Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

The word is out there that leaks from the Obama administration are clueing terrorists to change their tactics. The administration says they are forced to talk by the news providers.


http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/09/13/military-source-isis-hostages-dispersed-after-revelation-foley-rescue-mission/

I can see the point made in the article, but I think it's just a symptom of today's politics and the 24/7 news circus that goes with it. When you don't announce what you're doing to resolve a problem, the other side gets to claim you're doing nothing and they get to score political points. When you do announce what you're doing, but you don't provide details, the other side gets to claim you don't have a plan/strategy/etc. and they still get to score political points. When you do announce what you're doing, and in detail, the other side now gets to claim you've just given valuable intel away to our enemies and then they still get to score political points.

So if they're going to try to score political points anyway, why give away the intel?

 Hordini wrote:
So if they're going to try to score political points anyway, why give away the intel?

Bingo!
Let the other side over extend with accusations that you aren't doing anything. Don't announce your plans. Achieve results. Announce the achieved results without showing your hand. Your opponents then have egg on their faces, do it a few more times and you might notice they change how they approach certain topics.

Between

The administration said its hand was forced because unnamed reporters had learned about the raid to rescue Foley and other hostages, believed to include Steven Sotloff, who was also later executed by ISIS.

Asked about the ramifications of providing the information in such a public way, Defense Department spokesman John Kirby said Friday it was still the right call.

"We regret it at the time we had to talk about this," Kirby said. "There was absolutely no intention of ever having to talk about that rescue attempt but because of leaks to certain reporters, it forced our hand to try and provide some context to that. So it's not about do I now regret it. We regret it at the time. We still regret that we had to talk about it."

and 'anonymous right wing source gives info to right wing front news', this whole story seems questionable as to blaming the administration for just giving out info like they did it for fun. The leaks could have come from the DoD, the White House, or both. It seems another attempt at hoping the whole story isn't read as much as the headline, or else the outrage would be differently aimed or diminished.

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

 Hordini wrote:
So if they're going to try to score political points anyway, why give away the intel?

Bingo!
Let the other side over extend with accusations that you aren't doing anything. Don't announce your plans. Achieve results. Announce the achieved results without showing your hand. Your opponents then have egg on their faces, do it a few more times and you might notice they change how they approach certain topics.

The problem, however, is that in between the political point scoring and the later achievement of results that put egg on the opponents' faces, elections take place, and the opponents have already been voted for.

Yeah, I know, I'm incredibly cynical regarding politics these days.

 Ahtman wrote:
Between

The administration said its hand was forced because unnamed reporters had learned about the raid to rescue Foley and other hostages, believed to include Steven Sotloff, who was also later executed by ISIS.

Asked about the ramifications of providing the information in such a public way, Defense Department spokesman John Kirby said Friday it was still the right call.

"We regret it at the time we had to talk about this," Kirby said. "There was absolutely no intention of ever having to talk about that rescue attempt but because of leaks to certain reporters, it forced our hand to try and provide some context to that. So it's not about do I now regret it. We regret it at the time. We still regret that we had to talk about it."

and 'anonymous right wing source gives info to right wing front news', this whole story seems questionable as to blaming the administration for just giving out info like they did it for fun. The leaks could have come from the DoD, the White House, or both. It seems another attempt at hoping the whole story isn't read as much as the headline, or else the outrage would be differently aimed or diminished.

The same story is on liberal media sources, also. I remember when Reagan had the U.S. go into Greneda, reporters were not allowed to go with the same freedom they had to accompany military operations in Vietnam because of the secrets , such as military strength and equipment being used in an area, along with battle plans or objectives being broadcast sometimes before an operation was even launched.

 Tannhauser42 wrote:

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

 Hordini wrote:
So if they're going to try to score political points anyway, why give away the intel?

Bingo!
Let the other side over extend with accusations that you aren't doing anything. Don't announce your plans. Achieve results. Announce the achieved results without showing your hand. Your opponents then have egg on their faces, do it a few more times and you might notice they change how they approach certain topics.

The problem, however, is that in between the political point scoring and the later achievement of results that put egg on the opponents' faces, elections take place, and the opponents have already been voted for.

Yeah, I know, I'm incredibly cynical regarding politics these days.

I'm not a fan of playing politics when people's lives are involved. It's horrible leadership, and that's why we elect them: to be leaders.

Relapse wrote:
The same story is on liberal media sources, also.

I never said there wasn't a story here, but the focus being shown here is in the wrong place, or at best trying to paint it into a very specific corner. The only organizations brought brought up are the DoD and the NSC but the title mentions the administration, for example. It also leaves out that they only talked about after people within one or both of those organizations leaked the plan. Leaks in the DoD and NSC are a problem, but it seems like instead of dealing with that it is being used to attack the President's administration in general. The title is misleading in that it presupposes that they just gave out the information for little to no reason, when they did it becuase someone/some people had already blabbed about it to the press. This isn't a problem that has existed solely in this administration either.

I was surprised to hear about a supposedly clandestine NSW mission in somalia a couple months (might have been over a year, really) ago. I didn't personally mind hearing about it, but I'm sure quite a few people in that community were miffed, as these are not things that usually get passed around to the point that they're on the national news. I don't think the SEALS and Osama Bin Laden should have ever been connected, to be honest. "US Special Forces" would have been a perfectly acceptable answer for anyone who wanted to know.

I am quite sure that nearly all of the 800 personnel that are going to end up in Iraq are SOF types, but calling them "security" is probably the best move to make. I forget exactly what unit/organization it is, but the president is allowed to omit someone from his scheduled reports to congress about the status of forces..