Political Analysis in His Lamp

Political Analysis

In his LAMP analysis of the nuclear issue that is the focus of Mr. Gadd's paper, he handled many of the steps very well. The first of these is determining the issue for which he is predicting the most likely issue. Mr. Gadd provides a clear and in-depth description of the issue at hand as it relates to the nuclear situation. For the second step, he also clearly identifies the actors involved, which include Iran, Iraq and Israel. Step five is also done well, with a description of the major issues involved. What Mr. Gadd did specifically well in Step 1, 2 and 5 is the way in which he demonstrated his analyses via a point system. The points are clear and summarize particularly the issues and scenarios involved. Step 1 for example briefly introduces the issue, followed by a specification of the issues to be addressed in the later analysis. This is logically and clearly connected with Step 2. Step 5 provides a good springboard for the rest of the steps, which involve an analysis of the different scenarios and likely futures. There is nothing in these three steps that I would do differently.

Steps 6-12 focus on the alternative futures Mr. Gadd analyzed. This is also done well, initially by means of tables, followed by a discussion of the different scenarios, with a conclusion to summarize the findings. The tables include the different future scenarios, with a value assigned to each according to its likelihood. These scenarios are then discussed according to their order of likelihood. Each discussion incorporates Steps 9-12. This is a good strategy, as the reader is presented with clearly organized information regarding not only the likelihood of each event, but also its potential to develop in modern times, its focal points, and the indicators related to these focal points.

For these steps also, I would not change anything. Mr. Gadd provided a clear description of the issues, as well as tables that provide analytical information. The steps are well organized and documented via discussion and conclusions.

The only steps that I found was not done so well were Step 3 and 4. Step 3 particularly lacks the depth of analysis required by the LAMP method. It requires an in-depth study of the views of each actor regarding the issue. While Mr. Gadd does discuss each issue at some length, he does not do this from the viewpoint of the countries he mentions. In fact, his study reads like a history from the viewpoint of an American author. Mr. Gadd only briefly addresses the issues as seen by the countries themselves. In this, he also focuses only on the similarities in the views of these countries, with the main point being that Iraq, Iran and Israel see themselves as isolated from their neighboring countries, and as being surrounded by enemies.

A better approach to this might have been demonstrating in greater depth the complexity of each country's views. I would for example have focused on both the similarities and differences of the countries involved. I would also have provided a shorter description of the historical account of each country, while providing more focus on the required and varied viewpoints of these countries. This point is the biggest flaw in the paper.

Another, lesser flaw is Step 4, which requires all the possible actions for each actor. Once again, Mr. Gadd discusses only three options for each country, which appears to be somewhat limited. Indeed, he continues to discuss each possible action in greater depth.