulder some responsibility.

It is now fashionable to attack BP - with President Obama (showing an anti-British prejudice), referring to the company as British Petroleum, when the correct name has been BP for many years, reflecting the fact that more of its employees are American than British (BP has 23,000 US employees and under half that number of British employees. Of its 9 senior executive members there are more non-UK members than UK ones with four US positions). The problem is that sometimes it is better for those in power to hide the truth - whether they run a company or a country. 

Competitive Intelligence means looking behind the news and doing an analysis to find the truth. That is not the role of newspapers. Their role is simple: to sell and make profits for their owners. If that means subjective reporting, then so be it. Fortunately the quality press sometimes does publish unfashionable news stories and carries out independent analysis. An excellent recent example is an article by Jose Maria Aznar - the Prime Minister of Spain between 1996-2004. Aznar writes (in the London Times - 17 June 2010) about Israel and how failure to support Israel threatens Western values overall. He states that the Gaza episode "is a distraction" and that "Israel is the West's best ally in a turbulent region". A shame that there is not more analysis of this type. As this is what true objectivity involves. 

Proof of Aznar's thesis can easily be found. For example, a recent Twitter tweet lamented the loss to the Moslem world of Andalucia, and advocated the route of the martyr, and reaching for life in the hereafter in preference to life in this one. 

@Jnoubiyeh the second we lost andalus we lost dignity. wars came 2 remind us again. We lost it was when we chose this life over hereafter

Unfortunately publicising such views are unfashionable and often suppressed - so instead we draw incorrect conclusions and victimise the victim (e.g. Israel) and praise the oppressor (e.g. Hamas).

Emotional responses

I've not posted anything for months - not because I've not had things to post, but because of work pressures, and perhaps also not having anything I thought worth posting.

That's not to say that things haven't happened - but others will have posted on the London Online conference, the SCIP annual and European conferences in San Diego and Bad Nauheim, Germany, and the AIIP annual conference in Pittsburgh. I attended all - and each was worthwhile in its own way. (My favorite was AIIP - but then this is such a great organisation anyway!).

In the last few months I've also been to China where I led a workshop on CI, and on a personal level, celebrated my oldest nephew's wedding in Jerusalem and saw the loss of my father a month later.

So what has prompted this post?

Well I try and link ideas to marketing and competitive intelligence. Those who know me will know that one of the areas I specialise in is competitive intelligence analysis and game theory. My talk at SCIP Europe (and also at the SCIP 2007 conference) was on Game Theory.

One of the areas I emphasise is that when looking at a competitor you should try and look at things from their perspective. Just because something looks stupid or illogical to you doesn't neccssarily mean that it is stupid and illogical. It could also be that the competitor is viewing something from a different angle to you - and that if you switched viewpoints it would make perfect sense. Developing an ability to switch perspectives could save you $, £, €, or ¥ as it should lead to greater anticipation of how competitors are likely to respond and thus better and more effective strategies. The assumption is that competitors behave logically, and choose strategies based on the information and knowledge they currently have.

There is, however, an exception to this. Sometimes a competitor can be blinded by hatred, greed, fear, or another strong emotion. In such cases their decisions are likely to be stupid and illogical as they can't see reality and instead, they base what they do on their emotionally biased view of the world.

As a result, when looking at a competitor it is also important to look for any emotional aspect in their decision making. Is this leading to how they behave or react? If it is, then you can use it against them to win out. Of course the same applies to you - and it's important that you make decisions that are not based on emotional reasons. Decisions need to be made based on facts, evidence and logic - anything else will lead to vulnerabilities that can be attacked by a competitor.

There are many examples of companies that have made poor decisions based on emotion: a classic is the failure of the 2000 Time Warner - AOL merger, which was partly driven by Time Warner management's fear of being left behind in a digital world. In fact many mergers fail as they are not really motivated by logic but more by fear of being left behind or greed - seeing acquisition as the best way to grow.

So when looking at a competitor, you need to

1. assume that they are behaving logically - try to see things from their perspective
2. consider that they may be acting emotionally, and not basing decisions on fact and logic.

Which of these two applies will depend on the pattern of decision making, the decisions made, and the competitor's management. Part of the job of the CI analyst is to step back from their own emotional perspectives and, dispassionately, look at the competitor and decide what has led to their decisions and strategies: logic or emotion.

I still haven't answered what prompted these thoughts.

Generally I try to understand the opinions and views of people with whom I disagree - and accept that often there is a valid rationale to these views. I fervently disagree with Islamic terrorist groups, and I totally support Israel. At the same time, I understand the view of the Palestinians and believe that they have a case. I understand the Islamic religious view of Hamas that Israel is occupied Islamic land and that only Islamic rule is valid. I don't personally agree with this - but I accept that from some Islamic perspectives (not all) this is logical as it follows some Koranic precepts. So I'm applying my rule above of trying to understand the other side, and looking at things from their perspective.

I can even apply this (with difficulty) to some terrorist actions in Europe and the USA. The attacks on 911 were reprehensible, evil and criminal. However using the above principles I can understand these actions - as they fall into a logical pattern.

1. Western Values represent an attack on Islamic values.
2. Western Values are winning out - even in Islamic society.
3. For Islamic values to triumph, Western values must be destroyed, so that the world realises that it's only true Islamic values that will lead to human peace and happiness.
4. What the West calls terrorism is actually a misnomer - and is, in fact, an attempt by true Muslim believers to alert their own governments to how they've been led astray, while at the same time to destroy the forces that are doing this - leading to a growth in Islamic values and beliefs.
   

What I fail to understand however, is how a follower of any religion can take advantage of people with mental problems and use them for terrorist activity. One of the basic principles behind all religions: Christian, Jewish, Islamic, Hindu, Sikh, Buddhist... is the protection of less-well-off and weaker members of society. They teach that it is a major sin to take advantage of such people.

The recent bomb attempt in Exeter, England, when an Islamic convert who was reportedly mentally ill, with low IQ and suffering from Aspergers, was so radicalised that he was preparing bombs to use to maim and kill people, suggests that the people behind him were not acting under any religious framework at all - but were driven by emotions only: hatred and fear. Worse, they bring shame on true Islamic believers, and through their actions will lead even more people to see Islam as an evil creed that only destroys and has no respect for the poor, sick and down-trodden. This is false! So called "Imams" who believe that they can recruit victims like poor Nicky Reilly have desecrated Islam and the teachings in the Koran and Hadith, and should be denounced by all true Muslims as false.

London Calling

The London bombings shocked the world - perhaps more than they shocked most Londoners. It is not as if Londoners are not worried about terrorism on their front door - they are. Rather, it is that we've seen it before. The IRA frequently bombed London and security alerts, when everybody was asked to vacate a train or a bus were not uncommon.

What is difference is the nature of the enemy. The IRA might have hated the British government, but they didn't hate the British people. Generally there was a warning - allowing for people to be evacuated. The current enemy doesn't care if people die - in fact, the higher the body count the better. After all, most will be infidels - perhaps a few Zionists (aka Jews) will die which makes it even better. And any followers of Allah will have achieved martyrdom, whether they liked it or not - whether they leave grieving spouses and orphans. And if they did not want to die a martyr's death then they were not true followers of Islam and so deserved to die as heretics.

It is easy to dehumanise the perpetrators of such terrorism - to say that they are inhuman, animals, beasts and so on. However this makes us like the enemy - as it is only be defining another human being as "non-human" or sub-human that such atrocities can occur. And yes - the enemy does view everybody else as not equivalent to their elevated "holy" status. We are infidels, monkeys, doomed - so it is valid to help us on our way.

So, defeating such an enemy has to be two-fold: intelligence to catch and lock away the terrorists accompanied by actions to ensure that their communities are educated in human values. And their communities also include those in the Middle-East that allow crimes like Darfur to continue, or the dehumanisation of women (as in Saudia where women are banned from many things men expect - driving cars for instance), and the lack of choice of all the peoples. Democracy will help - but education is also needed. So that all see our shared humanity and stop defining people as "the other".

As for Intelligence - which will be one focus of this blog in future. The IRA once said that the UK government needed to be lucky 100% of the time, while they only needed luck once! The same applies today. The London bombings were an intelligence failure in that the terrorists were not stopped. But in reality, to be 100% successful would have had other consequences - as to ensure 100% intelligence would have meant that we would be living in a police state without any of the freedoms we value, and which were attacked so wickedly on Thursday, 7th July.

The same applies for competitive intelligence - you cannot get 100% intelligence without an unreasonably high cost. Which is why companies and organisations need to have contingencies for when the unthinkable does occur. Contingency planning should be part of CI - as you cannot predict when something will happen with total confidence. Frederick the Great once said: It is pardonable to be defeated, but never to be surprised. The aim of intelligence should be to anticipate and not be surprised when something happens - even if it was not possible to prevent.

This was London on July 7th, 2005. Londoners were not surprised - what happened was expected. We did not know when, how or where. But we did know what we would do straight afterwards - and that is what we did. Which is why the stock market recovered so quickly, and everybody was back at work on Monday.