While I like the sentiment of the final paragraph — I will just note, as a historian of secrecy, that people have been saying the exact same thing for over 70 years. What would "fundamental reform" look like? Who makes the choices?
-
And how would one create a system that was robust enough to weather the appearance of bad things getting out? Because all previous classification reform efforts not only failed, but resulted in backlash, after "secrets got out" after changed policies.
(Also, framing it as "keeping [secrets] away from the public" is unquestionably TRUE in its effects, but usually you say "enemies" or something like that as the target group of secrecy! Public ignorance is *supposed* to be an inadvertent consequence, not the intentional one...)
-
-
I'm being naive here but the argument should be that public ignorance is a higher cost to pay than the alternative (similar to the justification for sharing intel with partners or even frenemies). If absence of US grand strategy due to lack of public support is issue, cause is...
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.