User:DecisionWorkshopsDatedInfo/sandbox

Did the Syrian Government launch the chemical weapons attack? Amended 31-08-2013: Changes in RED

Since writing this document the US has released its intelligence assessment. I have amended this presentation (and added some extra slides at the end in RED to deal with this).

The problem Horrific attack on civilians in Damascus. Lots of evidence that nerve gas (or something like it) was used. But was it launched by Assad’s Syrian government or the opposition? The US and UK say that they have said they are certain that it was Assad’s Syrian government – quoting intercepted phone calls, and observations of preparations for the attack 3 days before. Russia and the Syrian Government say that there is no evidence. I am a military analyst who specializes in investigating political events. The three methods I use all point to a much greater uncertainty that Assad’s government was responsible than the JIC or UK government assume. Even given the phone tap information, and the US statement Three methods ? Bayes’ theory ? Principle of Analogies ? Dilemma Analysis Bayes’ theorem Bayes theorem is a mathematical method of combining probabilities and helping people understand how they change with additional evidence It is useful to stop people confirming their prejudices, overemphasizing evidence that supports their view, and dismissing evidence against their viewpoint. The output follows mathematically from the assumptions. Bayes theory brief example:

All you know is that a chemical attack was launched, what is the probability it was done by the Syrian government?

Google “Syrian Rebels use of chemical weapons”

Google “Syrian Government use of chemical weapons” What % of chemical attacks were carried out by the Syrian Government?

Look for unbiased sources such as UN inspections There is evidence that the Rebels have carried out some attacks Let’s be very pro- government and assume 10% of attacks are by rebels and 90% by government But we also know that the attack was carried out in a way that was a massive tactical disadvantage to Assad and a massive tactical advantage to the rebels. Sometimes people do attack when it is a massive disadvantage, but it is much rarer than attacking when it is an advantage. Let us assume 90% of attacks are when they give tactical advantage and 10% when they do not (e.g. accidental attacks, gross misreading of intell. etc.) Bayes’ theorem says we can combine the probabilities according to the formula

Other factors to consider

Pro government • Phone wire tap evidence Pro rebel • Phone wire tap is most easily forged evidence (requiring very small conspiracy) • Past history of going to war on false evidence (dodgy dossier Iraq, Gulf of Tonkin, Suez 1956 etc.) Combining probabilities in this manner will give us a significant probability the attack was organized by the rebels. Principle of analogies This is a fully disclosed scientifically proven principle shows a way to get much better output from experts. Don’t just ask them what they think (unaided judgement). But ask for analogies to past experience, and discuss how similar the analogy is.

Using Structured Analogies • Describe the analogy • Source • Similarities • Differences • Rate how similar out of 10 • By analogy what will happen in this situation?

Analogies with Syria: • Iraq - “Dodgy Dossier” • Iran contra – Manufacturing evidence • Gulf of Tonkin- “False flag” • Afghanistan : Expected short and sharp – got long war Using this method tends to indicate less favorable political outcomes and draw attention to many analogies where false evidence led to war.

Dilemma Analysis

(see decisionworkshops.com) Examines openly declared positions.

(What they are saying they want to have happen)

And “Threatened Future” (what will happen if no change) Five Sides Assad USA UK Syrian Rebels Russia What they want to happen and what will happen (if nothing changes) : Situation just after the attack (24th Aug)

Positions change as politics progresses. E.g. UK decides it will not attack Syria. And that it is neutral to US attack. Russia says it will veto UN resolutions Everyone agrees that the USA should provide evidence that the attack was caused by Assad (even Assad) Because Assad (and the Russians) do not think they will be able to (shown by question marks). The structure of the ticks, crosses and question marks gives precisely defined dilemmas to the different parties All political actions are attempts to eliminate dilemmas, by changing the table Threat of US attack causes Dilemma for Russia and Assad. They are motivated to change things to get rid of this dilemma Dilemma Analysis can also show different strategies the sides could take to eliminate their dilemmas

How hard they try indicates their commitment.

Not trying to indicates that they may be insincere Political behaviour highlighted by Dilemma Analysis Why are the Syrians trying so hard to get UN inspectors into the country? Would they be trying so hard if they did commit the gas attack? Why did the USA, France and UK immediately say the attacks were caused by the Assad Government? They should have had the dilemma of not knowing who did it. Conclusions The three methods: Bayes’ theorem: the Principle of Analogy and Dilemma Analysis all point to a significant probability that the Rebels, not Assad, committed the gas attack. This must be investigated. The Syrian Government says it is keen to accept such an investigation. Should we not take them up on it?

Changes 31 Aug. Because the US claims that good previous evidence exists this widens the conspiracy – reducing the probability the Rebels attacked without the support of the US, but managed to hoodwink the US. Thus if the rebels attacked then they attacked in collusion with the US, and the US is lying about or fabricating the evidence. Because a lot of these scenarios can be discounted Bayes Theorem shifts the balance of probability in favor of Assad having launched the attack. The conspiracy must include the US and the rebels. The wider the net of conspirators, the less likely it is to be true. And the more likely that it will fall apart. And if the rebels launched the attack in collusion with US then the US is jointly responsible for the gas attacks. This is a huge risk for the US government. Would they take such a risk? This also shifts the probability in favor of Assad having done this BUT Dilemma Analysis If the US knew about the impending attack why didn’t they say they knew, warn the rebels and threaten the Syrian government before the event?

This would have probably have prevented the attack. There are numerous cases of warnings not being acted on, usually due to bureaucratic inertia. But it does move the probability slightly in favor of the rebels Bayes Theorem The US have said they have conclusive video evidence, (satellite images etc.) but have not produced them as yet.

Why not?

This shifts the probability in favor of the rebels. Also the US arguments do not refer back to data available before the event, whereas the Syrian counter arguments do. Principle of Analogy This is like people producing “evidence” they forecast 9/11 or the death of princess Diana, but not having anything predating the event. This shifts things substantially in favor of the rebels (in collusion with the USA) causing it Principle of Analogy During the run up to the Iraq war, the release of the “Dodgy Dossier” (with the 45 minute claim) was the time when the false belief – that Saddam had WMD - was the highest.

By analogy, belief that Assad caused the gas attack should peak now, and decline in the future. This analogy supports the belief the rebels launched the attack. Bayes theorem + Analogy Look for Historical examples of cases when 1 side went to war over an action that was denied by the other side, the war was fought and afterwards the evidence that caused the war to start was later found to: A) Be correct B) Be false

A) Cause denied but found to be true • Zimmermann telegram (helping US into WW1) was true B) Cause denied and found to be false • Dodgy Dossier and Iraq WMD • Winter War 1939 Russia attacks Finland • Gulf of Tonkin incident • Suez 1956 • … etc

New conclusions and recommendations

We still do not have, despite the US report, enough evidence to conclude Assad did it, as substantial evidence is needed to overcome some of the suspicions and co-incidences

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence

WE do not yet have enough evidence to justify military intervention. (Or a pressing reason to act quickly) We need to flood Syria with investigation teams and gather more evidence. Assad is willing for this to happen