I worked for Nato for several years as an analyst. The writing and review process was brutal. It had to be. I regularly verbally briefed the Supreme Allied Commander of Nato (Saceur) or his deputies. It could and did form part of material connected to kinetic operations. Dropping bombs etc. So the topic was either self generated or requested. Then a specific title or question was formulated, which when approved formed genesis for creation of a writing plan. This was then briefed to a panel of supervisors, their input was generally accepted and implemented. Intelligence and information was collated, hours if urgent, days or weeks if not. A chosen method of analysis was discussed and decided upon. Then writing began. So a verbal briefing to Saceur was 3 minutes or 1 page A4. First two sentences formal introduction,last two were use formulaic language of assessment and probability. That left rest for writing. Usually first draft was circulated amo g team members, as a native English speaker it didn't require language check, but my team had Americans, Brits, Hungarian, Romanian and Norwegian staff. They all read it and critiqued it. Discussions, often animated explored their comments, then when a mutually agreed draft was completed, it went to another team for Blind assessment. Usually the team I choose had spanish, French, Swedish, American and Dutch staff. Same process again. Read over, pulled apart, redrafted,language honed, simplified and polished. Then when asecond draft was achieved, it went ro my Senior Team analyst, a Hungarian officer of exemplary standards and stout communication. It was generally disassembled,reassembled and qusruins asked, lots of questions, and then discussion, often free and Frank was held. That led to a agreed draft that went to Strategic analyst, a Brit officer and full time highly professional analyst. Final polishing and alterations again and again. Then, if especially important or sensitive, the Deputy Commander or DComm cast his eye over it for potential political landmines or strategic faults that would incur wrath from someone wearing Stars. Then and only then could it be published and Saceur briefed. But we knew we had done a good job as we possibly could and the final product as good as we could make it.
I worked for Nato for several years as an analyst. The writing and review process was brutal. It had to be. I regularly verbally briefed the Supreme Allied Commander of Nato (Saceur) or his deputies. It could and did form part of material connected to kinetic operations. Dropping bombs etc. So the topic was either self generated or requested. Then a specific title or question was formulated, which when approved formed genesis for creation of a writing plan. This was then briefed to a panel of supervisors, their input was generally accepted and implemented. Intelligence and information was collated, hours if urgent, days or weeks if not. A chosen method of analysis was discussed and decided upon. Then writing began. So a verbal briefing to Saceur was 3 minutes or 1 page A4. First two sentences formal introduction,last two were use formulaic language of assessment and probability. That left rest for writing. Usually first draft was circulated amo g team members, as a native English speaker it didn't require language check, but my team had Americans, Brits, Hungarian, Romanian and Norwegian staff. They all read it and critiqued it. Discussions, often animated explored their comments, then when a mutually agreed draft was completed, it went to another team for Blind assessment. Usually the team I choose had spanish, French, Swedish, American and Dutch staff. Same process again. Read over, pulled apart, redrafted,language honed, simplified and polished. Then when asecond draft was achieved, it went ro my Senior Team analyst, a Hungarian officer of exemplary standards and stout communication. It was generally disassembled,reassembled and qusruins asked, lots of questions, and then discussion, often free and Frank was held. That led to a agreed draft that went to Strategic analyst, a Brit officer and full time highly professional analyst. Final polishing and alterations again and again. Then, if especially important or sensitive, the Deputy Commander or DComm cast his eye over it for potential political landmines or strategic faults that would incur wrath from someone wearing Stars. Then and only then could it be published and Saceur briefed. But we knew we had done a good job as we possibly could and the final product as good as we could make it.
Thanks for sharing these excellent insights, Eliot. Hope you continue to write about the art and craft of writing now and again.