WikiLeaks

[Griff]

Originally Posted by TheMercenary

I would agree. But it is not the job of the these criminals to make such determinations. Often the most innocuous bits of information pieced together gives the clear picture. By leaving out various bits your enemy can never get a clear picture about what you know or what you think. This is not the role of some fools who think they know better. So we are stuck with what we have at this point. If we need to make changes from this point forward, so be it. We can make changes.

Most of our enemies are make believe, so leaving those who invent enemies in charge of classification is problematic.

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by Griff

Most of our enemies are make believe...

Could you explain that in a little more detail? I would be interested to know what you think along those lines. Are you saying that there are not nation states that would like to see the US brought to it's knees economically, through the stealing of industrial secrets, via various forms of state sponsored terrorism, or in the numerous other ways of undermining our society at large for what ever perceived reason? I am curious.

[Griff]

Sure, IMHO countries like Iran and North Korea would love to break the US but lack the ability to project power in any serious way and can be contained diplomatically. The threat of radical Islam is enhanced by our lack of openness and our willingness to compromise values when dealing with Middle-Eastern regimes. China could be a real economic threat but those pirates have lashed their ship to ours so we'll go down together.

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by Griff

Sure, IMHO countries like Iran and North Korea would love to break the US but lack the ability to project power in any serious way and can be contained diplomatically. The threat of radical Islam is enhanced by our lack of openness and our willingness to compromise values when dealing with Middle-Eastern regimes. China could be a real economic threat but those pirates have lashed their ship to ours so we'll go down together.

Well how about the Persians? The elements of radical Islam includes non-nation state actors such as AQ. That does not include Iran, and it's proxy groups like Hezbollah, and the other nation states such as Pakistan and their explicit support, via the ISI, for tribes in Afghanistan. You think we should give these states more information about our intelligence or access to our diplomatic cables?

[Griff]

Originally Posted by TheMercenary

You think we should give these states more information about our intelligence or access to our diplomatic cables?

The threat of exposed cables is problematic but could lead to rhetoric matching action in international relations allowing the US to lead by example instead of despite example. Had WikiLeaks been in place back in the yellowcake time-frame we could have avoided supplying manpower to AQ for the last several years. What to do with Saddam would continue to be an issue but we would have had to deal with it honestly and openly.

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by Griff

The threat of exposed cables is problematic but could lead to rhetoric matching action in international relations allowing the US to lead by example instead of despite example. Had WikiLeaks been in place back in the yellowcake time-frame we could have avoided supplying manpower to AQ for the last several years. What to do with Saddam would continue to be an issue but we would have had to deal with it honestly and openly.

I see "honestly and openly" as differing categories of diplomatic national policy. You can deal with nations honestly but you don't need to share every single bit of information with them to do it. There is a lot of information that people just don't need to know IMHO.

[tw]

Originally Posted by TheMercenary

I see "honestly and openly" as differing categories of diplomatic national policy. You can deal with nations honestly but you don't need to share every single bit of information with them to do it. There is a lot of information that people just don't need to know IMHO.

Meanwhile, the US would "openly and honestly" share information with all East European nations after each meeting with the USSR. The Russians never bothered to tell their 'allies' what happened. After all, those East European nations did not need to know. Your same logic.

Therefore the US built major trust with every East European nation. It even made ending the cold war so much easier. And why relations between those nations and the US are stronger today.

Wikileaks has simply changed the dynamics. For all that damage, it has also created new honest and open relationships. No more decisions based upon second guessing. As for things they do not need to know, even Wikileaks redacted that stuff. Wikileaks is not the disaster some would promote. They did not leak the sensitive stuff.

BTW, some Americans have become popular with their foreign governments. How those cables were written has also entertained their foreign peers. Created a new respect.

[Spexxvet]

Originally Posted by Griff

The threat of exposed cables is problematic but could lead to rhetoric matching action in international relations allowing the US to lead by example instead of despite example. Had WikiLeaks been in place back in the yellowcake time-frame we could have avoided supplying manpower to AQ for the last several years. What to do with Saddam would continue to be an issue but we would have had to deal with it honestly and openly.

[Undertoad]

Originally Posted by Griff

Had WikiLeaks been in place back in the yellowcake time-frame we could have avoided supplying manpower to AQ for the last several years.

Wikileaks is covering cables as old as 1979, so...

Gregory (Scotland Yard detective): "Is there any other point to which you would wish to draw my attention?"
Holmes: "To the curious incident of the dog in the night-time."
Gregory: "The dog did nothing in the night-time."
Holmes: "That was the curious incident."