Interesting thoughts.

Your focus on the leaks seems to be on the subset of leaked information that might actually put US troops/operations in danger. I think your argument is strong when applied to those leaks only.

However what about the leaks that are simply "bad news" about the war? My take is that a large chunk of the recent Wikileaks (as well as the apache helicopter video) fall into the category of bad news rather than qualify as useful intelligence for an adversary.

Perhaps our intuitions about Wikileaks diverge because of our different assessments of the character of the bulk of the leaked info.

I would argue that Wikileaks the institution could (and probably ought to) cleanse the leaked info of information that directly aids in the enemy's intelligence gathering effort. This may be part of an evolving Wikileaks institution, etc.

Bad news, however, is fair game, and the traditional media has tasked itself with a shockingly minimal range of things to consider bad news. To get a notion of the extent of war cheer-leading in the US media, watch the animated graphics that slide in when war topics are discussed (the Onion had a brilliant parody of this).

Also, the case could be made that the leaks make it harder for Obama to continue to wage war. Ultimately, pulling out the troops will save more lives and limbs than the leaks will endanger. I'm not arguing that Wikileaks is good b/c pulling out is good, only bringing this up because I think that if soldier lives are the barometer we use this argument ought to be considered.

I agree with you in theory that the US war machine should be restructured, but I consider that highly unlikely to happen via the democratic process, especially if there is such tight propaganda control over the information that gets out about how the war is being waged.

Fortunately, I think Americans get a bad taste in their mouths when watching the Apache helicopter video. Most will (rightly) not condemn the soldiers, but will instead have a realization about the ugliness of war... and most importantly the imprecision of war.

I'm not entirely a pacifist, but I generally believe that people prefer peace and trade and don't care much about the grand causes their leaders use to rally them to war.

The biggest realization for me has been just how critical propaganda is to waging war. Years and Billions had been spent villianizing Saddam Hussein, a former ally, and even today well meaning people all over the western world help with the next phase of war propaganda as they decry mistreatment of women in the Arab world. Sure it's bad, but who wouldn't want to invade and teach a lesson to the people who cut the nose off of the fine featured woman on the recent Time magazine cover.

Wars can only be waged by the US if several of the following conditions are met: a) The US has the moral high ground, b) we are saving someone, c) we are dropping bombs on people with a backward culture, d) the enemy leader is insane and potentially religiously fervent.

I think it's important to observe just how significant and deep the propaganda is about the middle east in the US, and how ripe Americans are to approve of more wars there.

It is here that I think our rationality is being challenged most aggressively.

Wikileaks succeeds if it casts doubt on the official story, the official numbers, the official assessments.

Perhaps domination/destabilization of the middle east is crucial for the continued success of the US empire, but I think it comes with a fairly high moral pricetag. To the extent that Wikileaks aids us in seeing through the propaganda and making an accurate moral judgment of the wars, it makes us a wiser, more humane people.