Most of our assumptions have outlived their uselessness.
-Marshall McLuhan

In Max Brooks’ novel World War Z and the film of the same title,  Israel is the only sovereign nation fully prepared for the coming Zombie conflict.  Brooks explains this anomaly as being the result of the method of decision making adopted by the Israeli government following the 1972 Yom Kippur War.  In the movie, it is called the “tenth man rule.”  A surprise attack on the eve of the most sacred of Jewish holidays was  unthinkable. Therefore, none of the generals responsible for the Jewish state’s national defense raised the possibility.  An embarrassed Israeli government needed to ensure this would never happen again.

The theory behind this concept is the belief that when any panel voices unanimous support for a course of action there must be some unconsidered variable.  Thus, it is the role of the designated tenth man to ask the simple question, “What if we are wrong?” A similar concept is employed by the Catholic Church when deliberating whether an individual should be elevated to sainthood.  A “devil’s advocate” is appointed to raise doubt about the nominee’s character and to challenge the miracles on which canonization is based.

Too bad NASA did not have a tenth man rule during the launch of the space shuttle Columbia on January 16, 2003.  During take-off, a chunk of insulation separated from the external fuel tank, striking the edge of the wing on the port side of the spacecraft.  Similar incidents had occurred during six previous shuttle launches including the most recent flight of Atlantis.  NASA engineers saw no need for alarm based on past experience, until the shuttle disintegrated upon re-entry on February 1.  By then, it was tragically too late.  If only one of the flight center staff had been required to ask, “What if we are wrong about this kind of debris striking the shuttle on launch?  What if the shuttle and its crew are in danger?”

I thought about the tenth man rule last Friday when the Washington Post reported how the Obama White House struggled whether to come forward with what they had learned about Vladimir Putin’s role in orchestrating Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election. And I certainly understand the president’s hesitancy to do so.  Donald Trump had spent much of the fall predicting the outcome was “rigged.”  Therefore, any action perceived as the incumbent Democrat president tipping the scales in favor of Hillary Clinton would be immediately denounced as evidence Trump was correct.

But that was not the fatal flaw in President Obama’s decision.  There was a general belief among the limited number of individuals who had seen the intelligence assessment that Clinton would win anyway.  While the race might be closer following Wikileaks’ disclosure of Russian hacked emails, the outcome was never in doubt.  There does not appear to have been a designated tenth man (or woman) to challenge this assumption.  Consider the following hypothetical conversation in the oval office.

OBAMA: We can deal with this after the election.  The last thing we need is Donny-Boy out there proclaiming, “I told you so.  See.  Obama is trying to rig the election.”  His base is fired up enough already.

TENTH MAN: But what if the Russians can actually affect the outcome?  Shouldn’t we inform voters before  they cast their ballot?

OBAMA: Yes, but going public may do more harm than good.  What if that is exactly what the Russians want?  We have to consider whether we might do more to swing the election in Trump’s favor than either the Russians or Wikileaks by jumping in at the last minute.  The Republicans will label it a desperation move on behalf of a failing candidate.

TENTH MAN: Mr. President, that is certainly a possibility.  But there is a more important imperative.  Regardless of its impact on the election, we are being attacked by a foreign government.  Of course, there will be skeptics.  But the American people have a right to know.

OBAMA: You’re right.  Jeh (Johnson, secretary of homeland security), prepare an announcement.  Bring in the FBI, CIA and NSA.  Ask them to provide as much information as they can to validate the situation without compromising any individuals or operations.  Call Josh (Earnest, press secretary) and tell him to alert the networks I will be addressing the nation this evening.

Neither I nor anyone else, even in hindsight, could predict whether the above course of action would have made a difference on November 8th.  But there is one thing of which we can be sure.  We would not be any worse off than we are today.

For what it’s worth.
Dr. ESP