There's something from the systems perspective that illustrates the difficulties faced by whistleblowers and also explains why vast networks of corruption can be so hard to reform. Corruption in a network often reaches a tipping point, or critical mass. And once that point has been reached, the mass of the network becomes far greater than any individual or group within the network; and keeping secrets becomes like a force of gravity.
It's also similar to a long freight train. Think of the force it would take to tip a single freight car off the tracks. But then think of the force it would take to tip it off the tracks if it was in the middle of a quarter-mile long train, with every car linked together. But the lines of force in a network are not just linear; they go in every direction. So how does one fight a network whose corruption has gone beyond critical mass? One needs to create critical mass in the opposite direction. And that's essentially what the Truth and Reconciliation Commission of South Africa did.
This is also a case of divided loyalties and of being on the horns of a dilemma of betrayal, where one betrays someone or something no matter which way one turns. So if you fear betraying your promise to keep the secret, you have already, perhaps, betrayed the people against whom the secret is being kept from, the American people, for example. Maybe that would be some comfort to people who are considering whether or not to become a whistle blower. But then again, the American people are an abstract quantity compared to colleagues that might be harmed.
EDIT of 21 January 2013: I have gotten both sharp criticism from folks I revere, and complements. I am more than willing to delete this, but I am more interested in having people think outside the lines. I've made some revisions, adding issues and readings in each section. Email me as you please, robert.david.steele.vivas [at] gmail [dot] com. I'm doing this to raise some ethical nuances, not to deny or revise history. Relevance to today: the “government” rarely tells the truth, and the “reasons” it gives for doing things that ultimately benefit the few at the expense of the many are generally, at best, “flimsy” and at worst, “calculated lies.” All institutions are lacking in both intelligence (decision-support) and integrity (holistic transparent analytics). Wars are a form a global crime, they are not fought for the reasons given, and the public ALWAYS loses while bankers ALWAYS gain. We need to change that. Thomas Jefferson had it right — we need to be better armed than the government — not just guns, but intelligence with integrity. That's what I think about.
– – – – – – – –
A colleague I respect very much suggested I watch Lincoln, the new movie, for an understanding of a leadership style that worked. Having dismissed the movie because of its erroneous depiction of the Civil War as being about slavery (it was actually a war for and against secession, and a war of conquest from the north of the south), I demurred. Today I read the following from Bill Clinton speaking to an adoring crowd in Hollywood, and it put me to thinking about the point my colleague was trying to make:
“A tough fight to push a bill through a bitterly divided House of Representatives: Winning it required the president to make a lot of unsavory deals that had nothing to do with the big issue.” A little shrug. “I wouldn't know anything about that,” Clinton said. His audience laughed.
Abraham Lincoln
President Abraham Lincoln's struggle to abolish slavery “reminds us that enduring progress is forged in a cauldron of both principle and compromise,” Clinton went on. This film “shows us how he did it, and gives us hope that we can do it again.”
I have known for some time that I am viewed as uncompromising, perhaps even arrogant, in my insistence on intelligence with integrity, and my intolerance of the civil service and uniformed leaders who pander to politicians who shake down corporations and banks for campaign contributions, and then discount the public treasury by 95% solely for the purpose of getting their 5% kick-back, without any deep thought of the public interest, and certainly without considering any ethical evidence-based decision-support. Those same civil service and uniformed leaders are never held accountable for failure and roll over into retirement jobs with the industries they have not been holding accountable themselves. At the end of the day, 50 percent of every federal dollar is waste, and the other 50 percent is primarily beneficial to the recipient of the taxpayer revenue, not to the taxpayer.
A mass murder and an alleged suicide are very much on my mind these days. The mass murder is that of Sandy Hook, and the alleged suicide is that of Adam Swartz. I am quite certain that the government is covering up the facts on Sandy Hook, and not investigating the death ostensibly by hanging, of Aaron Swartz. I will return to these in my conclusion.
First I will touch on The War, Principle, on Compromise, and then on Citizen Intelligence / Counterintelligence and finally on Autonomous Internet.
Idle No More has organized the largest mass mobilizations of indigenous people in recent history. What sparked it off and what’s coming next?
It took weeks of protests, flash mobs, letters, rallies, and thousands of righteous tweets, but Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper finally caved. He agreed to a meeting with the woman who had been petitioning him for twenty-four days, subsisting on fish broth, camped in a tepee in the frozen midwinter, the hunger striker and Chief of the Attawapiskat Theresa Spence.
Click on Image to Enlarge
No, this is not normal parliamentary process. The hunger strike was a final, desperate attempt to get the attention of a government whose relationship with indigenous people has been ambivalent at best and genocidal at worst, and force it to address their rising concerns. The meeting, set for this Friday, January 11, is unlikely to result in any major changes to Canada’s aboriginal policy. Yet the mobilization around Chief Spence’s hunger strike has already grown to encompass broader ideas of colonialism and our collective relationship to the land. The movement has coalesced under one name, one resolution: Idle No More.
CIA's Publications Review Board (PRB) and its small staff perform a balancing act more than 300 times a year, navigating a process sanctioned by the US Supreme Court to clear the writing of Agency authors for nonofficial publication. The challenge: to balance CIA's secrecy agreement with the Bill of Rights. Business is brisk, as a growing number of former CIA employees seek to become published authors–especially former operations officers reflecting on their clandestine careers abroad.
Everyone has an opinion and the speculation is almost entirely based on what former Senator Hagel has said, rather than his actions–or lack of them–which speak a lot louder. Take an acutely political career that seems to have valued words above everything and match it with Pentagon myths about defense systems, and you get a somewhat different picture of what to expect from Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel. It is not at all encouraging. This commentary about the all embracing mythology of drones and Chuck Hagel was published at Foreign Policy last evening.
Or will he be yet another victim of Pentagon operators?
WINSLOW WHEELER | JANUARY 7, 2013
U.S. Central Command has released some interesting numbers on the performance of modern air systems in Afghanistan; the data do not auger well for our defenses in the next decade, nor for the suitability of the man who appears likely to be the next secretary of defense, former Senator Chuck Hagel — his admirable iconoclasm toward some national security dogmas notwithstanding.
It never occurred to me, when I lost the first bureaucratic battle on Open Source Intelligence (OSINT) in 1992, that my innate sense of integrity [do the right thing] would lead me to resign from the Marine Corps civil service in 1993 as a very young GM-14, and spend not five, not ten, but twenty years wandering in the wilderness helping over 66 governments and over 7,500 mid-career officers get a grip on sources and methods the traditional secret services refused to consider and the traditional consumers of intelligence did not know how to do. Of all my student bodies, the USA was the worst, remaining ignorant at the leadership level, helpless at the follower level–butts in seats, no brain required. Hence, as we approach a historic turning point, the possibility that we might have a Secretary of State and a Secretary of Defense that can actually get a grip on reality together, I thought it might be useful to offer up three things I have learned during my 20-year walk-about:
A multimedia exploration of Chuck Hagel's historic moment, and what it means for a declining presidency. Read the story. See the videos. Watch history happen.
EXTRACT:
He's out of patience with the young cheerleaders of this war, the chickenhawks at places like The Weekly Standard who once called him part of an “axis of appeasement.” He is out of patience with think-tank cowboys and talk-show Napoleons. “I'm always taken aback by that certain cavalier manner, not connecting at all with that human loss,” he says. “I do think of those guys, kicking doors down, walking target practice for snipers.
