Q&A: The Professional Echelon or the Wisdom of the Crowd
The Professional Echelon or the Wisdom of the Crowd
Question
Recently, an argument like this: the army / the Chief of Staff / senior security officials said that… (something connected to a security position regarding the war)
is being answered by people with: these are the ones who failed. There is no place to put forward a position / scenario / forecast from someone who was “part of the conception.”
Meaning: it is obvious that they are wrong, because they were wrong, and badly so.
And it would already be better to listen to… (I don’t know. Probably anything else).
My question:
You have suggested several times asking: and what is the alternative?
In events like ours, one can argue: true, those senior officials were mistaken and failed, but surely the alternative sounds even worse.
Meaning: whom do we listen to right now? To the wisdom of the crowd, which is operating in vagueness and does not know the details?
What is your position?
On the one hand, these are professionals, and certainly their position and opinion are of higher quality and more informed.
On the other hand, if before October 7 we had listened to Masouda from Sderot, who said we need to go after Hamas, the massacre would have been prevented.
In the present case, in light of the huge failure, can one crown the position of the security establishment as something like random—and therefore equivalent to any snot-nosed view from the public, or even inferior to them?
Or is it still more “high-quality” than other positions?
* Of course, my question is not directed at truly professional matters. For example: deployment of divisions in Gaza.
Rather, on questions of policy and strategic decisions.
Answer
Even apart from the latest failure, I don’t put much stock in military expertise. I’m also not in favor of listening / obeying anyone in these areas. Obviously information matters, and the opinion of someone who has that information carries weight. You can take that into account when forming a position. The claim that listening to Masouda from Sderot would have prevented the failure is a very weak argument. There will always be predictions that come true. That proves nothing. In order to establish a person’s credibility and expertise, he has to prove himself consistently over time.
I understand your critical stance toward the military echelon.
But if we are talking about strategic questions, such as: a campaign in the north, yes or no? etc.
The criticism is valid that it leaves a bad taste to consult the people of the conception.
And all the same, the situation is one of vagueness, uncertainty. For example: it is not known whether it is militarily / politically worthwhile to enter a campaign in the north.
The position of the security establishment still suffers from the unreliability of October 7.
But the position of the masses is one of total ignorance.
You often write that there is no certainty about anything.
And we make do with what is “reasonable.”
And perhaps the security establishment’s view is the reasonable position here,
certainly relative to the vagueness that comes from everyone else’s ignorance.
As you wrote: there is weight to the opinion of someone who has the information.
Maybe that “weight” is the best we have when facing hard decisions about the future course of the war.
In light of that, maybe the first part of your remarks is unnecessary?
That you do not trust the military echelon.
Meaning: how is it relevant that you do not trust them, so long as this is the best we have?
With respect to my question—should we listen to them, or to the wisdom of the crowd, or to anything else—it seems that you agree that they are the ones carrying the “weight” here.