Chatham House Rules

For John, BLUF:  What happens in Vegas stays in Vegas.  Nothing to see here; just move along.

---

Out in Hawaii, the Navy recently relieved♠ the Pacific Fleet Chief of Intelligence, CAPT James Fannell.  From The Navy Times "Senior intel officer removed after controversial comments on China".

The thing is, Captain Fannell was probably talking to a group under "non-attribution", under Chatham House Rules.  That is, folks at the conference can take away the ideas, but should not attribute them to any one person.  It is the contention of the Staff Writer for The Navy Times, Mr David Larter, that someone leaked the identity of the speaker.  I am not certifying that that is what happened,♥ but it is a possibility and may provide an example to explain how Professor Jonathan Gruber became to famous.

At any rate, here is part of how CAPT Fannell got into hot water:

Fanell warned during a February public appearance that a recent Chinese amphibious exercise led naval intelligence to assess that China's strategy was to be able to launch a "short, sharp war" with Japan, an unusually frank assessment about a closely watched region.

His comments, which ran counter to the Pentagon's talking points on building ties to the increasingly assertive Chinese navy, were picked up by media outlets from The New York Times and Reuters to London's Financial Times and Daily Telegraph.  Top defense officials, including the 4-star head of the Army and the Pentagon spokesman, were forced to respond to his comment in the following days.

And, we have this from the story in The Navy Times:

Coverage of the comments, which broke in early 2014, came at an awkward time, coinciding with Army Chief of Staff Gen. Ray Odierno's trip to Beijing in February, when he was asked by a reporter to respond to Fanell's analysis.

Awkward

So, that brings us to a blog post by the Instapundit, which points us to a blog post by Mr Keith Hennessey:

KEITH HENNESSEY: ObamaCare Architect, MIT Economist Dr. Jonathan Gruber’s Honesty About Lying. Quoth Gruber: “Lack of transparency is a huge political advantage. And basically, call it the stupidity of the American voter or whatever, but basically that was really really critical for the thing to pass. It’s a second-best argument. Look, I wish Mark was right that we could make it all transparent, but I’d rather have this law than not.” See, they have to lie about their policies, because if they told the truth no one would support them.

Question 4 from Keith Hennessey:

If so, is it ethical to hide and obscure large cross-subsidies (or large costs), in ObamaCare and elsewhere, so they can be enacted into law?  Does the end of greater redistribution justify the means of obfuscation, of lying to voters?

Answer 4:

No. I think this tactic is repulsive and unethical in a representative democracy.

Bottom Line from Keith Hennessey

When these same elected officials, and those who advise them, deliberately construct policies to hide value choices that would be unpopular were they transparent and explicit, we end up with two terrible outcomes.  We get policies that do not reflect our values, and we re-elect representatives who are lying to us.

Or, as someone noted about the CAPT Fannell case:

I trust that others may learn from this experience that what one may say in private isn't necessarily the same thing that one may say in public.

When I was assigned to the Pentagon I was told I needed to ask myself how my memo would look on the front page of The Washington Post.  I got a senior Civil Servant involved in looking at Strategic Warning and he was accused, in the Press, of trying to set up a "Guns of August" situation with the Soviet Union.  He wasn't, and it blew over, but it was a stressful couple of days.

Yes, we need whistle blowers, but whistle blowers also work to shut down frankness and intercommunication within the bureaucracy.

That said, on balance, I think it is better that we found out about Professor Gruber and his belief that transparency is bad and the voters are stupid.

Regards  —  Cliff

♠  Relieved means that he was fired from his current position, but he continues as a Navy Captain and retains his pension, if he elects to retire.  That said, his next assignment may not be all that wonderful.
♥  Rumor Control suggests this is not, in fact, the reason, but it is too murky to know.  So, I am going with the Chief of Police and the DA, in saying the information is "not releasable at this level".