usmbguest5318
Gold Member
I've got the news on television right now and Gen. Dunford is having a press conference whereat he's responding to press inquires for details pertaining to the recent misfortunate occurrence in Niger that resulted in four American servicemen dying. I have to say, it's refreshing to, for a change, see high ranking government official actually behave and respond in a way that inspires confidence in what they say and the credibility of it.
The questions being asked solicit information about points of fact and about his professional judgement with regard to the events that occurred, their causes, their consequences, etc. The general is responding to them as any rational person would -- as inquires for information so that a full understanding may be had by interested individuals who do not work for the Pentagon and who are not currently privy to the full scope of details and circumstances related to the event in Niger. What he's not doing is treating the questions as some sort of attack or attempt to do something other than obtain information for the sake of developing a comprehensive understanding about the matter and the Pentagon's thinking and actions following it.
The man clearly knows what he's talking about, qualitatively, contextually and quantitatively. He's not dodging questions by giving "non-answers" or via other tactics, and his statements are clear and unequivocal, leaving no measure of ambiguity or uncertainty about the nature and extent of what he's saying. Lastly, when asked things for which he doesn't know the answer, he just says that he/the military doesn't yet know the answer or have the information to adequately and completely answer the question, yet he is sharing with utter clarity the nature and extent of what is currently known.
That is the communicative behavior required of any and every government employee or spokesperson, most especially senior ones. Why the hell we have a dissolute POTUS and WH that does not ever behave that way is beyond me, yet that's precisely what we have. That we, as an OECD member state that by right should be the leader of the world, do is singularly opprobrious and debasing.
The questions being asked solicit information about points of fact and about his professional judgement with regard to the events that occurred, their causes, their consequences, etc. The general is responding to them as any rational person would -- as inquires for information so that a full understanding may be had by interested individuals who do not work for the Pentagon and who are not currently privy to the full scope of details and circumstances related to the event in Niger. What he's not doing is treating the questions as some sort of attack or attempt to do something other than obtain information for the sake of developing a comprehensive understanding about the matter and the Pentagon's thinking and actions following it.
The man clearly knows what he's talking about, qualitatively, contextually and quantitatively. He's not dodging questions by giving "non-answers" or via other tactics, and his statements are clear and unequivocal, leaving no measure of ambiguity or uncertainty about the nature and extent of what he's saying. Lastly, when asked things for which he doesn't know the answer, he just says that he/the military doesn't yet know the answer or have the information to adequately and completely answer the question, yet he is sharing with utter clarity the nature and extent of what is currently known.
That is the communicative behavior required of any and every government employee or spokesperson, most especially senior ones. Why the hell we have a dissolute POTUS and WH that does not ever behave that way is beyond me, yet that's precisely what we have. That we, as an OECD member state that by right should be the leader of the world, do is singularly opprobrious and debasing.
Last edited:
