Well-written article. I actually read part of it shortly after it was published but got distracted to other things. Hersch does his homework. What I don't like about his method is that it comes with a point of view. He assumes a certain perspective and sets about to prove it. The danger in doing that is through discarding, discounting or misinterpreting information taht does not conform to the expected point of view. It happens all the time in science, too. It is not intentional, necessarily. In Hersch's case I doubt he would ever intentionally misuse information to support his particular point of view.

What Hersch fails to acknowledge, IMO, is that the military must be subservient to the civilian leadership. The civilians set policy and the military acts on it. If the military doesn't like a policy it is their duty to so inform the leadership. If civilian leadership persists in opposition to the military, then the officer has a chocie to make--to shut-up and follow orders or retire. Once retired, the officer can speak as a private citizen so long as classified info is not jeopardized. That is as it should be.

The worst situation is when an officer thinks that the civilian leadership is dangerously wrong, but still within constitutional and legal bounds.

What should he do?

1. Shut-up and follow orders;
2. Retire and shut-up;
3. Retire and go public;
4. Shut-up and undermine civilian leadership from within.

Bot