Good Job Ricks!
... on second thought, maybe not.
Last week, Washington Post reporter Thomas E. Ricks wrote an article that could definitely build up some contention in the following weeks. He reported on a "super-secret" meeting within the Joint Chiefs of Staff in which they decided on a course for Iraq. There were a few plans on the drawing board. One was to send in many more troops in a short amount of time; two was to send in more troops, but in a long-term fashion; and three was complete withdrawal.
"The group has devised a hybrid plan that combines part of the first option with the second one -- "Go Long" -- and calls for cutting the U.S. combat presence in favor of a long-term expansion of the training and advisory efforts. Under this mixtur
e of options, which is gaining favor inside the military, the U.S. presence in Iraq, currently about 140,000 troops, would be boosted by 20,000 to 30,000 for a short period, the officials said."
e of options, which is gaining favor inside the military, the U.S. presence in Iraq, currently about 140,000 troops, would be boosted by 20,000 to 30,000 for a short period, the officials said." That is what the MSM reported that the government is planning to do. The Post was acting in the neutral adversary role of media, according to the criteria of Jan Leighly: "In this model, the primary role of the press is to discover 'truth' and act as a check on government (pg. 10)." This is clearly what Mr. Ricks did.
Is what Mr. Ricks did wrong? For this I would like to turn to Steven Aftergood. 
Although he has not published anything on his site as of yet relating to this leak, I would like to hypothesize as to what he would say. I wrote in an earlier entry relating to the talk Mr. Aftergood delivered at Yeshiva University, "His primary point and the basis for which he conducts his work, is what he called “proportion”; that there does exist a boundary between what we should know, and what we shouldn’t know..." Mr. Aftergood categorized different levels of secrecy. One of those level he termed, "Genuine National Secrecy". I believe this secret meeting among the Joint Chiefs falls under that category and should not have been revealed. What would happen if an Iraqi were to read it and tell his friends? Let's see, since Mr. Ricks tells us directly: "That combination plan, which one defense official called 'Go Big but Short While Transitioning to Go Long,' could backfire if Iraqis suspect it is really a way for the United States to moonwalk out of Iraq -- that is, to imitate singer Michael Jackson's trademark move of appearing to move forward while actually sliding backward. 'If we commit to that concept, we have to accept upfront that it might result in the opposite of what we want,' the official said."
Although he has not published anything on his site as of yet relating to this leak, I would like to hypothesize as to what he would say. I wrote in an earlier entry relating to the talk Mr. Aftergood delivered at Yeshiva University, "His primary point and the basis for which he conducts his work, is what he called “proportion”; that there does exist a boundary between what we should know, and what we shouldn’t know..." Mr. Aftergood categorized different levels of secrecy. One of those level he termed, "Genuine National Secrecy". I believe this secret meeting among the Joint Chiefs falls under that category and should not have been revealed. What would happen if an Iraqi were to read it and tell his friends? Let's see, since Mr. Ricks tells us directly: "That combination plan, which one defense official called 'Go Big but Short While Transitioning to Go Long,' could backfire if Iraqis suspect it is really a way for the United States to moonwalk out of Iraq -- that is, to imitate singer Michael Jackson's trademark move of appearing to move forward while actually sliding backward. 'If we commit to that concept, we have to accept upfront that it might result in the opposite of what we want,' the official said." If I were the Chai
rman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, I would probably be incensed about this leak to the press. "The Pentagon group's proceedings are so secret that officials asked to help it have not even been told its title or mandate (Ricks Article)." And for the reason as to why Mr. Ricks felt he was entitled to reproduce the information: "...in recent days the circle of those with knowledge of its deliberations has widened beyond a narrow group working for the Joint Chiefs of Staff." Ok, so the circle of knowledge was widened to a few more senior intelligence officials - with clearence - and ok - you've already won the Pulitzer Prize, but what gives you the right to reproduce such sensitive information!?
rman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, I would probably be incensed about this leak to the press. "The Pentagon group's proceedings are so secret that officials asked to help it have not even been told its title or mandate (Ricks Article)." And for the reason as to why Mr. Ricks felt he was entitled to reproduce the information: "...in recent days the circle of those with knowledge of its deliberations has widened beyond a narrow group working for the Joint Chiefs of Staff." Ok, so the circle of knowledge was widened to a few more senior intelligence officials - with clearence - and ok - you've already won the Pulitzer Prize, but what gives you the right to reproduce such sensitive information!? What will happen? Only time will tell, and of course, government bureacracy.
posted by Samus @ 3:23 PM
0 comments
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home