![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
timeletsLast night, I had an interesting conversation with a ranking Army officer about Clinton's email server. His position is quite straightforward: she violated the rules; therefore she's unfit to be the commander-in-chief. Period.
Then, I asked him how he felt about military officers that regularly violated rules and lied about it. First, he said it didn't happened. Then, when I showed him a recent report "LYING TO OURSELVES:
DISHONESTY IN THE ARMY PROFESSION" http://www.strategicstudiesinstitute.army.mil/pdffiles/PUB1250.pdf, he said, many Army officers lied because the hierarchy imposed reporting rules that were getting in the way of getting things done.
I asked, what if the rules that security officials imposed on the State Department were getting in the way of getting things done? At the same time, the security officials allowed people like Snowden and various hacking groups leak government documents at will. Moreover, the very same security officials were put in charge of prosecuting the State Department for violating the rules, while not being held responsible for their own shit. Is this fair?
So, we went back and forth, until it became clear to both of us that he perceived Clinton as the boss who imposed regulations on others but didn't follow them herself. The fact that she did not, didn't figure in his logic. In any case, he said, she's part of Washington and it had to be cleaned up.
Ok, I said, you were a part of the Army hierarchy that forced impossible rules on its officers. Do you need to be cleaned up? No, he said after some hesitation, because I didn't create the rules. Then, who created the rules? - The Washington!
As if, "the Washington" is one monolithic place that creates all the stupid rules and we all are innocent victims of the system. In the end, I almost said "Трамп прийде, порядок наведе!" :)
In any case, the whole thing will be over in less than 10 days.
Then, I asked him how he felt about military officers that regularly violated rules and lied about it. First, he said it didn't happened. Then, when I showed him a recent report "LYING TO OURSELVES:
DISHONESTY IN THE ARMY PROFESSION" http://www.strategicstudiesinstitute.army.mil/pdffiles/PUB1250.pdf, he said, many Army officers lied because the hierarchy imposed reporting rules that were getting in the way of getting things done.
I asked, what if the rules that security officials imposed on the State Department were getting in the way of getting things done? At the same time, the security officials allowed people like Snowden and various hacking groups leak government documents at will. Moreover, the very same security officials were put in charge of prosecuting the State Department for violating the rules, while not being held responsible for their own shit. Is this fair?
So, we went back and forth, until it became clear to both of us that he perceived Clinton as the boss who imposed regulations on others but didn't follow them herself. The fact that she did not, didn't figure in his logic. In any case, he said, she's part of Washington and it had to be cleaned up.
Ok, I said, you were a part of the Army hierarchy that forced impossible rules on its officers. Do you need to be cleaned up? No, he said after some hesitation, because I didn't create the rules. Then, who created the rules? - The Washington!
As if, "the Washington" is one monolithic place that creates all the stupid rules and we all are innocent victims of the system. In the end, I almost said "Трамп прийде, порядок наведе!" :)
In any case, the whole thing will be over in less than 10 days.
