I don\'t think his niceness was a put-on. The one thing that does make me question that a bit was his response when Quinn says Carrie was \
I don\\\'t think his niceness was a put-on. The one thing that does make me question that a bit was his response when Quinn says Carrie was \\\"on her own now\\\" after they lost her and he quipped, \\\"she always was.\\\"
I\\\'m undecided at this point (after 10/27/13\\\'s episode 3.05) as to whether Saul TookALevelInJerkass. On one hand, he certainly does not have Carrie\\\'s back to the same extent that he did in the first two seasons, and is clearly more interested in the mission succeeding than Carrie\\\'s safety (e.g. having Quinn stay back to avoid a risk of being made, which put Carrie in greater danger; but then again, Quinn was only on the scene because Saul got him involved). On the other hand, now that they\\\'ve actually posed a more realistic threat than abolishing the CIA (which I kind of discounted because it was so unrealistic I just had to ignore it), Saul may see the mission\\\'s success as the only way he has a chance to keep human intel as a large part of the CIA\\\'s operations by proving it can work.
Is Saul deciding \\\"TheNeedsOfTheMany must come before the needs of the few or the one (which is generally a reasonable position),\\\" or is it him being NecessarilyEvil (which isn\\\'t as harsh a trope as the word \\\"evil\\\" implies if you actually read it, but would still imply he TookALevelInJerkass)? I think both sides can be argued.
I\\\'m obviously not the only one who can post, and if you want to post he TookALevelInJerkass I won\\\'t delete it or oppose it, but I\\\'m not sure enough within myself to post it myself right now.
Falsely committing someone hits a BerserkButton in me in a way that putting a mission\\\'s success ahead of an operative\\\'s safety doesn\\\'t, even though the latter can be morally wrong depending on the specifics. Right now, for me, the specifics are ambiguous.