Re·con·nais·sance
/riˈkänəsəns,-zəns/
"military observation of a region to locate an enemy or ascertain strategic features."
(Oxford)
When I was younger, my brother and I read the "Where's Waldo?" books - though it was less like reading and more like spying through them. The books were fundamentally exercises in reverse pattern recognition - isolating breaks in the visual pattern to determine one-of-a-kind objects. For the books, this meant the goal was to find Waldo amid a host of activities and other figures who looked like he did, wore what he wore, and were similarly patterned and colored. Additionally, several blatantly clashing items and people and scenarios were depicted to break up the scenes and make finding Waldo more difficult. Of course, if you didn't first know what Waldo looked like, and what he was required to be wearing, then it would have been impossible to locate him. Here's the point: in identifying one thing among but distinct from other things, one must first categorize distinctions and then note them against the background.
It has long been understood that to defeat your enemy, you have to know some things about him - in order to identify him. Identifiers such as habitual and unique behaviors help you distinguish the enemy from friends and neutral parties. Thus, the extent to which you can clearly describe your enemy determines the extent to which you can identify your enemy within a range of difficult circumstances.
The same two requirements exist in successful arguments. First, you have to know your position, and second, you have to understand the opposition well enough to know why it is not your position. In fact, the first seeds for the latter's fruitfulness. Without the first, you are position-less. And, if you cannot make the leap to the second, then either you do not yet have enough information on the opposition or you do not have the understanding requisite to delineate your position from proximal others.
Here's where our keyword for today, reconnaissance, comes into play. Among nations, reconnaissance is a primary method of maintaining a profile for your enemy or potential enemy. Keeping tabs on what he's done, doing, stopped doing, planning to do, etc. provides a means of keeping the enemy visible. The most dangerous enemy is the invisible one, the one you cannot obstruct should he prove a threat, because there is no history to consider, no image to compare, no behavior to watch for, no deception understood. That's why programs that read your emails, record your phone calls, and identify patterns in your internet behavior matter to free countries. With tremendous liberty comes tremendous vulnerability. Such vulnerabilities compound without the means of identifying enemies should they emerge. That's why soldiers were given playing cards with most-wanted individuals' faces on them. That's why the CIA exists and why culture analysis remains a chief tool in reconnaissance training. But, notice what happens when I say that reconnaissance is also a primary method of maintaining a profile for your allies. All of a sudden, we start getting a little fearful that this is not a good idea, that we've broken some important trust. Have we? Or, have we, potentially just sharpened the profile we have on file for our ally, so that we can better differentiate their activities and presence from a foe's, so that we can say, "Yes, we know that you did not send that missive. We know you were unaware that your communications lines were compromised. We knew and did not tell you because it strengthened our hand, our partnership even, against our common enemy." Reconnaissance toward friends is the power of misinformation against foes. It is the defensive strength negating the age-old strategy of destruction of poisoning partnerships through fears of betrayal. Of course, it is assumed that your reconnaissance team is entirely trustworthy and that those giving them orders and those to whom the information is handed-off truly seek the welfare of their organization. When that cannot be assured, reconnaissance becomes increasingly dangerous. Being able to trust one side is hard enough. Not being able to trust anyone builds a bridge to insanity.
For application's sake, consider how reconnaissance might be applied toward some subject like theology. In one's studies, he will form opinions on various matters, many if not all of which will grind against some other man's opinions. But, the first man will not recognize this grinding if he does not first form opinions. He must make some kind of declarative statement about matters of discussion. He does this intuitively. He will say X is _____. Only then can it be known that the man who says X is not ______ sees the world differently. And, for that matter, the first man must know what X might be (and why) in order to perceive the extent of the difference. Suppose in studies of different doctrines, a man comes to find one interpretation different from the others in some way that pleases him where the others do not. He has to seek understanding as to why it pleases him as others don't. That will help him determine the nature of the disagreement as well as the nature of his pleasure. Moreover, such will reveal his method of decision-making and hierarchy of importance in regard to that doctrine.
Let's pull back. The point made has to do with reconnaissance being not just a matter of offense, but it is also, and even more so, a matter of defense. In matters of argumentation, the man who does not understand his own position well enough to proclaim it is not just incapable of advancing, but he is also fundamentally handicapped from guarding his own city. By his failure, thieves easily break in, rob the treasury, and impoverish his heritage.
