Message to Exum: Political Endorsement Doesn’t Make it Right

08.01.201008.01.2010 ~ Michael A. Innes ~ Leave a comment

I’ve been following with interest some of the discussion of MGen Michael Flynn’s views on intelligence reform for the ISAF mission in Afghanistan. It revisits the debate on civil-military relations that came up back in September when Flynn’s ISAF boss, General Stanley McChrystal, was publicly lobbying for his population-centric campaign plan before the White House had approved it. It also gets into some of the finer points of intelligence procedures and analysis. Much of the punditry, though, is simply missing the point that there are serious problems with the substance of the report, that go beyond just the relative merits of the fora through which it was publicly released – like how it was prepared, who it’s actually directed at, it’s ultimate impact on the mission, etc. Those problems extend far beyond the issues picked up by US commentators, who appear to be blissfully unaware of the impact on their friends and allies. I’m preparing something in-depth, or at least a bit more thoughtful than this brief missive, but for now, I’ll just draw attention to Andrew Exum’s profoundly misguided view that ex post facto political endorsement of Flynn’s actions somehow cancels out the problems of form that accompany the report’s release.

More to follow.

Omnivore 08/01/2010

08.01.2010 ~ Michael A. Innes ~ Leave a comment

A Sobering Statistic For Aspiring Academics // Savage Minds
On the Gulf Between Academia and Journalism // Daniel Bennett
Journalism Academics Must Learn From Multimedia Reporters // Tim Luckhurst
Measuring the Impact of Charisma // (via) MIT Media Lab
Google Applies to Become Power Marketer // NYT
Crisis? What Crisis? // Abu Muqawama

Obama on AfPak Policy Leaks

20.11.200921.11.2009 ~ Michael A. Innes ~ Leave a comment

President Barack Obama is, apparently, less than thrilled at the leaky process surrounding the development of a new AfPak policy (or PakAf or whatever the policymakers decide to eventually rename it). He’s agreed that the leaks are a “firing offense”, and he’s “angrier than Bob Gates about it.” I tried to put some of the shenanigans in context, but Peter Feaver does a much better job when he explains that, justified though Obama’s concerns might be,

The longer the review drags on, the more unrealistic it is to expect that the process can continue to be leak-free. The president is right to want to deliberate leak-free, and the president has the right to extend the process as long as he wants, but at some point — and I don’t know when that point is, but now that we are around day 92 82 since McChrystal initially filed his report, we can safely say we are past that point — the blame for the leaks must be a shared matter.

New Post at the AfPak Channel

17.11.200920.11.2009 ~ Michael A. Innes ~ Leave a comment

My latest contribution to Foreign Policy magazine’s AfPak Channel is now up. I take a look at some of the growing sensitivities among the Obama Administration’s senior leaders – in the White House, DoD, State.

The War of Leaks

The Obama Administration’s social media prowess has been a novelty among latter day political media machines. It helped to crowd-source the campaign funding needed to put Barack Obama in the White House, and generated a populist gloss that was, at the time, convincingly fresh and transparent. What was equally admirable was its apparent internal discipline over when information made the transition from government secret to press release. Controlling the flow of data and keeping secrets secret is a challenge under any circumstance. Combine that with a predilection for Facebook and Twitter, and a hyperactive security officer might expect policy waters to muddy more quickly than they would under normal circumstances.

So when U.S. Ambassador to Afghanistan Karl Eikenberry’s expressed his “discomfort” last week over a possible troop surge, via diplomatic cable to Washington, it’s no wonder that the message ended up dominating headlines. The New York Times reported “U.S. Envoy Urges Caution on Forces for Afghanistan.” The BBC offered a characteristically staid “U.S. Envoy Opposed to Afghan Surge.” The other Times (of London) headline was less sanguine: “Rift in U.S. War Cabinet as Obama Throws Out All Options in Debate Over Troop Surge.” How exactly the cables ended up fodder for public consumption is anyone’s guess. Secretary of Defense Robert Gates, for one, is not amused. “I have been appalled,” he told reporters last week, “by the amount of leaking that has been going on in this process” — an allusion to diplomatic decorum inspired, no doubt, by more than just untimely revelations to the press.