Regarding Counterstrike . . . .
Remember the outcry after publication of the book about the bin Laden raid Counterstrike? That the authors had published operational information that could hamper future operations and endanger US lives?
Well, according to the authors, that information was given to them by the White House.
“I was stopped by a very senior officer in the special operations community who basically wanted to rip my lungs out,” said Thom Shanker, who co-authored “Counterstrike: The Untold Story of America’s Secret Campaign Against Al Qaeda,” with Eric Schmitt.
But, he revealed at a counter terrorism expo this week, the info came directly and officially from the White House, not some garbage can digging operation. “I said to him, ‘Sir, that information came officially to us from the podium at the White House,’” Shanker said.
As CINC, it is the prerogative of the POTUS to authorize the release of military information. Often this is done for political purposes. Since Eisenhower, most US presidents have done that – either accurately or via lying through their teeth. Kennedy used the nonexistent “missile gap” as a candidate, and continued to use it as an excuse for increased defense spending. (He also famously lied when asked point-blank if American troops were in combat in Vietnam, answering: “No.”) LBJ exposed the existence of the SR-71 (and actually renamed the aircraft in doing so – the original designation was R/S-71, for “Reconnaissance/Strike”). Nixon’s credibility problems are legendary. Carter openly acknowledged US satellite reconnaissance, . Reagan and also caught heat for announcing the existence of the B2 US stealth aircraft programs. Bush(43) was wrongly accused of lying about Iraqi WMD as an excuse to invade Iraq. And I’m sure that I could find other examples from most other presidencies if I tried.
But I really wish the POTUS and his staff would think things thru better when it comes to talking publicly about US military capabilities and intentions. When it comes to divulging military capabilities, saying less is usually better than saying more.
Because inadvertently saying too much can cost lives.
Category: Media, Military issues
And if any one of us had leaked that info, we’d be UNDER the jail.
No real surprise when those making such decisions could not themselves pass a security clearance.
Color me shocked, hey I wonder if he will ever release documents about other operations. How about fast & furious…
If you read the article, the authors (and other reporters) are covering themselves in glory over their supposed devotion to military discretion.
I guess they think we forgot about the reveal of the black site prisons and printing of Wikileaks documents. There’s some other things back there but I’m forgetting them now.
@Yoshi Don’t be silly, we all know that the only people who rate discretion are journalists kidnapped by insurgents. Otherwise we’d endanger their safety, give the terrorists ransom clout, and needlessly traumatize their families. That’s just plain inconsiderate.
This just goes along with the White House leaking the story of the Underwear Bomber Part II. Leaking the info on what was supposedly an ongoing op.
Wonder how the health of the guy who was on the inside is these days?
I’d like to say I’m shocked, but I lost that emotion some time back when reading things about this administration.
He added, “Your civilian leaders make choices about describing missions, perhaps for their own partisan political ends, perhaps to show the nation that their tax dollars are being spent well, but that’s the way it is.”
Shanker, an acclaimed Pentagon reporter and author, said he had a little advice for the unidentified officer: If you make general, “this is part of your new world.”
Wait, so the military should just shut-up and let administrations leak what they want? What about OPSEC, and the lives of real men at the tip of the spear? I guess elections are more important…I really think our society is being governed by the lowest common denominators in our society.
Anonymous: if the leak has already been made by the POTUS or his staff – yes, that’s exactly what a military professional does. Once a decision has been made by appropriate command authority, public disagreement stops. And as CINC, the POTUS’ decisions are definitive.
Prior to a decision being made, disagreement can be voiced. However, after a decision has been made a military professional shuts up, salutes, and complies. Or they leave military service. At that point, those are the two choices. For a military professional, compliance with orders/directives/decisions of higher authority is not optional.
This seems like an issue across politics and the military as a whole. I’d say 95% of articles about the war or international relations today have at least one ‘sources say’ bit because people want to gossip and feel special by being ‘in the know.’ The media is by and large without conscience, and would happily broadcast the specs of a nuclear weapon if it got them ratings.
Don’t forget that Carter exposed Delta (SFOD-D) following the disaster at Desert One.