Today's New York Times includes an piece on a RAND corporation study of the Iraq War. The unclassified report was delivered in 2005 and has yet to be publicly released.
Why might such an unclassified report remain effectively secret? Is this proper?
What are the similarities to New York Times v US (Pentagon Papers case)?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
Keeping this study classified does not seem right. The edited unclassified version, created by RAND for public debate reasons, should not be held in secrecy. This situation seems to mirror the ruling New York Times v US. While it may be bad public relations for the administration to have this document, that alone should not create a state secrets issue.
Maybe the Army took a much closer look at the plan then we realize since a lot of what was said in the RAND study is now being used by the military in Iraq. The military may not have wanted to tip their hand as to what they were planning or about to do in changing strategies and tactics on how to fight the terrorists and insurgents in Iraq. If you were a boxer, would you leave a plan on how you would fight your opponent under their training room door? I wouldn't either, so I have very little problem with the Army keeping this under wraps, even an unclassified version.
The American people should be able to look at and evaluate past strategies in Iraq, yes certain things should be classified, but general information should be available. They will then be able to understand and form opinions on those strategies. From that we can make judgments on who proposed those strategies. This why we can better select future leaders.
If you were a boxing promoter would you hire me to fight for you, without knowing my past experience? No. Or would you after viewing my experience and hiring me, keep on contracting me to fight if I was a total flop and drew no attention. No. You would not take a chance on something that could cost you greatly.
The American people should not be forced to do either of the above. The American people have a lot riding on the war, family, friends, tax dollars. Because of this they should access, abet limited, to previous, not current, strategies.
Post a Comment