Walking the secrecy vs. transparency tightrope
Further to Mark's post a month ago referencing two Torstar articles about JTF 2, and his recent post comparing the release of information regarding Australian SOF, I thought this piece by Dave O'Brien of the Winnipeg Free Press was worth a read:
It's easy to read too much into what Day's saying. After all, O'Brien is free to pick whichever points from the interview he wants, and ignore the rest of the discussion. Perhaps Day has a far more nuanced view of information sharing than the article lets on. But on the face of it, I think O'Brien wins the exchange. Why?
First of all, it's important to recognize nobody's arguing an entirely black and white case here. Day's not saying the public should know nothing about his units, and O'Brien's not saying the public should have unfettered access to their most intimate workings. The argument is about where important secrecy and important transparency should meet. It's about the proper compromise point.
In that context, it's easy to see all the reasons why the government errs on the side of secrecy. First of all, soldiers know how to manage risk on the battlefield, but they're far less comfortable messing with public relations, and so are predictably risk-averse in that arena. Secondly, the system is set up so that if any of the players in the decision-making process surrounding the release of information raises an objection - operators, staffers, commanders, bureaucrats, politicians or their lackeys - the idea is stillborn. So the information has to be the news equivalent of pablum to make it through every gate on the way to our eyes and ears. But most importantly, nobody dies as a direct result of keeping a special operations secret. On the other hand, men and women in uniform can very definitely die as a direct result of divulging that same secret. It's a very simple cause-and-effect argument to follow.
Far more uncertain and complex is the case for releasing information. Some of that case involves accountability, but the biggest reason to tell Canadians about what our SOF community does is so that Canadians can value our SOF community. I've said this many times before, and I'll say it again now: long-term, there is not a single mission - foreign or domestic - that the Canadian Forces, including CANSOFCOM, can undertake without the support of the Canadian public. If the voting Joe and Jane Canuck show in a series of polls that they want CF members to wear pink uniforms with purple polka-dots, how long do you think it would be before the fabric was cut? Perhaps that's a silly example, but here's a more serious one: for a long time now, various factions in our society have been arguing for the Canadian Forces to become nothing more than a blue-beret glorified constabulary. While that viewpoint has never been fully realized, none can argue that the CF's combat capability was gradually eroded year by year until the beginning of the current conflict. And we're not out of the woods yet.
One of the key reasons the CF has struggled for decades now to secure stable funding is that the connection between the average civilian and the the Canadian soldier, sailor, and airman is a tenuous one. Stop a hundred people on the street in Vancouver and ask them if they have any close friends or family in uniform, and I doubt you'll get one in four to say yes.
The recent conflict in Afghanistan has forged a more immediate bond, but I firmly believe support for the military in this country is a mile wide and an inch deep. People say the "decade of darkness" could never happen again, but let me ask you this: Who is changing their vote over recent funding cuts? How many Canadians would vote for or against a particular candidate or party if those cuts were deepened? At what point does the repeated bromide "Support the troops!" become actionable at the polling booth?
As media pundits, pacifist academics, and professional rabble-rousers try to discredit the CF and our special ops troops as a bunch of war criminals, who is coming to their defence? The politicians and high-level bureaucrats in whom the CF confides its secrets, and upon whom the CF relies to remain well-informed and to stay the wise course? Canadians are almost numb to the rank partisanship of our politicans at this point, and will either lap up or discount what they say without even listening. There are no universally respected statesmen to pour oil on the waters of public unease any more. The bureaucrats are silent for their own reasons: professional habit, jealousy of the CF's superficial popularity, whatever. Neither group can be counted upon.
The Canadian Forces in general, and CANSOFCOM in particular, needs to better understand and act upon this dynamic: politicians will follow the public mood, and mandarins will follow the politicians. So the key to stable, lasting support is a deep and committed bond between our citizenry and our soldiery. Tactically, more secrecy makes more immediate sense, I know. But strategically, the most important centre of gravity is your own domestic voter. If they don't know you, how can they possibly support you?
The Star article was a rare expose of JTF2's work in Afghanistan at the end of 2001 following the American invasion.
The story was full of accounts of heroism and derring-do, but Brig.-Gen. Mike Day, a former member and commander of JTF2 who now leads all of Canada's special operations, told me in an interview from Ottawa he was upset with the article, even though it was about events that occurred nearly 10 years ago and there was no evidence it had put anyone at risk.
I suggested his response illustrated the view that the military is unduly secretive. He replied that he needed to weigh the media's desire to "satisfy your curiosity" against the moral duty to ensure the safety of his soldiers.
...
The exploits of special forces in other countries, notably the Green Berets, are frequently celebrated in the media, but Day said JTF2 is a more advanced unit, comparable in skill to Delta Force in the United States.
"The Americans have 45,000 special ops troops, but you don't read about the ones like us," he said. "They have a ruthless adherence to secrecy."
Day added that more information about the secret war in Afghanistan will eventually be disclosed, but Canadians have to be patient. "We are writing the history of our organization," he added. "There will be full disclosure."
I'm loathe to criticize officers for erring on the side of caution to protect lives, but I also believe Canadians don't have a clear idea of what their soldiers are doing in Afghanistan. Loose lips might sinks ships, but sealed lips don't contribute to an informed citizenry, either.
It's easy to read too much into what Day's saying. After all, O'Brien is free to pick whichever points from the interview he wants, and ignore the rest of the discussion. Perhaps Day has a far more nuanced view of information sharing than the article lets on. But on the face of it, I think O'Brien wins the exchange. Why?
First of all, it's important to recognize nobody's arguing an entirely black and white case here. Day's not saying the public should know nothing about his units, and O'Brien's not saying the public should have unfettered access to their most intimate workings. The argument is about where important secrecy and important transparency should meet. It's about the proper compromise point.
In that context, it's easy to see all the reasons why the government errs on the side of secrecy. First of all, soldiers know how to manage risk on the battlefield, but they're far less comfortable messing with public relations, and so are predictably risk-averse in that arena. Secondly, the system is set up so that if any of the players in the decision-making process surrounding the release of information raises an objection - operators, staffers, commanders, bureaucrats, politicians or their lackeys - the idea is stillborn. So the information has to be the news equivalent of pablum to make it through every gate on the way to our eyes and ears. But most importantly, nobody dies as a direct result of keeping a special operations secret. On the other hand, men and women in uniform can very definitely die as a direct result of divulging that same secret. It's a very simple cause-and-effect argument to follow.
Far more uncertain and complex is the case for releasing information. Some of that case involves accountability, but the biggest reason to tell Canadians about what our SOF community does is so that Canadians can value our SOF community. I've said this many times before, and I'll say it again now: long-term, there is not a single mission - foreign or domestic - that the Canadian Forces, including CANSOFCOM, can undertake without the support of the Canadian public. If the voting Joe and Jane Canuck show in a series of polls that they want CF members to wear pink uniforms with purple polka-dots, how long do you think it would be before the fabric was cut? Perhaps that's a silly example, but here's a more serious one: for a long time now, various factions in our society have been arguing for the Canadian Forces to become nothing more than a blue-beret glorified constabulary. While that viewpoint has never been fully realized, none can argue that the CF's combat capability was gradually eroded year by year until the beginning of the current conflict. And we're not out of the woods yet.
One of the key reasons the CF has struggled for decades now to secure stable funding is that the connection between the average civilian and the the Canadian soldier, sailor, and airman is a tenuous one. Stop a hundred people on the street in Vancouver and ask them if they have any close friends or family in uniform, and I doubt you'll get one in four to say yes.
The recent conflict in Afghanistan has forged a more immediate bond, but I firmly believe support for the military in this country is a mile wide and an inch deep. People say the "decade of darkness" could never happen again, but let me ask you this: Who is changing their vote over recent funding cuts? How many Canadians would vote for or against a particular candidate or party if those cuts were deepened? At what point does the repeated bromide "Support the troops!" become actionable at the polling booth?
As media pundits, pacifist academics, and professional rabble-rousers try to discredit the CF and our special ops troops as a bunch of war criminals, who is coming to their defence? The politicians and high-level bureaucrats in whom the CF confides its secrets, and upon whom the CF relies to remain well-informed and to stay the wise course? Canadians are almost numb to the rank partisanship of our politicans at this point, and will either lap up or discount what they say without even listening. There are no universally respected statesmen to pour oil on the waters of public unease any more. The bureaucrats are silent for their own reasons: professional habit, jealousy of the CF's superficial popularity, whatever. Neither group can be counted upon.
The Canadian Forces in general, and CANSOFCOM in particular, needs to better understand and act upon this dynamic: politicians will follow the public mood, and mandarins will follow the politicians. So the key to stable, lasting support is a deep and committed bond between our citizenry and our soldiery. Tactically, more secrecy makes more immediate sense, I know. But strategically, the most important centre of gravity is your own domestic voter. If they don't know you, how can they possibly support you?
posted by Babbling Brooks at 11:45 a.m.
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home