Stupidity of Secrecy

By Fester:



Recently General McChystal in his confirmation hearings before taking command in Afghanistan noted that the most important metric for US and allied forces would be the number of civilians protected from harm in Afghanistan. This is a bit of a turn from the Twitter body counts of 'success' that the US PAOs are putting out. But this statement by McChrystal is aligned with current US population-centric COIN doctrine. The people are the center of operational gravity and their allegiance or at least tolerance of the counter-insurgent and passive intolerance of the insurgent is the key.

The strategic goal of US COIN doctrine is to build up the capacity and legitimacy of the host nation government by the provision of public goods and services, most notably security and economic development. The key is the legitimacy of the government must be accepted. And that means the government and its allies (in this case, the US government and military) must be seen as worthy of trust even, or especially when the truth is less than flattering. When the truth is less than flattering but it is told without pressure or coercian to cover it up, the government has engaged in a costly but credible signal that it is trying its best to be transparent and non-arbitary.

 Steve highlighted the internal debate amongst the DOD to bury the report on a set of airstrikes that allegedly killed numerous civilians after the US did not follow the rules of engagement. The argument is that attempts at transparency will only inflame the Afghani civilian population. This illustrates high level friction and confusion within the US decision loop.

When I read that, I wanted to stab myself in the eye with a dull spoon for the stupid burns. The civilian grapevine works very well in any society, and even better in one where there are few credible sources of information. The relevant actors already know about either this airstrike that killed civilians or other airstrikes that killed civilians. Releasing a report that accepts responsibility will not suddenly release new information into the wild. If anything, it could slowly, especially if it is a part of a corrective action cycle where after action reports are made public in cases of large scale civilian deaths so that procedures could be improved, nip some of the credibility killing conspiracy theories in the bud.

Tim F. has often noted the basic reason why transparency works well:

People do a more competent job under the threat of transparency and adversarial oversight. Take that away and you eliminate the disincentive for slack, graft and letting mistakes of every magnitude slide uncorrected. To the degree that whistleblowers are actively protected, shitty managers and government programs that fail for whatever reason can be exposed and corrected. Strict ethics rules enforced by zealous and independent oversight keep away the stink that almost always goes along with political power. If these things disappear it hardly matters who is in charge; shitty management will follow like water flows downhill. Tax money will disappear down unaccountable holes, important programs will stop working. National security will be less secure.

Secrecy does not help anyone on any measure. It delegitimatizes the United States military and by extension the Afghan government. It kills more civilians. It creates a juicier rumor mill where the casual assumption of credibility runs against US interests. It directly contradicts US COIN doctrine. It is mind-numbingly stupid and counter-productive.