Debate Erupts Over Military Leak Following Atlantic’s Yemen Report
The Atlantic revealed a private Signal chat among U.S. officials discussing military operations in Yemen, which was denied by top authorities. The report elicited criticism of editor Jeffrey Goldberg and claims of a security breach. The tension surrounding the leak has intensified debates about media ethics and national security amidst an election cycle.
Recently, The Atlantic published a report that disclosed internal discussions regarding a U.S. military operation in Yemen via a private Signal messaging group. The article prompted strong denials from top U.S. officials, including Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth, who sought to refute allegations that classified military plans were shared. Officials criticized The Atlantic’s editor-in-chief, Jeffrey Goldberg, labeling him as “anti-Trump” and a “registered Democrat.” In light of the backlash, The Atlantic released the complete Signal chat transcript, asserting its authenticity and signaling a serious security breach.
The Signal group, which was named “Houthi PC Small Group,” was established by National Security Adviser Michael Waltz and included prominent figures such as Vice President JD Vance and Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth. Other members included CIA Director John Ratcliffe and Secretary of State Marco Rubio, among others, highlighting significant involvement from multiple senior officials in the discussion.
During the exchange, Waltz prompted the officials to organize efforts for coordination over the next three days. He indicated that his deputy was forming a “tiger team” to follow up on a Situation Room briefing. Vice President Vance questioned whether to proceed with the planned strike, citing concerns that it could send contrary messages about U.S. policies towards Europe and potentially escalate oil prices. Although he suggested delaying the strike by up to a month, he ultimately deferred to the collective judgment of the group.
In support of the delay, CIA Director Ratcliffe emphasized that more time could enhance intelligence on Houthi leadership; conversely, Defense Secretary Hegseth expressed the urgency of the operation. He asserted that failing to act could lead to unfavorable conditions, stating, “We are prepared to execute,” and underscored the importance of maintaining freedom of navigation. He further expressed disdain for the perceived reliance of European nations, referring to it as “PATHETIC.”
The discussions also outlined a timeline for the strikes, which began with favorable weather reports at 11:44 am (ET) and included the launching of F/A-18 Super Hornets shortly after noon. The first wave of strikes targeted a senior Houthi militant, concluding with successful elimination, as later confirmed by Vance and Ratcliffe. After validating the chat’s authenticity, Goldberg exited the group, whereas The Atlantic claimed it had only redacted the identities of CIA officers in their publication.
In response to the report, Hegseth vehemently contested the authenticity of the chat, asserting that the information disclosed lacked specificity and classified data. His comments included, “Those are some really [expletive] war plans,” emphasizing the absence of specific actionable intelligence. As the discourse surrounding the leak continues, it touches upon critical themes of media ethics, transparency, and national security amidst a politically charged atmosphere.
The recent disclosure of internal U.S. military discussions regarding operations in Yemen has sparked significant controversy and debate. While high-ranking officials have vehemently denied that classified information was shared, the publication of the transcript by The Atlantic raises serious questions about security protocols. This event not only highlights the complexities of military transparency but also the ethical considerations of media reporting in a politically sensitive context, especially during an election year.
Original Source: www.business-standard.com
