Read on Twitter
I’ve been thinking hard about Mattis’s statement, and it gets so close to understanding the role of those who lend their name and credibility to empower Trump, and yet includes no self reflection, is disappointing. https://twitter.com/laraseligman/status/1346979784421756928
There’s a lot of boring discussion of rehabilitation of Trump officials and enablers, particularly within the natsec community, which tends to view itself as a bipartisan continuum or technocratic elite. As a result of the latter there is rarely incentive for self-examination.
I am a believer in the potential of people to learn and change, and also believe it should be a difficult process. Rejection of the past is only a tiny step on that road of assessment, understanding, learning, and making right. The natsec community avoids this process.
I spent years daydreaming about how to introduce such a cultural shift where people can talk freely about failures and we feel empowered to reject those who don’t acknowledge them. We don’t have standards, we don’t self police, we don’t have a learning culture.
How to cope with the individuals who served under Trump — some of whom were objectively talented, who had worthy careers of service, and who maybe did good in this period—is a test for this community. Afghanistan is a test. Drone warfare is a test. Surveillance is a test.
These tests are all still open but their windows are closing.
(If anyone with means and capacity to pursue “natsec lessons learned and learning culture” as a big endeavor wants to, happy to send you my ideas)
(If anyone with means and capacity to pursue “natsec lessons learned and learning culture” as a big endeavor wants to, happy to send you my ideas)
