Damaging Secrets
Here's a little thought experiment: Let's say you have a secret. You did something in the past that is hideously embarrassing and maybe even a bit illegal. It's something you never tell people around you for fear of what they would think of you. One day, you tell someone that you trust your secret. This is someone you've known for years and believe is worthy of entrusting with your deepest, darkest secret.
Your friend tells the secret to a local reporter who writes an expose' on you and what you did.
Would you ever trust that friend again? I submit your answer would be: "Hell, no".
That is exactly the damage that Mary McCarthy and her fellow travelers have done to the United States and to the CIA and NSA. They have destroyed an enormous amount of trust and crippled the ability of the intelligence-gathering services to function. Who in their right mind would ever trust information to the CIA right now? Knowing that it is full of political hacks rather than professionals?
The portrayal of the leakers as heroic whistleblowers and of the press as heroic truthtellers masks the fact that their actions may have completely destroyed the credibility of the agencies involved. Undoubtedly there are some people who will never tell the CIA what they know for fear of being exposed by CIA officers with a political agenda. Who tells secrets to people who cannot keep their mouths shut?
In their excess of zeal to damage the Bush Administration, the media and the political hacks that seem to be entirely too numerous in the CIA ranks have simply lost all perspective of the damage they are doing. The Pulitzer committee reinforces the bad judgment by rewarding the reporters, and by extension, the rogue officers.
We will all pay dearly for what these people have done somewhere down the road.
UPDATE: One thing I love about the blogosphere is the immense amount of expertise and knowledge that is available out there. Finding new-to-me blogs is always a lot of fun. The enormous flurry of activity over the McCarthy story just gives me a chance to find places like Groupintel. On the more left side is Glenn Greenwald, who I think is looking at this strictly on partisan lines instead of seeing the damage this causes the US itself. Readers will note that my criticism of McCarthy is damage based rather than politically based. Her political contributions are of interest but are not compelling.
UPDATE: The Real Ugly American takes a firm stance on Greenwald.
By Tony Litwinko, April 23, 2006 @ 5:44 pm
If you want to be objective about “damage,” what about the damage to our duties (not to mention reputation) as a law-abiding nation? A CIA officer also has a duty to uphold the Constitution (and the signed international treaties that are part of our laws). This, conceivably, might have taken precedence for McCarthy. Why would a good career officer put herself at risk otherwise? She has been playing the career game for a while. What could have led her to leak unless–just as a logical possibility–she thought that going to her superior, to her inspector general, or to the House or Senate Intelligence Committees would have been fruitless. (I can see Pat Roberts leaping at the chance to conduct an investigation into rendition, can’t you?) As you point out about the liberal side, it’s a bit more complicated.
Or perhaps you don’t see duty as going beyond being a “good” soldier, especially in a now highly politicized intelligence agency?
By Gauis Arbo, April 23, 2006 @ 6:02 pm
Bull, Tony - and you know it. She had channels to use and went to the Post instead of, not after . If she had exhausted the legal methods then gonr to the press I might be sympathetic. She didn’t, by every account I have seen so far - including the Post’s.
You’re trying to excuse this and there isn’t an excuse.