We repeatedly hear the cliché "prepared for any scenario" in briefings by the army, police and others, whose mission is to protect the safety and security of the country's residents.
This statement expresses two erroneous worldviews: one - the ability to predict all possible scenarios, and the second - the ability to minimize all risks in all possible scenarios, and the readiness to deal optimally with the constraints of each of them. Is it?
Experience shows that in real time, new scenarios were realized that were not initially foreseen, and that the preparations for dealing with them, before they occurred, were failing, to say the least, and cost them in blood.
The problem is not with the literal meaning of the cliché "prepared for any scenario", but with the excess self-confidence of the organization that uses it, which causes incorrect prediction on the one hand, and different preparation than is required for an unpredicted scenario on the other. I have never heard from the CEO of a successful business company confidence in his ability to predict all scenarios of external events – such as a severe crisis in the markets that the company he manages is supposed to deal with and is prepared to deal with successfully.
On the other hand, I was exposed to many managers who were confident in their ability to deal with "all possible scenarios," but who led the companies they managed to insolvency, or at best – to a crisis from which only many years later did the company recover, headed by a different manager than the one that drove it down.
Confidence in the ability to predict "all scenarios" inevitably leads to organization to deal with the common denominator of all predicted scenarios. Experience shows, at an unbearable price, that there are incorrect preparations for scenarios that actually took place.
Scenario preparation is based on paradigms, any deviation from which disrupts planned assessments. We are fortunate that the DNA of the people, and accordingly of the army and other organizations, is characterized by the ability to improvise and organize quickly to provide an appropriate and bold response to surprise, sometimes based on "thinking outside the box" (such as crossing the Channel in the Yom Kippur War and encircling the Egyptian Army's Third Army).
The enemy – a hostile state, a terrorist organization or any other entity – studies our weak points and builds its plans accordingly.
Confidence in the ability to predict "all scenarios" inevitably leads to organization to deal with the common denominator of all predicted scenarios. Experience shows, at an unbearable price, of incorrect preparations for scenarios that actually occurred
Our excessive chatter helps our enemies become well acquainted with the "soft underbelly" of the army and the government, and to plan the scenario to harm us in a way that will make it difficult for us to deal with the blow that will befall us.
The enemy is gaining experience and capabilities that it did not have in the past, and it has learned to surprise and attack us. Preparing for "any scenario" is supposed to identify our weak points and prevent the enemy from exploiting them.
The time has come to move from an arrogant worldview, reflected in the statement "the IDF is prepared for any scenario," to a worldview that conveys modesty, caution and creative thinking, using another cliché, if necessary, such as: "The IDF is preparing to successfully deal with the enemy's expected moves," or similar.
Wrong? We'll fix it! If you find a mistake in the article, please share with us