I previously tweeted that I do not find game theory helpful for defense policy problems because it abstracts out too much organizational context. What then do I think is useful? [1/7]

For complex problems where cause-and-effect is unclear, consider problem structing methods like general morphological analysis (GMA). Aka the “Zwicky morphological box,” US astrophysicist Fritz Zwicky developed it for non-quantitative modeling. [2/7]
http://swemorph.com/pdf/gma.pdf 

Here is project we did for the Air Force where we used GMA to create plausible futures based on trends. [3/7]
https://www.rand.org/pubs/research_reports/RR1701.html

The intelligence community also uses morphological analysis as an idea generation technique. [4/7] https://www.amazon.com/dp/B07CHXFW3Q/ref=cm_sw_r_tw_dp_U_x_ExEJEbM5KFDYT

GMA can be used solo or with a group of experts in a workshop format. If you are very time constrained though, consider Critical Uncertainties, which is a similar concept but much more scoped [5/7]:
http://www.liberatingstructures.com/30-critical-uncertainties/

Rather than abstract out complexities and risk creating oversimplified models that no longer relate to the original problem, as Schelling cautioned against, we should use methods that can deal with “messy” social contexts. [6/7]

“The practitioner must choose. Shall he remain on the high ground where he can solve relatively unimportant problems according to prevailing standards of rigor, or shall he descend to the swamp of important problems and non-rigorous inquiry.” [7/7] https://link.springer.com/article/10.1057/jors.1992.44