It’s Hard to Love a Leaker. Except YOUR Leaker.
The secretary of defense let off some steam on his airplane, warning of the terrible consequences of leaking information about internal government policy debates. He’s “appalled.” Navy Times tells us that Gates said that “disclosures of sensitive information on any ‘options under consideration’ does not serve the nation well. Nor are they in the military’s strategic interests..”
When I first came to Washington, and for many years thereafter, I thought leaks were just awful. How dare they? Among other things, I thought–and this I still think–that it has a chilling effect on internal debate. Because if you’re afraid that your remarks will appear in tomorrow morning’s PJ Media, you might not say it, and, after all, we do want a wide-open debate, don’t we?
One day I discussed this with Richard Helms, then the recently-retired former director of central intelligence and ambassador to Iran. His answer surprised me. “Leaks will stop the minute the top people want them to stop,” he said. How so? I asked. “I was ordered several times by a president to find the source of a leak. We found it every time. And most of the time it was his secretary of state or secretary of defense, or chief of staff, or some other very important person. Nothing was ever done.”
Q.E.D. Leaks of the sort Gates is complaining about–that is, what options are being presented, and which way is the president leaning?– are part of the policy debate, and nobody knows it better than Secretary Gates himself. The current leaks about Afghanistan policy show that, don’t they? One day we hear the president is going to send in lots of troops; the next day we learn that our ambassador in Kabul thinks it’s a lousy idea, and the White House says that the whole thing is in flux (or frozen solid). It’s a two-cushion shot: from trial balloon to congressional pronouncements to policy decision in the side pocket. And everybody’s playing this game.
I really can’t see that such leaks are terribly damaging. So people disagree. So what? It’s good, in the sort of rough-and-tumble society we know and love, to have a broad discussion. If I had my druthers, I’d also like to know who holds what position, so they can’t pretend later on, if the policy goes bad, that they weren’t really on board. Henry Kissinger once warned that the only reason to write a memo is if you want it leaked. Which is a good lesson for historians: you can’t always trust the official documents; some of them were written to deceive you and the others.
On the other hand, there are leaks that damage the country and cost lives. Those should be tracked down and the leakers should be punished. But that requires an honesty of investigation and a commitment to internal discipline that are rare. Take the Valerie Plame “affair,” for example. The advocates of the special investigation–George Tenet’s CIA initiated it, I believe–generated oceans of ink and hours of video, claiming that the poor woman had been compromised. Find the person who compromised her, and hang him.
So what happened? It turned out that her “cover” wasn’t what the Savanarolas at the Agency and in the media said it was (nobody was ever charged with “compromising Valerie Plame’s cover”). The leaker was identified–Richard Armitage, the deputy secretary of state–and nothing, but nothing, was ever done to him. After all, he was protected by the secretary, Colin Powell. (The lone victim was Scooter Libby, who hadn’t leaked at all, but had made a false statement to FBI investigators).
I’m all for prosecuting the Armitages of this world, but it isn’t bloody likely. From the Pentagon Papers to the latest revelations of the details of our counterterrorist programs, only the tiniest handful of government officials have faced prosecution. Indeed, they are often hailed as heroes, as “whistleblowers,” even though they signed non-disclosure promises.
So I’m not impressed with Secretary Gates’s little tirade. He knows all this. So why is he venting? If I had to bet, I’d put a small amount down on the square that says “he’s being outleaked.”
“I’m all for prosecuting the Armitages of this world, but it isn’t bloody likely” – Different rules, different results.
In retrospect, Michael, there is a continuity of leaks that harm, so that they can be identified, and dealt with by more than a slap on the wrist.
Or, am I mistaken?
Mind you, Michael, the likelihood of the current collection of deformed souls, zombies
and other assorted ilk, with their paws on the levers of power, inside the Beltway, doing
this is about the same as a leopard changing its spots. So, do you figure that enough is known by intelligence agencies of countries that are officially friendly, that they could
identify people capable of running an alternative US government?
“Henry Kissinger once warned that the only reason to write a memo is if you want it leaked. Which is a good lesson for historians: you can’t always trust the official documents; some of them were written to deceive you and the others.” Imagine your Report shredding your carefully crafted memo… It’s the sort of thing that would make Sun Tzu grin!
So why is Sec. Gates venting? I disagree, perhaps, with the “outleaked” complaint model. I think it may be a little genuine fangs display. Gates appears to be an actual patriot – a quality at odds with the goals of one Hell of a lot of the present cluster in D.C.
Regarding your last point about Gates complaining because ‘he’s being outleaked’, I would beg to differ slightly that that is his real motivation. I am somewhat skeptical only because senior officials always complain about leaks, though as you rightly point out, the ship of state is the only ship that leaks from the top. But is not the real issue here that this is just part of the Washington game? In other words, everyone in the know knows that what Gates is saying is merely the SOP in response to a leak, rather than someone who is taking on a serious commitment to track down and prosecute a leaker.
Insiders leak in order to prevent being out-leaked!
This is the same usual game of politics in Washington or I better say Government in general. Who else would leak out? Media journalists? Not likely any more since the days of Bob Woodward.
It is all about self preservation, self interest even if it comes at the cost of damage to our national security.
Dr. Ledeen:
Do you know of any administration that actually plugged leaks? Or any administration that would have been able to do so if it wanted to? If so, how would we know?
By the way, what would you call it when political operators succeed in hoodwinking future historians into reporting what happened inaccurately?
I would call it normal.
“the next day we learn that our ambassador in Kabul thinks it’s a lousy idea”
We can take it for granted that the ambassador is directly responsible for the leak. There is simply no other reasonable explanation. Ambassadors are supposedly tight-lipped and speak of such matters only with those who are highly trustworthy and have need to know. The odds that he was betrayed is next to zilch. After all, he would be able to figure out the likely culprit—and exact severe punishment.