Reliable Sources of Truth
When Trustworthy Leaders Speak Out, it is Best to Believe Them
“In times of universal deceit — telling the truth is a revolutionary act.” — Anonymous (often attributed to George Orwell)
In military human intelligence, we had a rating system to score the accuracy of information collected and the reliability of the human source providing it. The information itself is put through several lie detector “tests” to determine the probability of it being true like corroboration from other independent and trustworthy sources, consistency with known facts, plausibility given the situation, recency (given things tend to change over time), and specificity and believability of the details provided. In general, similar reporting from multiple reliable sources that is consistent with history and other evidence are often more likely to be true. We also graded the sources who provided us with information over time. How consistently accurate and truthful has this person been in the past? What are their motivations and biases? Do they have a reason to lie or mislead us? Do they have firsthand access to the information they are providing? What are their bona fides — credentials and references validated by other known and reliable sources?
Therefore, every source and every piece of information were each given a score. As an example, “A1” reporting is from a source that is deemed completely reliable (A) providing confirmed accurate information (1). This combination indicates this information is highly credible and actionable. At the other end of the scale is “F6” reporting where the source has unknown reliability (F) providing information whose truth cannot be determined (6). This combination gives you very low confidence to believe or act on this information. At least with “E5” reporting, you know the source is unreliable / knowingly provides false and misleading information (E) and the information is improbable (5) as it contradicts known facts. While this is an effective framework for conflict where “all warfare is deception,” it is not something I had thought much about in the civilian world until now.
Sadly, we are living in a time of universal deceit when I find myself increasingly relying on some of the tools of military intelligence just to know what in my daily news feed I can believe. Also, I have seen friends, colleagues, and fellow citizens struggle to discern what is true from disinformation and misinformation and to know who they can trust versus who might be purposefully trying to deceive them. No example hurts me more than when I see my fellow veterans take single source reporting from former President Trump and believe it without any corroboration or evidence from other independent and less biased sources. I often wonder why people are so willing to believe a man who has proven, through his own actions and words, that he is a pathological liar. The clearest example is he still has not fully conceded the 2020 election as he still claims, with zero evidence to support him, that the election was fraudulent and “stolen” from him. As the father of three young children, I cannot in good faith tell my kids one day that I voted for a man who lacks character and integrity to be their President.
When I think about reliable sources of truth, I think about men and women who I literally entrusted with my life. Jim Mattis and John Kelly are two of those men. I served in combat with them. My Marines and I relied on their leadership to survive, and they relied on us to assess the veracity of the information we reported. They had to make tough, life-changing calls based on that information, so we had better get it right. That is a level of trust few people ever get to experience. Once I left the Marine Corps, I had the opportunity to meet H.R. McMaster at a Council on Foreign Relations event in Atlanta. He spoke and answered questions about the threats to America and to our allies in democracy around the world. These are men of honor and servant leaders who put the ideals of this great country above all other interests. They tell the truth and when they do, it is best for us to believe them.
As we head into election season and early voting begins, I call on us all to consider not just the accuracy of the information we are consuming, but also the reliability of the sources of the information. What is the source’s underlying motivations? What is the source’s history of telling the truth? What firsthand access and exposure does the source have which lends credibility to its observation? Mattis, Kelly, and McMaster were all appointed by Trump and all served in his administration. These are just a few of the things these men have said about the former President:
Jim Mattis wrote on June 4, 2020 in a public letter shared with the Atlantic, “Donald Trump is the first president in my lifetime who does not try to unite the American people — does not even pretend to try. Instead he tries to divide us. We are witnessing the consequences of three years of this deliberate effort. We are witnessing the consequences of three years without mature leadership.” He went on to say, “We know that we are better than the abuse of executive authority that we witnessed in Lafayette Square. We must reject and hold accountable those in office who would make a mockery of our Constitution.”
John Kelly said to CNN about his former White House boss, “The depths of his dishonesty is just astounding to me. The dishonesty, the transactional nature of every relationship, though it’s more pathetic than anything else. He is the most flawed person I have ever met in my life.”
H.R. McMaster wrote in his recent memoir of his time in the Trump White House, At War With Ourselves, that Trump suffered from “self-absorption, resistance to doing basic preparation, and a tendency toward disrespecting and disparaging those who were trying to serve him.” He had “a penchant for pitting people against one another.” He was “perpetually distracted” and this was coupled with a “loose relationship with the truth.” He was “distrustful and short-tempered, and inspired behavior in others that undermined teamwork.” His “longing for affirmation from his base sometimes sabotaged his wish to advance U.S. interests.” McMaster’s alarmed and alarming conclusion: “I couldn’t help but think that living at the base of an active volcano was an apt metaphor for serving in the Trump White House.”
This is just the tip of the iceberg of the “A1” reporting from those who spent time inside the Trump administration with direct access to the former President. You can find similar reporting from John Bolton, Bill Barr, Rex Tillerson, William McRaven, Mike Pompeo, and more — almost all of it is focused on Trump’s self-serving dishonesty and lack of fitness for the office of the U.S. President. So, when it comes time to vote, I would say this is highly credible and actionable intelligence. Or you can believe the single source “E5” reporting from Trump himself.
