"The only effective protest is resignation, which you as a principled individual did... yes? I have a lot of respect for that.

"-- shooter242 Saturday, May 10, 2008 11:58 AM"

I missed this part of Shooter's original post --- thanks for calling it out.

Given that it's Sunday, and late in the thread, do you mind if I use your post as jump-off for a brief rant about 'principle'?

The only effective protest is resignation ... maybe. Resignation is what you do when you can't do anything else, any more, and you want to make a point of the 'issues' in your departure. In the military, witness recent departures of prosecutors at Guantanamo, early retirements of generals who had every reason to go farther (Eaton was one), and others less covered in the news. Those people appeared to be at the end of their ropes in terms of feeling that they could be effective.

I'd speculate that most generals would not see their role as to 'protest' (or not-protest). Protesting is what people who have no authority or power do, e.g. we impotent citizens. Acts of protest by general officers signify that they feel they no longer have the authority delegated to them by statute ... which is why it should be pretty damn alarming when it happens.

Imagine a president or speaker of the house resigning in protest. Who's exercising that authority, then? That alone should get our attention.

Most military officers are trained to act, to exercise authority and to make decisions as well as to follow orders from above. Not a controversial statement, I think. If handed something they think is screwed, they will act within their authority to make it right. Or screw it up worse. The point is, they won't 'protest', because they understand that they have the power to act, within the chain of command and the law (which pose their own constraints, and also protections).

Example: The Iraq invasion plan went through a a remarkable number of revisions, considering how 'fresh' the OPLAN was after the national security establishment had been slavering over 'finishing the job' since 1991. For comparison: over the course of two years, the plan for the invasion of Panama went through 8 revisions. In about a year, the Iraq plan went through 22. Some commentary at the time of his promotion laid this at the feet of Gen. Abizaid, who was said to have gone toe-to-toe with Rumsfeld on an almost daily basis. (News articles repeated the rumors that Everyone considered this career-ending for Abizaid, but it turned out not only that Rumsfeld needed him too much, but Rumsfeld also respected somebody who wouldn't cower when they saw him coming).

My guess is that Abizaid stuck it out to influence the outcome. Bob Woodward made a similar assessment of Colin Powell, which may or may not be true. I'm guessing there were many people at many levels who had analogous thoughts, though it's crucial with the senior leadership.

The rub: None of these officers will ever be able to substantiate this claim, when the official history is written. We'll look at them and think, you should have resigned. They'll look (the ones for whom this might be true anyway) in return and say, that would have been a dereliction of duty on my part.

I'm not arguing that it should be any different. This is what it means to act on principle ... to try to do the right thing even if you are not going to be rewarded, acknowledged, or even believed about what you did. Abizaid is a smart guy. I think he knew that eventually there'd be a knife in his back and that an accounting of the war would not be kind or give him a pass. If this is what really happened and he stuck around to be a positive influence, then he was acting on principle in a way that set him apart from his peers, and probably had more effect than his resigning would have.

Which is what we should bear in mind when evaluating the MAs ... compare their behavior to this realistic (though unsubstantiated) scenario.

Sorry for threadjacking, I'll STFU now.

overlander --

Is it really illegal?

TV in particular can't cover this because reporters would be interviewing their bosses' or their own media lawyers about what's legal and illegal. And their own media lawyers would kill the stories because wouldn't it be kind of foolhardy to explain exactly how your own people (analysts) broke the law, right there on TV?

In the world of newspaper journalism, nothing is illegal until a prosecutor says so. That's a knee-jerk formulation designed to avoid getting sued (either successfully or frivolously) for defamation (slander and libel).

1. Defamation is a civil, not a criminal, offense.

2. Defamation is not "prosecuted" by a "prosecutor".

Sure, this military propaganda program could be covered as though it were criminal. But ... the reporter would have to interview a legal expert on each side. One would say it was criminal. Somebody from the Heritage Foundation would offer a contrary view. And the analysts could all put forward lawyers offering explanations for how these analysts broke no laws. And the analysts could sue those journalists who said otherwise and the shaky nature of libel law or the threat of interminable appeals would probably require the journalists' bosses to settle the case and pay their own lawyers.

You make no reference to the law -- which omission makes the false-equivalency scenario you sketch inevitable.

There was a reaslly telling moment during the 2000 battle in FL. I was online throughout, reading the FL elections laws, and on point case decisions.

And I had the TV on. Toobin interviewed Gore's people about the state of the FL elections law. Then he interviewed Bush's (James Baker) about the state of FL elections law.

And, of course, each side -- Gore's and Bush's -- expressed different statements of the FL elections law.

The one thing we didn't get -- and that was Toobin's remiss, was the third relevant element: the actual text of the FL elections law on the points asserted by both sides -- that text being the actual standard of measure as to the accuracy and truthfulness of the statements of the law made by each side.

So the viewer was left to decide which statement of the law he preferred, and thus chose to believe, without any objective guide from other than those with a direct stake in the outcome.

Those who read the law know which of the two sides, which of the two statements, was the lie.

At least, that's the fearful scenario continuously playing in editors' minds as they decide how fierce to be against uncharged criminals.

I have no idea what goes through the minds of the editors of whom you speak. I've not asked them, and they've not announced such within my hearing.

"In that sense, Glenn's blog isn't journalism. He can declare something is illegal based on his own expertise, knowledge and experience."

Again: you leave out the most important element: THE LAW.

Even here in Glenn's blog, it's hard to gauge what's really wrong with this Pentagon program. Golly, if it's illegal, maybe it shouldn't be. Gosh, the military was just trying to make sure it achieved success. That's what we expect from our military: success. We let them kill people to achieve success. What's wrong with letting them lie as well? What's worse really: killing or lying?

It is ILLEGAL because -- "The informed citizen is the cornerstone of democracy" -- and the information provided the citizen MUST BE FACTUAL, not propaganda, if the citizen is to make WISE decisions about, say, who to believe, and for whom to vote. See above re. FL elections law -- which was so different as to be entirely opposite the statement of it made by one of the two parties interviewed by Toobin.

If one hadn't read the law, one was shit-out-of-luck as to being an informed citizen, because one side lied, one told the truth, and the reporter "neglected" to provide the actual text of the law so that the viewer were fully informed, and thus able to make an INFORMED decision based upon FACT.