Answer

Healthy Civ-Mil Discussion

A healthy civ-mil discussion is essential for a unified front by the military especially during crisis and conflict. This discussion offers the opportunity for the Generals and Commanders to communicate their opinions and decisions to their superiors in a manner that preserves the respect, chain of command and military discipline that is prerequisite for any operation (Fust, 2019). When McChrystal granted an interview to the reporter and went ahead to allegedly berate his senior officers, he not only put in jeopardy his own job but also the confidence that the public had in the war efforts and their belief that the Commander-in-Chief was in control of the military strategy. A healthy civ-mil discussion would have fallen short of casting aspersions and an open expression of disapproval to a reporter and concentrated on finding the common ground for furthering the military strategy free of distractions.

General McChrystal had failed to recognize an essential element of the civ-mil discussion—compliance is paramount. Questions, doubts and deviations are not welcome, especially outside the stipulated scope of official communication. The inability and unwillingness of the General to defend himself or give his side of the story certainly did nothing to help in enhancing a healthy civ-mil discussion. As a top Commander for the Afghan operation and having gained the confidence and trust of people like Kazan, McChrystal had an obligation to make sure that a healthy civ-mil discussion was enhanced, and that the war effort was not put in jeopardy by any sideshows, least of all by his own. Recognizing this would enable him to actively promote structured discussion and express disapproval in positive ways and within the provided framework.

The Encryption Debate

For many people, encryption is a commendable way of helping to secure and protect individuals and organizations from crimes such as theft of information thereby aiding in making the society safer and more secure. It is thought of as a good way of safeguarding the privacy of individuals from the unnecessary prying eyes of the government which may be repressive or from the hand of criminals (Hasan, Awais, & Shah, 2018). For them then, encryption is a positive thing. On the other hand, encryption can also be viewed especially by governments as a negative and needless process accorded to individuals who may seek to use it negatively. The negative aspect of its use is seen when criminals and malicious individuals use encryption features to hide their dangerous plans that they may later execute to the detriment of many people. Encryption also makes it difficult for law enforcement for example to solve crimes through the analysis of heavily encrypted data and information that may have been stored by the criminals. It is therefore difficult to charge or prosecute them with crimes when information cannot be accessed due to encryption. For this side of the debate then, encryption does more harm than good.

I always tend to believe that in its best forms, encryption offers more good than bad. When we weigh the options of either protecting millions from the malicious acts of organized crime and repressive governments against the limited option of prosecuting a few criminals due to encryption, the former holds more water. It is essential that people’s personal information is not accessed by unscrupulous individuals who may use the information to steal from and harm them or from needlessly oppressive governments who may be capable of using that information to instil fear and take away some of their freedoms. Everyone is entitled to a good degree of privacy, and encryption ensures that the information that needs to be kept secret is kept secret. Encryption is also good for the governments themselves as it makes it hard for criminals to access their confidential files that they may use to jeopardise public safety and security.