To be effective, policymaking and programming in conflict situations must start with an accurate understanding of local context, conflict actors, causes, and the dynamic relationships among them. The report argues that complex conflict situations can be better understood by tapping the potential synergy between two distinct approaches to analyzing conflicts—conflict assessment and intelligence analysis. This report originates from the United States Institute of Peace’s Center for Conflict Management, which conducts research, identifies best practices, and develops new tools for conflict prevention, management, and resolution.

275

Summary

  • A wide consensus has emerged in recent years that successful policymaking and programming in conflict situations must start with an accurate understanding of local context, conflict actors, causes, and the dynamic relationships among them.
  • This recognition has led to a plethora of new analytic initiatives, but little evident effort to exploit potential synergies between conflict assessment and national security intelligence analysis.
  • Conflict assessment and intelligence analysis have different origins, aims, and methods but also a number of important elements of commonality. They both aim to enhance understanding of complicated sociopolitical situations to support better decision making and face many common challenges, including accuracy, precision, timeliness, and relevance.
  • Conflict assessment is marked by its action orientation, its flexibility, and its emphasis on collaborative methods to elicit views on the conflict from diverse perspectives. These attributes may lead conflict assessment processes to be especially able to pick up “weak signals” and to promote cooperation and enhance understanding of the “other side’s” perspectives.
  • These strengths of conflict assessment may at times come at the cost of analytic rigor, precision, and sensitivity to the possibility that some stakeholders could provide misleading information.
  • Intelligence analysis is designed to produce objective assessments for government national security decision makers through rigorous evaluation of “all source” data (including classified information) in a competitive environment. Intelligence analysts’ independence from policymakers and their adherence to explicit standards of analytic tradecraft should help lead to high-quality analytic products.
  • Potential pitfalls of intelligence analysis include being too reliant on data from clandestine and highly technical sources, being subject to political pressure, and being insufficiently collaborative.
  • Three important global trends tend to push conflict assessment and intelligence analysis toward convergence: the changing nature of national security, the increasing salience of “open source” information, and the growing recognition of the limitations of lone analysts.
  • Deliberate efforts to draw on the methods of both conflict assessment and intelligence analysis will yield fuller and more useful analysis, which should in turn improve the formulation of conflict management, peacebuilding, and national security strategies. Using tools of conflict assessment and intelligence analysis in tandem is one specific step toward fully realizing the complementarity of these two analytic approaches.

About the Report

To be effective, policymaking and programming in conflict situations must start with an accurate understanding of local context, conflict actors, causes, and the dynamic relationships among them. The report argues that complex conflict situations can be better understood by tapping the potential synergy between two distinct approaches to analyzing conflicts—conflict assessment and intelligence analysis. This report originates from the United States Institute of Peace’s Center for Conflict Management, which conducts research, identifies best practices, and develops new tools for conflict prevention, management, and resolution.

About the Author

Lawrence Woocher is a senior program officer at the United States Institute of Peace. The author benefited from many discussions with practitioners of conflict assessment and intelligence analysis, especially at an Institute roundtable meeting on November 10, 2010, and wishes to thank Jennifer Sims and Abiodun Williams for their helpful comments on an earlier draft.


Related Publications

What’s Next for Israel, Iran and Prospects for a Wider Middle East War?

What’s Next for Israel, Iran and Prospects for a Wider Middle East War?

Wednesday, October 30, 2024

Early Saturday morning in Tehran, Israel carried out what it called a series of “precise and targeted” airstrikes on Iranian military targets. This was the latest in a series of direct exchanges between Isarel and Iran in recent months. Israel Defense Forces struck 20 sites, including air defense batteries and radar, factories for missile and drone production, and weapons and aircraft launch sites. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu announced that the attack had "severely damaged Iran’s defense capability and its ability to produce missiles.” The Iranian government announced the deaths of four military personnel and one civilian, but otherwise took a more measured response than might be expected.

Type: Question and Answer

Conflict Analysis & Prevention

China Responds to Taiwan’s Plea for Cross-Strait Peace with Military Pressure

China Responds to Taiwan’s Plea for Cross-Strait Peace with Military Pressure

Thursday, October 24, 2024

In his first National Day speech as Taiwan’s president, William Lai Ching-te called for regional peace while reaffirming that China and Taiwan “are not subordinate to each other.” Though Lai’s October 10 address was more restrained than past remarks, it was attacked by China’s state media as “highly provocative.” Days later, the People’s Liberation Army (PLA) encircled Taiwan with record numbers of military aircraft and warships during a series of military “drills.”

Type: Question and Answer

Conflict Analysis & Prevention

The Future of the Security Sector in Ukraine

The Future of the Security Sector in Ukraine

Thursday, October 17, 2024

The aim of this report is to present practical options for advancing Ukraine’s security sector capabilities to consolidate peace and stability as the country transitions from war to peace; the United States Institute of Peace does not take specific policy positions or advocate for specific forms of assistance. Although winning the war rightly remains Ukraine’s highest priority, this report focuses on the security sector issues at the heart of the country’s ability to win the peace. These include tackling corruption; holding the perpetrators of war crimes accountable; integrating veterans into society; and strengthening civilian security.

Type: Report

Conflict Analysis & PreventionJustice, Security & Rule of Law

A Year After October 7, the Middle East Crisis Has No End in Sight

A Year After October 7, the Middle East Crisis Has No End in Sight

Thursday, October 10, 2024

The grim anniversary of Hamas’ October 7 attacks on Israel and the ensuing war brought little respite for memorialization and healing from the enormity of loss with which Israeli and Palestinian societies have been grappling. More than 100 of the over 250 Israeli and foreign hostages abducted that day into Gaza are estimated to remain in captivity, with only 64 presumed still alive; upward of 42,000 Gazans have been killed in the ongoing war, most of the enclave’s population has been repeatedly displaced, and damage and humanitarian devastation is widespread. A multi-front war that has simmered since that day is now poised to boil over with catastrophic potential for the region.

Type: Question and Answer

Conflict Analysis & Prevention

View All Publications