GOA FOCAL POINT 3: Threat Assessment
GOA FOCAL POINT 3: Threat assessment
Adam Svendsen, PROJECT GOA Editor-in-Chief
Introduction:
The issue of ‘threat assessment’ emerges as another interesting and challenging area to examine. Both (i) the analysis (asking the ‘what is it?’ question); and then (ii) the assessment (answering the ‘what does it mean?’ query) processes require their successful addressing.
Unpacking the ‘problem’:
Firstly, most basically, early distinction needs to be drawn between a ‘risk’, a ‘hazard’, and a ‘threat’. Here, defining what is meant by the word ‘threat’, for example in general terms, is helpful for subsequent practical application. This is so that at least a rough concept of ‘what is a “threat”?’ is ready for use in more specific contexts and circumstances, which will then need to be navigated by decision-makers.
Using the well-established source of the Oxford English Dictionary, in broad terms, a ‘threat’ is succinctly defined as:
‘noun. 1 a statement of an intention to inflict pain, injury, damage, or other hostile action on someone in retribution for something done or not done… 2 a person or thing likely to cause damage or danger’ – http://oxforddictionaries.com/view/entry/m_en_gb0860840#m_en_gb0860840
The word ‘risk’ is meanwhile defined as: ‘noun. a situation involving exposure to danger… verb [with object] expose (someone or something valued) to danger, harm, or loss.’ – http://oxforddictionaries.com/view/entry/m_en_gb0712950#m_en_gb0712950
This is while the word ‘hazard’, most relevantly in the context of this brief discussion, is defined as: ‘noun. 1 a danger or risk… 2 [mass noun] literary chance; probability…’ – http://oxforddictionaries.com/view/entry/m_en_gb0368360#m_en_gb0368360
Naturally, there are overlaps in these general definitions, but it is helpful if distinct ‘operational parameters’ are drawn in order to better ‘frame’ the ‘threat’ during its assessment and/or theorisation. The ‘analytical framework’ that emerges can then be harnessed, at least as a starting position, to subsequently better shape responses to the ‘threat’.
Next steps:
Secondly, as already introduced above, the ‘what does it mean?’ question needs tackling. So-called ‘generalisability limits’ during assessment quickly become apparent. ‘Details’ and ‘specifics’ acquire greater importance, and the phrase ‘context is key’ becomes increasingly relevant. During this stage, sufficiently wide-ranging interrogative questions concerning the different dimensions of the ‘threat’, and how it can be unpacked, need to be asked – e.g. ‘why?’, ‘how?’, and so forth.
Initial conclusions:
As the linked resource pages from RAND and the Center for Security Studies at ETH Zürich demonstrate (see, e.g.: http://www.rand.org/topics/threat-assessment.html; http://www.crn.ethz.ch/publications/crn_team/detail.cfm?id=27872; and http://www.crn.ethz.ch/publications/crn_team/detail.cfm?id=30019), the ‘threat assessment’ theme can encompass a wide area of intelligence-related activity. Much remains open to discussion and debate, especially when judgements are involved overall.
Several questions now come to the fore – for example:
- Do you think what is discussed above is a valid approach towards ‘threat assessment’?
- How would you further ‘optimise’ such processes?
- In your view, are there better ‘models’ which can be recommended and have been tried, tested and proven for ‘threat assessment’ purposes?
- Do you think ‘threats’ are conceptualised badly – e.g. when defined do ‘threats’ need to be drawn more precisely?
Post your comments below!
*** All content is subject to PROJECT GOA terms & conditions – read here >>>
Comments (5)
2009 Videoconference Report
With the death of bin Laden, does the current international security ‘narrative’ undergo a ‘shift’?
That is a question posed by a recent article in June 2011′s Chatham House publication, ‘The World Today’ – see, e.g.:
http://www.chathamhouse.org.uk/publications/twt/archive/view/-/id/2158/
This could also have marked implications for current ‘threat assessments’, and where ‘risk margins’ are drawn.
The following analysis from Reuters analyst, William Maclean, provides insights into the dynamic threat environment currently confronted by Western Intelligence agencies in the wake of bin Laden’s death:
http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/06/27/us-security-threat-idUSTRE75Q4FO20110627?feedType=RSS&feedName=everything&virtualBrandChannel=11563
Threat assessment is not only confined to the ‘physical’ domain of activity. With the increase in ‘cyber-issues’, it also extends into ‘virtual’ domains, as the report linked below discusses:
http://www.isn.ethz.ch/isn/Current-Affairs/ISN-Insights/Detail?lng=en&id=129766&contextid734=129766&contextid735=129764&tabid=129764
In the wake of the bombing in Oslo and shooting on the island of Utøya, Norway, adding to the multiple challenges they confront, intelligence and security communities must likewise ensure that their threat assessment is not too narrowly focussed.
Again, striking a healthy balance between all of the different factors in play emerges as essential:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424053111903461104576463850667976830.html#printMode
Ushering in some further current threat assessment adjustments, overlapping with sources covering ‘radicalisation’ issues (see: http://goa-intelligence.org/main/goa-focal-points/goa-focal-point-1-radicalisationde-radicalisation), Political reporter, Brian Wheeler of the BBC has recently reported that:
‘UK turns spotlight on far right after Norway killings’:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-14273546?print=true