Policy decisions affect a complex system of interdependent and interacting dynamics in the environment, by which term we mean the macro-context of the contemplated course of action. In order to characterize a policy alternative’s likelihood of attaining desired outcomes, policymakers must understand how a particular course of action will affect the environment beyond the battle-field or beyond the narrowly military and take measures to reduce risks to effective implementa-tion and the impact of unintended consequences. The risks associated with a policy opimplementa-tion are the chance of incurring loss, danger, or misfortune while executing the option.81 There are many ways to assess policy-relevant internal and external environmental factors, threats, and hazards and characterize the likelihood of their occurrence. This characterization may include qualitative and quantitative measures. Ideally, policymakers should use all available techniques. An evaluation of
all the potential risks inherent in each policy option provides a cost-benefit assessment to ensure the gain from attaining the end state objective will be greater than the negative consequences of implementing the policy.
For some policies, risk may be approached in a quantitative manner similar to analysis of al-ternative policy approaches. Commonly used techniques to inform decisionmakers on the risk associated with policy alternatives include use of comparative scoring methods and analysis us-ing weighted values.82 These proven methods provide insight into a particular policy alternative’s likelihood of achieving desired outcomes in the context of decisionmaker values and risk tolerance.
Exploiting experts in risk assessment techniques such as those above to characterize risk com-prehensively helps the decisionmaker. This is particularly important with regard to spoilers that may force a change in policy. However, neither experts nor their techniques are a panacea. All decision analysis methods are subjective to some degree, and in the end the decisionmaker must make an informed decision based on the available data in line with personal and institutional tolerance of risk.
The following discussion will focus on simple but effective qualitative approaches to char-acterize uncertainty and reduce risk. These include evaluation of the policy issue from multiple perspectives, including stakeholders and external actors (including threats). This evaluation must also consider both intended and unintended consequences and the sensitivity of a particular ap-proach to changes in the environment. Recall the importance of including multiple stakeholders in the identification of policy alternatives. This simple effort early in the process serves to reduce uncertainty and risk by leveraging multiple perspectives, expertise, experience, and judgment.
This approach continues in the risk assessment process to compare and contrast alternative policy approaches for the decisionmaker. There are a number of risk-related issues to evaluate to ensure a thorough assessment of policy alternatives.
The first risk-related issue is a series of questions about timing the policy implementation—
how quickly must we implement the policy, and should we implement it at all? The policy maker assesses the risk of immediate execution, delayed execution, or nonexecution (maintaining the status quo). Could rushing the policy’s execution increase the risk; conversely, could delaying implementation intensify the risk? Is there greater risk to either approach? At the same time, is there greater or less risk to implementing the new option, and would it be advantageous to simply opt for maintenance of the status quo? Sometimes it may be better to do nothing new because of the potential risk for any policy option.
The second risk-related issue also concerns time. It is an assessment of the risk of executing the policy option over an extended period. Does the policy have a shelf life? Will concerns like pos-sible decreasing support by the policymaker’s population, legislative body, or media, or exhaus-tion of the armed forces (both for personnel and equipment) pose a significant risk to the ability of the actor to execute the policy over an extended period. If the answer is yes, then adjustments may have to be made for the policy option to have the best chance of success.
Third, the policymaker must assess the value of his own risk assessment. The ability to accu-rately assess risk requires that the policymaker understand all the variables and parameters of the environment. This may be unrealistic. Thus, assessing the probability of each or even any potential risk is perhaps an unreasonable expectation. However, a thorough qualitative assessment and understanding of both the domestic and external environments are essential to understand where adverse effects might be encountered in policy implementation. To this end, the policymaker must be diligent in assessing and characterizing the effect a particular policy approach might have on both domestic and external environments. This requires a thorough wargaming of probable sequences for policy implementation. Policymakers must then consider steps to mitigate the con-sequences of adverse influences to engender final decisionmaker confidence in recommendations.
The fourth risk-related issue the policymaker must assess is an analysis of the positive and negative second and third order effects of implementing the policy option. This is an extension of the environmental risk assessment already completed, but this part of the risk evaluation looks at the indirect results of the policy option. Implementation will naturally cause effects—the direct ef-fect is actually its purpose—but some of the efef-fects will be unintended. Unintended consequences can have either a positive or a negative effect, but the policymaker should be aware of them and prepared to adapt policy to mitigate negative influences. The policymaker thus must assess the linkage between his policy and all its potential effects.83
The fifth component of the risk assessment is an examination of how sensitive the policy op-tion is to changes in external and internal factors. If certain variables related to the environment or strategic situation change, will that change the option’s viability? Here we are talking about things like unexpected technological changes (for example, acquisition of nuclear weapons), sud-den po litical power shifts (for example, a new alliance), radical shifts in public opinion as might be expected after a major terrorist attack, and other such occurrences that might affect the policy.
Will the changes increase or decrease the chance of success of the policy option? How likely are such environmental changes? Can they be managed if they do occur?
The sixth component is closely related to the fifth. In this case, the policymaker looks specifi-cally for potential policy spoilers that would mandate a change of policy. A policy spoiler is an event that would corrupt, mar, or render the policy option useless.84 It tells the policymaker what action could occur that would prevent the policy in the act of execution, from attaining its end state objective. The event in question could be developed and executed by an adversary di rectly responding to the implementation of the policy, or it could be the result of impersonal forces like weather, disease epidemics, or natural calamities. A policy in its implementation phase could also be “spoiled” by the operational demands of the ways, the nature and availability of the means (resources), and a need to share authority with or retain the support of other actors.85 All of these events could have the effect of spoiling the policy option.
A seventh part of the risk assessment is the determination of potential ways to mitigate any identified policy spoilers. Scenario planning is a tried and useful way to understand and test po-tential consequences of policy decisions. This anticipates the development of a number of “re-serve” mitigating policy changes to serve in a contingency to respond to policy spoilers. Mitigation of spoilers could require the modification of the ends, ways, or means. End state objectives may have to be modified to more realistically fit the altered situation; different courses of action may have to be selected; and/or there could be a forced increase or reallocation of resources.86
The final part of the risk assessment is a determination of whether the residual risk is ac-ceptable. This evaluation includes all identified risks to include the policy spoilers. Based on the knowledge of the existing risks and available mitigators, the policymaker must de cide if the risk is acceptable. Once again we question whether it is riskier to implement the policy than not. It is crucial to understand that the policy formulation process is dynamic and replete with unknowns (information gaps and blind spots). The result is that it is impossible to develop a risk-free policy.
The policymaker’s job is to mitigate and manage risk.
There is no single methodology for the conduct of a risk assessment that fits every policy de-cision contingency—as is true of any other component of the assessment processes found in the model. Absolutely crucial is determining and addressing the key variables and decisive questions associated with each particular concern, whether the identification of policy spoilers in the Ana-lyze Risk for Each Policy Option or information gaps during the course of the overall analysis in the Facts, Assumptions, Factors portion conducted at the beginning of the process. Asking the right questions for each issue is crucial, such as for the objective of determining policy spoilers:
What can the opposing actor do to make the proposed policy unable to attain the chosen end state
goal? This is not an idle or redundant question. Our political and military enemies over the past half-century have been very good at hatching asymmetric responses to U.S. power, leaving us sur-prised and confounded. Another “right question,” this time for understanding information gaps, would be: What do I know, what don’t I know, and what information is missing that is crucial to knowing enough to establish an executable policy? It is the detailed assessment of the answers to these questions and others like them that will determine the value of the model’s analytic efficacy.