A Spy's Guide to Strategy Quotes

“Inside every Positive-Sum Game, some people have more power than others. Some people make more important decisions than others. Some people decide what the rest of the group will do. Inside every Positive-Sum Game, someone is the boss.”
― John Braddock, A Spy's Guide to Strategy

“When you put the two strategies together, it looks like this: The protagonist builds an alliance to defeat the enemy. The enemy builds an alliance to defeat the protagonist.”
― John Braddock, A Spy's Guide to Strategy

“When you’re a spy, you hide in plain sight. You act like a consultant. Or a bureaucrat. Or a technician. You act like something you’re not. In plain sight. You have the right glasses. You have the right haircut. You have the right underwear, in case you get searched. You look right. You act right. To anyone wondering who you are, everything feels right. At a border crossing, you answer questions. As boringly as possible. So they move on. So they think there’s no reason to stop you. Because you’re hiding in plain sight.   But no matter how good you are at hiding in plain sight, there are two moments that can trip you up. Moment #1: When you go from your real life to another identity. Moment #2: When you go back. In those moments, the best acting job won’t save you. In those moments the right haircut, glasses and underwear won’t save you. In those moments, your answers are worthless. If a security service sees you in those moments, it’s over. There’s only one possibility: You’re a spy. Which is why security services watch for those two moments. If they see you living your real life, they’ll watch for you to take on a different identity. If they suspect your identity isn’t real, they’ll watch for the moment when you go back to your real life.  Which is why spies watch for surveillance. Always. Everywhere. Obsessively. You’re always watching for people watching you. Whether you’re in a business meeting. Or on vacation. Or picking up the dog from the vet.”
― John Braddock, A Spy's Guide to Strategy

“Success requires three things: Imagining an Endgame. Reasoning backward through the games you’ll play. Taking action. Most people are good at imagination. Or reasoning backward. Or action. Or maybe two of the three. But few are good at all three.”
― John Braddock, A Spy's Guide to Strategy

“Maybe, you want to be boss. If so, you’ll need to understand three things about strategy: You can’t have a strategy without an Endgame. If world domination is your Endgame, your Endgame will conflict with lots of other people’s Endgames. And being boss of that Endgame will conflict with lots of other people’s ambitions. Which means you’ll have to reason backward through a lot of Zero-Sum Games. To win those Zero-Sum Games, you’ll need to play Positive-Sum Games. You’ll need lots of mutually-beneficial alliances. Inside your Positive-Sum Games will be Boss Games. Especially inside your alliances. Somebody will make the most important decisions. You want that person to be you. So you can decide how to win the Zero-Sum Games. So you can be boss of your Endgame. Strategy is looking forward and reasoning backward. Backward through the Positive-Sum and Zero-Sum Games you’ll need to play. All the way back to today. Strategy is imagination and reason. But building a strategy isn’t the end. In getting things done, building a strategy is not even the midway point. It’s almost the beginning.”
― John Braddock, A Spy's Guide to Strategy

“A spy’s strategy starts with an Endgame. A spy’s strategy means reasoning backward. Reasoning backward through the interactions. It means playing the games that get you to the Endgame. In a way that protects the people, places and things in your Endgame. A spy’s strategy means you give up opportunities for shootouts. It means you hold your punches. It means you bypass bloodshed unless there’s no other option. And if there’s no other option, you made a mistake. It’s rare you start conflicts. It’s rare you fight. Unless there is a Zero-Sum Game between you and your Endgame.”
― John Braddock, A Spy's Guide to Strategy

“After 9/11, the strategy was to weaken four things: Al-Qaeda. Bin Laden’s leadership of Al-Qaeda. The possibility of a Caliphate. Bin Laden’s standing as future leader of a Caliphate. At the same time, the strategy was to strengthen: The Pax Americana. U.S. leadership of the Pax Americana. The U.S.-Arab Alliance The U.S. position in the U.S.-Arab Alliance. The U.S. strategy was Bin Laden’s strategy in reverse. The U.S. was on the same playing field as Bin Laden. With opposite purposes.”
― John Braddock, A Spy's Guide to Strategy

“If Bin Laden had the capability to attack but didn’t, that means he didn’t want to. He didn’t have the will. Which seems strange. Bin Laden had attacked once. His attack had a devastating effect. His attack advanced his strategy in four ways. And weakened his enemies in four ways. Why not attack again? The answer lies in Bin Laden’s strategy. Bin Laden’s Endgame was a Caliphate. Which meant his strategy was built to get the people, places and things for the Caliphate to exist. He wanted the Ummah. He wanted the Middle East. He wanted the resources in the Middle East. Plus, he wanted to be boss of it all. He wanted to be Caliph. To get there, Bin Laden wanted to separate the U.S. from the Arab Rulers of the Middle East. He wanted to separate the Middle East from the Pax Americana.”
― John Braddock, A Spy's Guide to Strategy

“There are two things needed to attack: Capability, and Will. The more important is always will.”
― John Braddock, A Spy's Guide to Strategy

“When the people in your Endgame are threatened, your mindset shifts. You see conflict is unavoidable. A fight is coming. You get ready for war. You build a strategy. You reason backward. From the Zero-Sum Game back to the Positive-Sum Games that help you win. You reason backward from the conflict to the alliances that will help you win it.”
― John Braddock, A Spy's Guide to Strategy

“That was one tactic after 9/11: Turn off the world banking system to terrorists. Large transfers were flagged. Suspected terrorists got scrutiny. Which meant terrorists went underground. Cash in suitcases. And low weight, high value items like diamonds. Family exchange networks moved cash, too. To keep it hidden, they made terrorist transfers look like legitimate business transactions.”
― John Braddock, A Spy's Guide to Strategy

“There’s an official hierarchy. And an operational hierarchy. The official hierarchy decides on personnel, strategic initiatives and resources. The official hierarchy decides which case officers to hire. Where to place them. Who to promote into management. The operational hierarchy decides on operational issues. Which sources to trust. How to work with them. Which moment-by-moment risks make sense. At the top of the official hierarchy is who you would think it would be: the agency director. At the top of the operational hierarchy are the guys on the street: the case officers. Different hierarchies for different decisions. Different hierarchies for organizational decisions and operational decisions.22 Sometimes, there’s a conflict.”
― John Braddock, A Spy's Guide to Strategy

“When it’s just you, turning decisions into action is easy. You decide what to do and act. Easy. When you’re part of a group, it’s more difficult. More difficult because it’s usually different people deciding and acting. There’s a hierarchy. One person decides, and another person acts on the decision. Which means the people acting have a choice. The people acting have a veto. The people acting can refuse to act. Sometimes, people don’t know they have a veto. Sometimes, the thought of vetoing a decision has been beaten out of them.20 Sometimes, a veto is threatened with death.21 When you join a group, you accept its hierarchy. If your job is to act on other people’s decisions, you do it. You do what the hierarchy tells you to do. You can’t veto the decision by not acting. Unless you don’t want to be part of the group. But sometimes groups have different hierarchies for different decisions. One type of decision is made by one hierarchy. A second type of decision is made by a different hierarchy. Which is what happens in spy organizations.”
― John Braddock, A Spy's Guide to Strategy

“How Bin Laden strengthened himself on 9/11: Bin Laden gained believers in a Caliphate (Strengthened the Caliphate). Bin laden firmed up his position as Caliph if a Caliphate came to be (Strengthened his position in the Caliphate’s Boss Game). Bin Laden attracted new recruits to Al-Qaeda (Strengthened Al-Qaeda). Bin Laden became the unassailable leader of Al-Qaeda (Strengthened his position in the alliance’s Boss Game). How Bin Laden weakened his enemies on 9/11: Bin Laden created distrust in the Pax Americana (Weakened the Pax Americana). Bin Laden lessened the perception of U.S. strength and leadership of the Pax Americana (Weakened the U.S. position in the Pax Americana’s Boss Game). Bin Laden sowed distrust in the alliance between Arab Rulers and the United States (Weakened the U.S.-Arab Alliance). Bin Laden caused allies to doubt U.S. leadership of the U.S.-Arab Alliance (Weakened the U.S. position in the alliance’s Boss Game).”
― John Braddock, A Spy's Guide to Strategy

“Most countries are in a Positive-Sum Game with the United States. Win-win for everyone.”
― John Braddock, A Spy's Guide to Strategy

“Which creates a natural dynamic: Presidents start making decisions where their decisions are turned into action. Where they can get results. Which is outside U.S. borders. As a Presidency goes on, Presidents are more likely to spend time on international issues.18”
― John Braddock, A Spy's Guide to Strategy

“Outside the United States you are Commander-in-Chief. You have more power. On a bigger playing field. Which is why most Presidencies follow a pattern. At the beginning, the President focuses on domestic issues. Then the President conflicts with Congress. And the Supreme Court. And takes some losses. Domestically, the President is not as powerful as they want to be. Outside the United States, international institutions are less likely to stand in an American President’s way. Foreign countries may resist, but that’s a different kind of game. Played with tools not available domestically. Like the U.S. Armed Forces. And the CIA.”
― John Braddock, A Spy's Guide to Strategy

“You recognize a simple fact: Presidential decision-making is limited. Being boss in a constitutional system like the United States is limiting. The Constitution limits your power. Congress limits your power. The opposing party limits your power. The Supreme Court limits your power. Your decisions rarely turn into action. And even more rarely, into results.”
― John Braddock, A Spy's Guide to Strategy

“When you’re looking at the other side’s strategy, you watch Boss Games closely. You watch because if the boss of the other side changes, their strategy will change, too. An ally can become an enemy.”
― John Braddock, A Spy's Guide to Strategy

“Bin Laden wanted to win a game within the Caliphate. Bin Laden would need to win a game within his Endgame. Bin Laden would need to win a Boss Game.”
― John Braddock, A Spy's Guide to Strategy

“But Bin Laden wanted something else. Something that touches on another dimension of strategy. It’s a dimension of strategy sometimes more important than Positive-Sum and Zero-Sum Games. A dimension that forced Bin Laden to take greater risks. A dimension that drove many of Bin Laden’s decisions. A dimension embedded in Bin Laden’s Endgame. Because Bin Laden didn’t want just any Caliphate. Bin Laden wanted a Caliphate where he was Caliph. Caliph means successor of Mohammed. Leader of the Caliphate. The Boss. Bin Laden wanted to be the boss. The leader. The Caliph.”
― John Braddock, A Spy's Guide to Strategy

“Bin Laden used the Soviet-Afghan War as a proving ground for his alliance. He used it to evaluate people. To judge fighters. He used it to build a network of people who believed what he believed. People he could trust. Bin Laden created a list of those people. In Bin Laden’s mind, the list was a database. A database of trusted people. A database of fighters. Which is why he called it “The Base.” In Arabic, “The Base” is “Al-Qaeda.”
― John Braddock, A Spy's Guide to Strategy

“Positive-Sum, then Zero-Sum, then Positive-Sum again. Games arranged in the most efficient way to get the protagonist to their Endgame. When you see the pattern, you see it everywhere. You see it in wars. You see it in politics. You see it in business. You even see it in families. You see people working to get to their Endgame. You see them building alliances to win conflicts. You see the result of conflicts is one side wins people, places and/or things. You see people building strategies to reach their Endgame. And then they act. They act to create and win the games that get them to their Endgame.”
― John Braddock, A Spy's Guide to Strategy

“It’s Luke and Han and Leia joining in an alliance. Their alliance fights against the Empire in a Zero-Sum Game. When they destroy the second Death Star, they win freedom for the people. They’re celebrated by their allies. They’ve reached their Endgame.”
― John Braddock, A Spy's Guide to Strategy

“Most strategies follow the same pattern. A Positive-Sum Game to win a Zero-Sum Game to get into an Endgame. Which is another Positive-Sum Game.”
― John Braddock, A Spy's Guide to Strategy

“The best way to win a Zero-Sum Game is to play a Positive-Sum Game. The best way to win a war is to have a strong alliance.”
― John Braddock, A Spy's Guide to Strategy

“The best way to win a Zero-Sum Game is to play a Positive-Sum Game. The”
― John Braddock, A Spy's Guide to Strategy

“Whatever and whenever it is, every Endgame is a Positive-Sum Game.14 Which means every Endgame has three things: People A place Things to sustain it. Because it’s a Positive-Sum Game, an Endgame looks like this: The Endgame is what you imagine to be your end. It’s what you imagine when you look forward all the way to the end.”
― John Braddock, A Spy's Guide to Strategy

“In the 1930s, the Soviet Union had an espionage network in the United States. From breadth to depth to impact, it was maybe the most powerful espionage network in history.11 Soviet sources were at the highest levels of the U.S. Government. They gave Stalin advance warning of U.S. negotiating positions. They advised the Soviets on American weapons development. They were powerful enough to alter American foreign policy to benefit Soviet policy. The Soviets built the espionage network by leveraging a simple fact: A lot of elite Americans in the 1930s sympathized with Communism.”
― John Braddock, A Spy's Guide to Strategy

“To understand Bin Laden’s strategy, you look to his Endgame. Further than the terrorist attacks in Africa and the Middle East. Further than 9/11. Further than his war with the United States. You look all the way to Bin Laden’s Endgame. When you find it, you reason backward. You see that for Bin Laden’s strategy, attacking the United States made sense.”
― John Braddock, A Spy's Guide to Strategy