3 ms·

I just don't remotely agree. Firstly, the military isn't one homogenous organization, and can be sharply internally divided in a way they don't often expose to

I just don't remotely agree. Firstly, the military isn't one homogenous organization, and can be sharply internally divided in a way they don't often expose to the public. And to a large extent, their message is set by partisan civilian leaders. Secondly, failures in one area doesn't negate progress in another -- and that the leader of the NSA immediately fired their IG when other IGs found an issue with performance is a big deal. That's a fundamental change in policy and accountability to civilian authority. We can't be purely antagonistic to the military. We demanded they change course, and a few years later, they've clearly changed how they handle these matters. For a bureaucracy the size of the DoD, that's lightning speed.

zeveb 10y ago
> That's a fundamental change in policy and accountability to civilian authority. It doesn't sound like a change in policy; it sounds like it's been the policy for quite some time (proposed on 2012, implemented in 2013).
- SomeStupidPoint 10y ago
  These changes had been ordered but not implemented by the time of the Snowden leaks. The current head of the NSA was appointed in 2014, after both the policy implementation and Snowden leaks had happened. Within two years of his appointment, the IG was being investigated for whistleblower retaliation. I don't know what you expect, but getting a large bereaucratic organization to have a major shake-up like that within a few years is fast, and so far as I can tell, the NSA has made major changes in the last few years, for the better. Even if you dont believe in the rest of it, the behavior of the admiral sends a message to those serving under him: "I took on the IG, a career politician, to defend this change in policy, and I expect similar performance from my staff." The military fundamentally operates on such acts of leadership and direction, and that alone can have a huge impact on how they operate.

zeveb 10y ago

> That's a fundamental change in policy and accountability to civilian authority. It doesn't sound like a change in policy; it sounds like it's been the policy for quite some time (proposed on 2012, implemented in 2013).

SomeStupidPoint 10y ago
These changes had been ordered but not implemented by the time of the Snowden leaks. The current head of the NSA was appointed in 2014, after both the policy implementation and Snowden leaks had happened. Within two years of his appointment, the IG was being investigated for whistleblower retaliation. I don't know what you expect, but getting a large bereaucratic organization to have a major shake-up like that within a few years is fast, and so far as I can tell, the NSA has made major changes in the last few years, for the better. Even if you dont believe in the rest of it, the behavior of the admiral sends a message to those serving under him: "I took on the IG, a career politician, to defend this change in policy, and I expect similar performance from my staff." The military fundamentally operates on such acts of leadership and direction, and that alone can have a huge impact on how they operate.