Budget Non-Disclosure Agreements
Sorry if this is a repeat, tried to find any posts about this but couldn't find any.
Saw in recent coverage of Sec Gates budget press releases that the JCS and some other OSD folks had to sign non-disclosure agreements. Article:
http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/02/...ref=rss_latest
Guess I missed this covereage before...
Has anyone seen any feedback from the JCS folks on these NDAs? Anyone know if they cover testimony/answering questions for Congress?
It seems like while on the one hand this is a good thing (keeps DOD going in the same direction, somewhat reduces the politics involved), on the other hand it seems like it stifles the debate and doesn't allow the chiefs to fulfill their role to provide military advice.
What's the right balance between informing the public, Congress, and keeping the internal debate within DOD/the Administration?
The conflict between Congressional oversight and the ability to set policy is a tough one to resolve it seems.
-C
What they said. It doesn't stifle debate, It does
keep ALL the services from running to their pet Congress critter -- or one they know will object (i.e. several over the F22, a few over the EFV and several over the FCS and VA over anything to do with Carriers...) -- or the media to make a case for their pet rock in order to skew the debate. Long overdue fix IMO.
Well, if there were leaks DURING the process
I missed 'em. Post facto, of course there'll be tons of discussion -- and Congressional pushback. The object was to delay that until everyone has signed on the dotted line. So the issue was not and is not either the Public or Congress knowing 'inside' information -- but rather when they know it. Later rather than early enough to affect the arguments.
Think of Eisenhower's dictum in his meetings -- "Silence is not an acceptable form of non-concurrence." Gates is surely aware of that and just as surely enforces it most of the time. However, he might have ignored it for these budget talks in the building and he can thus say to Congressman Phugabosky (GS, EW) "Well, when that issue was raised, ADM Steampowered did not object. I have the Transcript here..." or "I don't know, Senator GEN Throwntrack is here, you might ask him of his response when that issue was raised back in April..."
He flanked 'em -- and good for him for doing so.
As for this:
Quote:
After all, the threat of prosecution and jail time doesn't seem to prevent disclosure of classified intelligence information to the press (which has had the effect inside the intelligence community of more stovepiping, not less).
I totally agree that has been the effect -- it is ALWAYS the Intel community's response to their own transgressions. I'll also point out tha most of those leaks are made in an effort to skew decisions and policies. The question is, since the Intel community itself is largely responsible for most of those leaks -- even drops some of them -- what have they done about putting anyone in jail?
Entropy has hit on my point...
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Entropy
Ken,
What I meant to say was that I don't think it's likely the NDA's kept information from Congress or even industry, though it did keep it from the general public. I fully admit that may simply be cynicism on my part.
This is exactly it... a lot of folks know what the programming folks were doing... the public doesn't, only the result.
Reference the other post about Sec Gates' saying all the JCS and CoComs agreed with terminating the F-22 vs. the public testimony from Adm Mullen and Gen Schwartz... They are in direct conflict. So did the JCS really agree with the decisions as claimed, or were they ordered to? The NDA (in theory) prevents us from knowing.
I guess I was asking if anyone knows if the NDA will apply to Congressional inquiries... because it seems likely that there will be some Congressional questions on just what the JCS recommended the programs be...
I agree that keeping the debate internal is better than using the media/congress to get what you want.
-C
Parochialism can be blinding, some say...
LINK.
Quote:
This is exactly it... a lot of folks know what the programming folks were doing... the public doesn't, only the result.
So far. The truth almost always comes out eventually. The problem is that in this era of instant gratification everyone wants what they want when they want it. Some things you just have to wait for -- and the usually reasonable performance of the US Governmental process is one that you'll always have to wait for, it's slow. By design...
In any event, it'll come trickling out, there will indeed be Hearings as pet Oxen are being gored and Rice Bowls broken (A good thing IMO) so Congroids will have to grandstand, pundit military wannabes will predict doom -- and in the end all will be known and it'll probably work out for the best as it most always does.
Quote:
I agree that keeping the debate internal is better than using the media/congress to get what you want.
So do I, which was my point; thus I'm not sure I understand the upset of you two Blue Suited Gentlemen??? :D
Unless it's possibly the facts that a Service is having obvious identity problems (as all of them have periodically), Gates fired some folks -- and he may have possibly outflanked Congress and some rice bowl salesmen. Like the guys said, time to move on...