Quote:
Originally Posted by Locke
Okay, I'll agree with you there, but I'm a little biased in my opinions of the military, just a little.
Absolute transparency and openness is a fallacy. Its like 'pure unbiased journalism,' everyone wants it but it doesnt exist.
My beef is that some of these people are incompetent and not only are they getting away with it, they're being applauded for it.
You've mentioned how the wars are being poorly run, well, someone stand up and do something about it. You condemn the soldier who breaks his oath by leaking documents, then you have to condemn the commanders who make the decisions that have turned this into the shambles it currently is.
Those guys arent out there in harm's way dying if these people are competent and making the right decisions, and if they're screwing up it should be known.
|
I don't disagree with you on that, if there's a benefit to the wikileaks is that there will be some internal accountability processes that are hopefully created.
I've always stated that I don't like the way that the war has been prosecuted, but I've also stated that its not the sole fault of the senior military officers in charge of the missions. Somewhere around the Vietnam war the balance between military and political objectives changed, and shifted heavily to the politicalization of war which is a failing formula. In WW2 the politicians gave the power to the commanders in the field to prosecute the war as they saw fit. You didn't have defense ministers defining how a war was to be fought, they gave rules of engagement and objectives and left it at that. Now politicians are the last say in term of strategy's and the application of fire power, and they've actually handicapped the officers in the field.
I believe though that there is accountability at the senior level of military leadership in the field. We've seen several commanders replace for inefficiency. If you want to set a budget, use a politician, if you want to fight a war use a general.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Locke
I can understand that, Assange is sitting on a high horse and it would be nice to see him come down a few pegs.
Well, I feel the same way about a lot of the finance industry around the world. If these guys want to be Kings of Finance then their performance has to be better than it has been.
The system that these people run and operate within basically came crumbling down due to their 'exemplary' performance thus far. In that respect what right do they have to believe that they are as superior as they seem to believe?
Its a put up or shut up situation, the reputation of your firm is no longer sufficient to cover for your mistakes, or at least it shouldnt be. It seems that in recent times poor performance has been glossed over by the concept of being undeniably superior because of the company that you work for and as such the results of your work have taken a back seat and then here we are in a World Wide recession as a result.
|
I completely agree with you on this, I'm more interested in seeing the backlash against Assauge and Wikileaks, but in my mind the same rule that applies to the military leaker applies to the internal corporate leaker.
I also think that the way to fight wikileaks is probably a lot easier and more brutal in the civilian court room then in the halls of government.