Transparency or National Security?

International forum, which is a joke of a class, actually made me think last week. Shocking, I know.

We were given the task to come up with an "essential question" to present to the class, on the topic of media and war. This "EQ" had to have no clear answer, and was meant to encourage class debate.

My question: Should Obama give in to media pressure and give specifics about the troop surge in Afghanistan?

On one hand, Obama promised, and we deserve, more transparency. How can the American people be expected to agree with a policy that they know nothing about? Especially with only 24% of people strongly agreeing with how Obama is performing his role as president, he can't politically afford to be vague. America wants specifics.

On the other hand, is Obama's promise of transparency more important than national security? There are potential dangers to making the specifics of this troop surge open for public debate. Obama and his supporters among military generals have been very ambiguous about the placement of troops, the troops expected from other countries, and the withdrawal time line. From the LA Times, "These troops are going to help us counter Taliban territorial advances, deny safe havens and create security for Afghan civilians," said a senior Obama administration official, speaking on the condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to speak publicly."

Obama has been reported to have gone to foreign governments and NATO with more specifics, but publicly, much of the proposed surge is a mystery.

See, the problem with specifics of military strategy being public knowledge is that American news does not stay in America. How safe can we expect to be if the Taliban knows our playbook, along with the rest of the world?

I lean to the side of national security, personally. Trusting our Commander in Chief is vital in a time of war, so until Obama really screws up, let's keep our secret military strategies... secret.