[Previous entry: "A call for information and an announcement"] [Next entry: "Abortion: Why I am pro-choice"]
02/11/2005: "The paranoia of the incompetent"
It seems that "the usual suspects" have their collective panties in a bunch over Bill Arkin's recently published compendium of code names for various "Top Secret" US military operations.
What's the fuss about? After all:
...Arkin says he deliberately did not reveal any intelligence sources or methods, technical weapons data or detailed war plans.
"I don't have one bit of concern that our enemies are going to gain from the publication of this book," he says.
Arkin is a military affairs analyst for NBC News whose own period of military service was back in the 1970's, if I recall correctly. I don't picture this guy rappeling down ventilation shafts, like Tom Cruise in Mission Imposssible, to get this information.
In fact:
...Arkin says he found most of the code names in budget documents, obscure military journals and other materials already available to the public — which means the government isn't doing a very good job of keeping its own secrets.
So he used publicly available sources and, we may suppose, perhaps chatted up a few clueless Public Affairs weenies at the Pentagon.
Yet critics insist on using harsh terms and "making a mountain out of a mole hill" as the old saying goes.
"Mr. Arkin has gone a long way toward endangering national security," argues retired CIA officer Bill McNair, who until recently helped decide which documents should be kept secret.
"We risk a real danger if everybody in the world feels they have the right to begin releasing this bit of classified information," says McNair.
Mr. McNair, you must be a farm boy at heart -- because you're spreading the crap around like someone whose fields desperately need fertilizer.
If Arkin can put this book together with not much more effort than, perhaps, a few library visists and working his Rolodex a bit -- what is government secrecy really protecting?
I mean, surely they aren't actually trying to keep this information out of the hands of other governments. After all, it appears their information security strategy heavily relies on assumptions of laziness and stupidity. Clearly, then, their primary concern is the public and press, rather than trained, professional and dedicated spies.
So, Arkin is a threat because he's not as lazy and stupid as he's supposed to be?
Arkin has committed three grievous sins, in the eyes of those who worship at the altar of the State.
- He has exposed State incompetence.
- Also, he has partially illustrated the true role of State secrecy -- to protect the State from public oversight.
- Lastly, he has endangered not public security, but the security of State symbolism.