You bring up some good points about the errors made in this, and in fact all governing leaderships. None are perfect, and "the good 'ol days" of prior politicians doesn't stand up to careful scrutiny of facts.
You also made a great point about doing your due diligence in situations when potential adversarial conditions are or might arise. And that I believe is the difference in our opinions.
I perform due diligence of key individuals as I would any key business relationship.
I do not distrust others simply because of the color of their skin, their religion, education, the monetary worth, or any other categorical qualifier. Rather, I give all the benefit of the doubt, and start all relationships from the standpoint of, "we may be friends". I don't go to the extreme either, and foolishly throw open my arms uncautiously.
However, I do take into account what a person, organization or country says and does to me, my partners and allies, and my way of life. If a person or the organization they represent treats me with disdain, threatens me and my family and friends, and works to prevent me from caring for my family and way of life .... well, then I tend to get alot more cautious.
In the situation presented, that was how I perceived the larger picture. Further, when the invitation was presented, recall it was with a "we're going to do this with or without your help", which again, to my perception, not an atmosphere of open and honest communications.
Now, we're only seeing the tip of the entire situation. We don't know what transpired throughout the conversion process, how he was treated, and if any thoughts or intentions were conveyed that indicated that these information would not be handed directly to the military.
I was simply noting that when new information is available, and that information can provide a military benefit of any kind, then military personnel are trained to use that information to its greatest advantage.
I can not and will not say that he made the wrong decision, since we have and likely will not have any facts that demonstrate misuse of that information. After careful due diligence of the facts as presented and available, I would not have taken the same risk.
But thank you for sharing this! It definitely got me thinking of how information is and can be used to improve any organization.
Rating:
Manish,
You bring up some good points about the errors made in this, and in fact all governing leaderships. None are perfect, and "the good 'ol days" of prior politicians doesn't stand up to careful scrutiny of facts.
You also made a great point about doing your due diligence in situations when potential adversarial conditions are or might arise. And that I believe is the difference in our opinions.
I perform due diligence of key individuals as I would any key business relationship.
I do not distrust others simply because of the color of their skin, their religion, education, the monetary worth, or any other categorical qualifier. Rather, I give all the benefit of the doubt, and start all relationships from the standpoint of, "we may be friends". I don't go to the extreme either, and foolishly throw open my arms uncautiously.
However, I do take into account what a person, organization or country says and does to me, my partners and allies, and my way of life. If a person or the organization they represent treats me with disdain, threatens me and my family and friends, and works to prevent me from caring for my family and way of life .... well, then I tend to get alot more cautious.
In the situation presented, that was how I perceived the larger picture. Further, when the invitation was presented, recall it was with a "we're going to do this with or without your help", which again, to my perception, not an atmosphere of open and honest communications.
Now, we're only seeing the tip of the entire situation. We don't know what transpired throughout the conversion process, how he was treated, and if any thoughts or intentions were conveyed that indicated that these information would not be handed directly to the military.
I was simply noting that when new information is available, and that information can provide a military benefit of any kind, then military personnel are trained to use that information to its greatest advantage.
I can not and will not say that he made the wrong decision, since we have and likely will not have any facts that demonstrate misuse of that information. After careful due diligence of the facts as presented and available, I would not have taken the same risk.
But thank you for sharing this! It definitely got me thinking of how information is and can be used to improve any organization.