Here is a section of an article from Mother Jones that I found interesting. While the coalescing conventional wisdom seems to be that what Wikileaks has released isn't a big deal, it's worth pointing to James Fallows' criteria for judging the leak: I remember when the Pentagon Papers came out.... The major effect of the Papers was to reveal that for many years officials closest to the action had understood that the war could not really be "won," at least under the real-world political circumstances the U.S. faced. Of course the U.S. could have waged all-out unlimited war, and prevailed—but it wasn't going to do that.......The argument for bearing down [in Afghanistan] is that the dangers of withdrawal are too great to allow any other option—which of course was also the argument about Vietnam.... If "can we do it?" were no concern, it would obviously be better to keep the Taliban out of power and remove one possible base of Al Qaeda operation. But it's not obvious that the answer to "can we do it?" is yes. Indeed most recent news points the other way.That's what I'll be looking for in the Wikileaks documents: evidence that the project we're now committed to in Afghanistan could ever have worked, or might still work now.Sometimes, the absence of information is in itself information. If Fallows doesn't find the evidence he's looking for in 92,000 Wikileaks documents, should we conclude that it doesn't exist? And even if we can find reason for hope in the Wikileaks pages, there may be better ways to spend the blood and treasure it will cost to do whatever we're trying to do in Afghanistan See: How to Judge Wikileaks' Latest | Mother Jones And use the links on the right hand sidebar to read the rest of the "leaks" articles.
The observations of Andrew Sullivan are particularly astute: "What do we really learn from the Wikileaks monster-doc-dump? I think the actual answer is: not much that we didn’t already know. But it’s extremely depressing – and rivetingly explicit – confirmation of what anyone with eyes and ears could have told you for years. We already know the following: "The notion that a professional military and especially police force can be constructed and trained by the West to advance the interests of a “national government” in Kabul within any time frame short of a few decades of colonialism is a fantasy. "We are fighting a war as much against the intelligence services of Pakistan as we are the Taliban. They are a seamless part of the same whole, and until Pakistan is transformed (about as likely as Afghanistan), we will be fighting with two hands tied behind our backs. "This is the Taliban’s country. Fighting them on their own ground, when they can appear in disguise, can terrify residents by night if not by day, and fight and then melt away into the netherworld of mountains and valleys is all but impossible. And as the occupation fails to secure popular support (and after ten years and a deeply corrupt government in Kabul, who can blame the Afghans?), the counter-insurgency model becomes even less plausible than it was before." The War Logs: Reaction to Disclosure of Military Documents on Afghan War - At War Blog - NYTimes.com The Unwinnable War II: Didn't We Know All This Already? - The Daily Dish | By Andrew Sullivan Dave
Jon Steward had some fun with this "leak", and don't be put off by his new goatee, that is what he has been doing in the "off air time" it appears. Goto: Jon Stewart Mocks Media For WikiLeaks Reaction (VIDEO)
