National Intelligence Estimates (NIEs), are supposed to be a collaborative effort of every agency (in reality, every agency with a dog in that particular fight). Whether you value the findings in recently declassified NIEs or not, most of us have a pretty good idea of what any sort of product produced by committee is like. There is a saying about enjoying sausage and avoiding knowing how it is actually made that applies.
A key problem with NIEs – at least those that are not linked to charged political issues – is that you don’t always get all of the right people in the same room at the same time. Not everyone can make every meeting, sometimes key someone’s can’t make any meetings. The authority of a document that is used to advise Presidents tends to be diminished if you called it a “collaborative, consensus product from everyone who didn’t get caught in traffic.”
However, an NIE built via a mechanism likeKluster (insert joke about how the process is a cluster-**** already here) and ask yourself this question: why _not_ build intelligence assessments this way? Aside from the significant drop in impact to participants by working remotely, consider:
Each user’s successes, failures, reputation, areas of expertise, and overall history are considered. This encourages users to earn respect, to act positively, and most importantly, enables extremely educated decisions to be made using real world logic.
Can you think of a more practical way to minimization of politicization?