I am not buying this argument in the context of national security, why in the world would it apply here?
There’s an asymmetry between discussing flaws in the admin’s plans and discussing flaws in the attacker’s plans, which is significant enough that the first can be a public service and the second a public disservice.
The national security analog of the former is pointing out security holes, and the analog of the latter is giving helpful advice to terrorists.
Besides, it’s not like we’re talking about non-obvious things.
If it is truly obvious, then there is nothing to be gained by saying it; if it is not obvious, then there is something lost by saying it.
There’s an asymmetry between discussing flaws in the admin’s plans and discussing flaws in the attacker’s plan
Not quite, the defence and the attack are a matching zero-sum pair. Aiding one disadvantages the other.
The national security analog of the former is pointing out security holes, and the analog of the latter is giving helpful advice to terrorists.
Pointing out security holes is routinely called “giving helpful advice to terrorists” (or other members of the unholy triad, child pornographers and drug dealers).
There’s an asymmetry between discussing flaws in the admin’s plans and discussing flaws in the attacker’s plans, which is significant enough that the first can be a public service and the second a public disservice.
The national security analog of the former is pointing out security holes, and the analog of the latter is giving helpful advice to terrorists.
If it is truly obvious, then there is nothing to be gained by saying it; if it is not obvious, then there is something lost by saying it.
Not quite, the defence and the attack are a matching zero-sum pair. Aiding one disadvantages the other.
Pointing out security holes is routinely called “giving helpful advice to terrorists” (or other members of the unholy triad, child pornographers and drug dealers).