From Fitzroy's Private Diary (Extract 136)

One of the essential skills for a field agent is the ability to put yourself in another’s shoes. Now, this can be because you’re pretending to be someone else, and to do a convincing impersonation, you need to act and, above all, think as they do.

It also refers to those times you observe a reaction from someone else and need to interpret it correctly. Don’t ever assume that the reactions of someone else are the same as they would be for you. For example, if said person smiles at another person, it would be erroneous to think they are doing so because they like them. It could well be that they despise this person and have prepared a well laid plan for their demise (certainly, a known foe smiling at me has never boded well). This is all rather a straightforward matter.

However, when it comes time for analysts to consider what an enemy, or at least a less friendly nation, might do, it’s all too common for them to judge on the basis of British standards. There is an unconscious bias towards the British way of thinking. Why should another nation think like the British? As an example, and one that reveals no tactical secrets, the British are well known as a nation of animal lovers. We adore our pets (and rightly so). Does this mean that all peoples, and all nations also love their pets as much as we do? Or course not. The idea is ridiculous.

Why then do analysts, looking at the world stage, and even military strategists, struggle to see beyond their own way of being? What one nation might do depends not only on its government, but its culture, its place (literally) in the world, its key figures, and its place (wealth and status) on the world stage. Britain is a powerful and rich Empire. We can afford to act with intelligence, dignity and even mercy (at times). Why should we consider that a desperate and impoverished nation might act the same way? Why would we ascribe to a leader, who is a known madman, the same preciseness of thought as our own leaders?

Alice has never fallen into these common traps. Leaving aside her natural intelligence (and the brilliance of her trainer), I suspect that women make the best analysts, and we really should employ more.  Not only are they capable of conceiving of more complex motivations (and, my God, can women be complex!), but I suspect they spend their lives trying to understand, predict and even circumvent the actions of men. In this patriarchy, women have so little power and influence that they must, perforce, live in a hostile world, ruled by the way a man thinks and acts, and if they wish to have any independence or influence, then they must fully understand their opposition. This constant requirement does, I believe, make them the best natural analysts. It also proves that, on the whole, my gender is quite despicable (myself excluded, of course).

Ah well, I do my best to alleviate the suffering of the women I encounter (in oh so many ways). I also, by the by, will continue to attempt to convince my department to bring more and more women into the fold.