Pentagon Exonerates General for Signal Leaks, Not Civilian Deaths
The mainstream media breathlessly reports the Pentagon's 'exoneration' of a top official over alleged Signal app misuse for discussing military strikes. One might applaud such swift internal accountability, until realizing the 'investigation' focused on whether using Signal was acceptable, not on the actual strikes or the alleged military personnel put at risk. This selective scrutiny echoes the
historical pattern where process violations get more attention than the human cost of policy. It's a classic misdirection: fret over the security of the messenger, ignore the message itself—or, more accurately, the bombs it authorized. This 'exoneration' conveniently sidesteps any inquiry into the actual outcomes of these 'discussions.' The military-industrial complex (and those profiting from it)
consistently shifts focus from substantive accountability for actions to procedural minutiae. It’s almost as if the primary concern is avoiding future leaks, not preventing future civilian casualties. The question isn't 'Did they use Signal?' but 'What did they use Signal to do, and who paid the price?' Sadly, that inquiry is reserved for independent journalists, not Pentagon internal reviews.