We all ought to be:
One has to ask just what it is that compels the New York Times to report on classified data and, in this case, classified orders. The answer is patently political, for the larger effects of such reporting is never considered by New York Times writers and editors. But here is what's most important: The general approval for Special Operations missions against al-Qaeda (the un-uniformed enemy, for what it's worth) was "authorized by a classified order that Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld [not the enemy] signed in the spring of 2004 with the approval of President Bush [not the enemy]." Taking political shots at Bush and/or Rumsfeld is apparently of greater import than the security they were trying to ensure (whether one agrees with said policies or not).
Some of the military missions have been conducted in close coordination with the C.I.A., according to senior American officials, who said that in others, like the Special Operations raid in Syria on Oct. 26 of this year, the military commandos acted in support of C.I.A.-directed operations.
But as many as a dozen additional operations have been canceled in the past four years, often to the dismay of military commanders, senior military officials said. They said senior administration officials had decided in these cases that the missions were too risky, were too diplomatically explosive or relied on insufficient evidence.
More than a half-dozen officials, including current and former military and intelligence officials as well as senior Bush administration policy makers, described details of the 2004 military order on the condition of anonymity because of its politically delicate nature. Spokesmen for the White House, the Defense Department and the military declined to comment.
First, let's acknowledge that the leakers are malcontent dissenters, most surely emboldened by the election of Barack Obama. This sort of thing will only increase in the coming 10 weeks of transition, and it is shameful. The Times's insistence on publishing leaks of classified information is as shameful as the leakers' own conduct. Like the dissenters in our intelligence and military communities, the Times is equally emboldened by the prospects of an Obama presidency.
Second, the intent of the leak is to demonstrate a recklessness by the Bush administration, setting up Obama and Mil-Intel dissenters as responsible actors. Yet, if it was such a reckless implementation, how and why were international political sensitivities and vulnerabilities taken into account to the point where more than a few proposed missions were deep-sixed? The answer is because it was not reckless. Aggressive? You bet. But not irresponsible or reckless.
Third, it is both illegal and gutless that "current and former military and intelligence officials as well as senior Bush administration policy makers, described details of the 2004 military order on the condition of anonymity because of its politically delicate nature." That it was "politically delicate" is precisely why they leaked it, operational security and general secrecy be damned. They didn't give their names because they are betraying their public trust and breaking the law, and would face stiff prison sentences for disclosing classified military information. And for good reason.
There is much more and every word worthy.
What the New York Times has done was once clearly called treason but now, supposedly, we're that much more enlightened.
Or are we?
Comments