Tomorrow the administration plans to release some previously classified reports that were confidential and doing so for the sake of transparency, discussion and contextually, historical high ground. At the same time the White House press secretary, Josh Earnest, has stated that in doing so:
“... the release of the report could lead to greater risks that is posed to US facilities and personal around the world.”
As a prior military service member whose service was at times of a classified and sensitive nature, I feel that releasing highly sensitive and caustic material into the mainstream on the guise of the moral high ground, or historical significance is lacking in wisdom, badly shortsighted and inherently dangerous to the lives of troops both currently abroad and at home.
What some civilians may or may not understand about military service is that while yes, the time and sacrifice given is completely voluntary, military members should be offered an adherence of understanding that the standards which govern the declassification of military information and those standards respected. These standards shouldn't be downgraded years after the fact, just to suit a purpose within one administration or the next.
Historically, information as sensitive as the documents that are about to be released, in the past typically had a confidential shelf-life of anywhere from twenty-five, to fifty years. This afforded active personnel to be at least away from whatever theatre of operations they were currently serving in, as well the conflicts that the documents pertained to, to be completely resolved and solidly out of the spectrum of possible continued engagement.
This is currently not the case in either of these situations. We still, at this date, have reports of SPECOPS teams engaging in rescue missions that are only yet hours old. As a rule of thumb, for every one classified mission the public bumblingly becomes aware of, likely consider another twelve that are current. Usually, many more depending upon the assets used, like whether they be human or mechanical.
Today, Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel is in Afghanistan bringing closure and officially ending the occupation and ground operations of the last thirteen years. The press corps, in tow, are reporting this as I write these words. From the other side of my office, I'm watching an interview on CNN, where Mr. Hagel, who is clearly not happy about the situation, is seen striding through the desert in a red button-down shirt, which seems to look like his own passive-aggressive protest. Duly noted, Sir.
The press is framing it as such, for the record:
“At the end of December, U.S. forces will end their combat role in Afghanistan and instead focus on counterterrorism missions and training, advising and assisting Afghan troops.”
So, the first day after the close of operations, the documents are made available. In the civilian world, this is exactly what the lawyers would advise their client, as to remove any culpability or trail of wrong-doing from those in-charge. The very act of waiting to release said information could likely become a litigious point later. Except that this isn't a civilian situation and this isn't the perfect world the administration is looking to retire to.
While some might say that this is a CIA venture that needs to be outed, and those responsible held-accountable, the problem that I have as a prior-serviceman is that the end result will be the dragging out of low-ranking Army enlistees and Marine Corps security personnel who will be sold as the bad apples or the ones solely to blame. Upper echelon assets will never be made available, never held-accountable and all involved, will be shifted away.
As evinced in the past, we never saw the handlers or other high ranking members who operated such programs. We never saw the people who approved the budget for those decisions. We never saw those who were receiving the intel debriefings who were either benefiting from those programs or not benefiting. What we saw were enlisted personnel, hauled out for the pillory, made entirely culpable as if every decision, every adjustment, and every new policy implementation was there's and there's alone.
I am of the belief that this declassification of material will likely spawn the same sideshow. Public outrage, congressional hearings, investigations and then the staging and demoralization of scapegoat US troops of the hour. These troops will likely be servicemen and women anywhere between an E-1 to E-6 rank status. We may even see a somewhat higher threshold of this punishment so that the public can feel better about the events. Giving some enlisted man or woman 20 years to life is what we're going to get.
What we'll also see in this debacle, is unfortunately, the death of several enlisted personal overseas, an inflammation of attacks on our overseas properties as well as many other secondary assets put unnecessarily into harms way.
One may ask, after reading such a basic and reasonable assessment, why the administration would risk creating such a firestorm that could encompass human lives?
The answer is simple when put into a current historical framework.
Hacking. Edward Snowden. Sony.
The administration feels that it would likely be better to release a redacted version of the document tomorrow, then someone else releasing a complete version of the document down the line. One does not however, guarantee the negation of the other I might add. But this is how the desperate behave. Culpability must be shifted away from day one, lest another witch-hunt catch fire. This administration clearly does not want this on their desk or within their legacy for one solitary day, regardless of life cost.
This, sadly, is a political decision and not one made for the sake of an historical argument and definitely not done for the sake of National Security.


However quiet my words may be, I would only desire that they be noted and heeded.
...