Whistleblowers – USA Gov Policy

There remains valid and significant questions whether, in the Trump-Ukraine matter, the undisclosed individual cited by Rep. Schiff is truly a “whistleblower” or merely a Democrat operative. However, the blunt politics of that should not reflect on the more general issue of whistleblower protection.

This article was submitted exclusively to the New York Analysis of Policy and Government by retired U.S. Army chaplain, Col. Don Zapsic.

The ongoing investigation of the alleged Trump-Ukraine impropriety sparked by a whistleblower complaint has once again fueled an age-old controversy.

Whistleblowing is as emotionally charged as it is misunderstood. Often associated with snitchery, disloyalty, and self-serving motives, the cold reality is that whistleblowing is as necessary to system integrity as scavengers are to roadkill. There will always be messes to clean up that most choose to ignore; fewer to point out; and far less who are willing to get their hands dirty and reputations soiled.

Unashamedly, I am a purist when it comes to defining and defending a practice that is especially loathsome to those who have something to hide and even more to lose. Equally important, there is whistle-blowing and then there is “whistle-blowing.” The former is carried out by a reluctant informant who has far more to lose than personally gain. The latter benefits from disjointed, chaotic systems perpetuated and promoted by deceit, slander, and manipulations of all varieties. All designed to somehow maintain a sickly state of affairs that benefits the teller of tales.

First-order whistleblowers have no illusions about gaining popularity. No one likes a party-pooper that spews inconvenient truths that disrupt unit cohesion and cause hard feelings. They go it alone because a vital link in the chain-of-command has broken and therefore must be circumvented and ultimately restored to a functional level of viability and integrity. There is a saying among mental health practitioners that there is no such thing as ADHD in front of a video game. Equally poignant is the fact that there is no need for whistleblowers in proactive work settings that hold their people accountable to reasonable standards of conduct and performance.

I liken the concept of whistleblowing to a referee at a sporting event that only blows the whistle whenever an infraction has incurred. The whistle is never intentionally blown out of bias or pursuit of personal gain designed to influence the outcome of a contest. It should not matter if the referee’s son is on the court or how Precautions: In cases a person is soft tabs viagra allergic to sildenafil or any other content in erectile dysfunction medicines for ED. He should give a try to viagra mastercard india use this remedy twice per day. This is ordering generic viagra how penis expands. Seek commitments of from the firm, and when unsure, seek advice from your doctor on line cialis get more or midwife. much is waged by competing interests in favor of one side or another. The integrity of the game is first and foremost. Anything short of such a high standard would inevitably lead to the collapse of one system in favor of a shadow of its former self.

A fair question to entertain is, “Why are there so few that blow the whistle?” It is important to keep in mind that complex emotions surround such an activity that many would mischaracterize as “tattling.” People, especially in the military are conditioned to believe that unit loyalty is a higher virtue that principle itself. Indeed putting one’s unit in an unfavorable light should be avoided, but not at all costs. Especially when “unit loyalty” is paramount to masking conditions that could get people seriously injured or even killed. Such a mental state is known as cognitive dissonance which involves holding two opposite beliefs simultaneously leading to incoherence and inner conflict.

One of the first and foremost rules of whistleblowing is to realize the cost of doing business. Like Soldiers that have romantic notions about going off to war in the throes of hometown ceremonies and parades, there are bitter realities to be reckoned with. Whistleblowers in the noblest sense of the word are ‘sin-eaters’. They not only bear the burden of disclosure, but also must take the brunt of what will be a concerted effort by the status quo to discredit their character. It falls along the lines of, “If you can’t dispute the message, then attack the messenger.” If that isn’t enough, friends will scatter since “guilt by association” will be the rule of the day.

And if that isn’t enough, there are other considerations as well. The “Whistleblower Protection Act of 2017” may protect federal employees from supervisor reprisals, but that is no guarantee against ongoing harassment and denial of privileges whereby the burden of proof lies upon the employee to substantiate. Sound far-fetched? Here are some of the tactics that I have personally experienced: excessive random drug-screens, black-balling in the form of all social privileges being removed as a retired military member, excessive work assignments designed to isolate and alienate, and one of my favorites, exclusion from supervisor duties that undermine credibility with subordinates.

Is it all worth it considering the high price extracted for living a values-driven life true to one’s purpose and commitments? If it isn’t, then it is better to stay away from confronting injustice because it is not for the timid and faint of heart. My fervent hope is that the special protection afforded under the “Whistleblower Protection Act of 2017” does not fall victim to the ongoing impeachment process. Any legislation of its kind must not only provide legal protection against institutional retribution, but also lend moral support to those brave souls willing to make the necessary sacrifices for the greater good. Such a commitment falls under the category of doing one’s civic duty and must not be relegated to political theater.

Illustration: Pixabay

Quick Analysis

What Would War with Taiwan be Like

There is a coming conflict with Taiwan. What remains uncertain is the nature of that conflict. A newly released report this week by the Global Taiwan Institute’s (GTI) John Dotson argues that political warfare is a key component of the Chinese Communist Party’s (CCP) attempt to undermine and achieve annexation of Taiwan. The CCP’s goal, he says, is to force the subjugation of the island’s citizens and democratic society and place it under “full CCP political Control.” Chinese directed propaganda and disinformation, elite cooption, political subversion, and coercive military and economic actions all are connected by a prominent link – they are actions intended for psychological effect. They are also methods of political warfare in an ongoing, persistent, and multi-faceted campaign against Taiwan. Information warfare used by Beijing against Taipei manipulates the news to change the attitudes of the population. Is it working? Dotson says that China is successfully exercising influence of “content and editorial coverage in traditional media outlets such as newspapers and television news channels, largely by leveraging influence through local proxy figures—in particular, wealthy businesspersons who have extensive financial equities in China.” He suggests that Beijing employs a “pink model” to push pro-CCP content into social media news feeds, not unlike what China does inside the United States. Using algorithmic targeting, Beijing is able to attack selected demographic targets who are more vulnerable to disinformation. Its goal is to further sow confusion and reduce cognitive resistance to pro-CCP’s narratives. Encouraging a population to believe false information by reducing a group’s opposition to it is a common practice among intelligence agencies and politicians alike. First, a population is provided with several scenarios that are easily accepted as true. In a simple example, one might read that at noon the sun is high in the sky, the clock says 12:00 pm, and many people are eating lunch. These points are easily accepted as true. The human brain at this point becomes more susceptible to accepting new information that may be false as it is programmed to let its guard done. The CCP follows by planting real information among false facts to make it easier to accept and digest. It doesn’t stop at disinformation, Beijing is also leveraging its toolkit in a related field, “legal warfare (法律戰), to promote its interpretation of international law and diplomatic practice. Yet another major category of concern in the CCP’s political warfare against Taiwan is known as “gray zone operations.” These are more closely related to military actions and include activities such as the aerial and maritime encroachment of Taiwan’s territory. The goal is to erode the concept of sovereignty and security. The United States is experiencing “gray zone” operations on our own southern border. In Taiwan, these include China’s overflight of Taiwan’s airspace by military aircraft. These events are increasing in both number and intensity as they grow close to the island itself. Simultaneously, China’s PLAN (People’s Liberation Army Navy), through its coast guard “law enforcement” operations are challenging Taipei’s outer islands. Dotson points out that the “paramount objective in such operations is the intended psychological effect on Taiwan’s population.” Another related area according to the GTI report is increasing economic coercion. China is attempting to deny Taiwan market access, ban its imports, and limit politically-oriented trade and investment opportunities. The intent is to “punish groups within Taiwan for developments to which Beijing objects, to isolate Taiwan internationally, and to pressure other countries and international companies to conform to Beijing’s preferred policies on Taiwan,” says Dotson. To date, Taiwan has suffered from attempts to ban Taiwan’s export of agricultural products. Beijing has also punished countries who willingly import from Taiwan and have close relations with Taipei. Perhaps one of the most misunderstood areas of China’s political warfare campaign against Taiwan revolves around its “united front work.” This embraces a range of measures that Dotson says include both financial and psychological cooption and include the use of front organizations and political subversion. In Taiwan, China is coopting business and political elites, funding and manipulating local organizations (temple societies) and offering support to fringe political parties that can be used to destabilize Taiwan and spread the CCP’s propaganda. Western militaries analyze the likelihood of kinetic warfare but spend less time on the impacts of political warfare. The free world cannot overlook what is happening in Taiwan and needs to recognize that Chinese political warfare extends across the globe. Beijing may not need to physically capture the island by force if it wins using a clandestine political warfare model of conflict. Then the question becomes, “Who is next?” Daria Novak served in the U.S. State Dept. Illustration: Pixabay