In an interview last week with NBC's Brian Williams, NSA secret-leaker Edward Snowden set himself a low bar and claimed success: His leaks, he said, have gotten us talking about these important issues. Mission accomplished? Let's think about that...
![2014-06-01-williamsandsnowden.jpg]()
While Snowden has in fact displayed several admirable leadership qualities - like taking bold action, operating in integrity with his stated beliefs, and communicating (to Brian Williams, anyway) with gravitas - he, like many would-be-good leaders, has fallen short in the results department.
Good leadership takes balancing of cost versus benefit to achieve something. The measure of such a costly breach of national security as Snowden committed, then, should be significant positive change, rather than fresh fodder for our hapless Congress and paying NBC's bills for a few news cycles.
For example, for Snowden to be seen as a good leader there could follow a thorough and unbiased audit of our intelligence services showing specifically if, and in what ways, the US Government discarded its checks and balances and/or hindered our constitutionally-guaranteed protections and freedom. Such an audit would then need to result in reform.
Similarly, for the US Government to be the leader here, it would need to show, rather than simply assert, that Snowden's admittedly criminal actions have created harm, and also show that it has used its powers in strictly constitutional ways.
Neither will happen. Instead, Snowden's sensational actions reflect the naivety of an ideologue: Someone intensely devoted to a cause, yet guided more by the image of perfection than by the real world. This "national conversation" is more likely to fester and fizzle than to lead to policy reform -- after all, that's the status quo state of the union these days.
Whether he was a patriot or a traitor in leaking NSA secrets is a dumb question being asked by smart people in the media who know better, but need to sell cars and paper towels. Patriot or traitor? He, as perhaps others in government who may have given themselves too much power without adequate oversight, are both and neither. The two sides here are more alike than not.
The ultimate question of leadership in the dark arts of intelligence is an elusive one. We can't and shouldn't ever know what great leadership looks like when it comes to the content of collecting and analyzing intelligence to prevent violence and terrorism. Yet if Snowden's actions are to be seen as good leadership, then bring it on, Snowden: Let's see the benefits that more than cover the costs of what you have done.
While Snowden has in fact displayed several admirable leadership qualities - like taking bold action, operating in integrity with his stated beliefs, and communicating (to Brian Williams, anyway) with gravitas - he, like many would-be-good leaders, has fallen short in the results department.Good leadership takes balancing of cost versus benefit to achieve something. The measure of such a costly breach of national security as Snowden committed, then, should be significant positive change, rather than fresh fodder for our hapless Congress and paying NBC's bills for a few news cycles.
For example, for Snowden to be seen as a good leader there could follow a thorough and unbiased audit of our intelligence services showing specifically if, and in what ways, the US Government discarded its checks and balances and/or hindered our constitutionally-guaranteed protections and freedom. Such an audit would then need to result in reform.
Similarly, for the US Government to be the leader here, it would need to show, rather than simply assert, that Snowden's admittedly criminal actions have created harm, and also show that it has used its powers in strictly constitutional ways.
Neither will happen. Instead, Snowden's sensational actions reflect the naivety of an ideologue: Someone intensely devoted to a cause, yet guided more by the image of perfection than by the real world. This "national conversation" is more likely to fester and fizzle than to lead to policy reform -- after all, that's the status quo state of the union these days.
Whether he was a patriot or a traitor in leaking NSA secrets is a dumb question being asked by smart people in the media who know better, but need to sell cars and paper towels. Patriot or traitor? He, as perhaps others in government who may have given themselves too much power without adequate oversight, are both and neither. The two sides here are more alike than not.
The ultimate question of leadership in the dark arts of intelligence is an elusive one. We can't and shouldn't ever know what great leadership looks like when it comes to the content of collecting and analyzing intelligence to prevent violence and terrorism. Yet if Snowden's actions are to be seen as good leadership, then bring it on, Snowden: Let's see the benefits that more than cover the costs of what you have done.