Yeah I really think you are conflating "leaking of information" with WikiLeaks, and I wouldn't go that far at all. Also we've drug all sorts of things in here. For instance, let's not go down the stability/terrorism/history of the mideast route. Love to do it, but another day.

Pentagon Papers -- not a major revelation but what could be considered an important leak. One could argue that over a million folks were killed as a result of the leak, but that would, alas, broaden the scope. Lets assume some leaks are warranted (a position I hold)

Does that mean any leaks are warranted? I hope we can both agree not.

I'm also concerned that we may be conflating the fact that something is bad with a justification for something else. Yes, the military-industrial complex is bad, the secrecy is bad, the 47-thousand intelligence programs are bad (in their complexity, loose missions, and overlap). But does that mean that any kind of secrecy is bad? Withholding a video of a helicopter crew killing people they shouldn't? Exposing which exactly how each Afghan leader is corrupt?

Information is power, and I would hope that -- for all the hundreds of billions we are spending -- we are managing a good chunk of valuable information that we're not giving out. I would hope this as a voter. Hell, we're paying an arm and a leg, we had better be knowing all sorts of interesting things we can use. So let's acknowledge that a key part of conducting a war is the gaining, withholding, and dissemination of information.

This means that war is a funny duck. If you keep from me the information on how much HUD is spending on junkets, that hurts a democracy. If you keep from me how General X is changing tactics to fight the Taliban, that's a necessary part of the social contract.

Hamilton and Madison understood this, and argued for a president with total dictatorial powers in times of crisis. There is a place for a "king" and a "Secret police" in the constitution. The office of the executive and the role of secrecy can't go away. Not that I can see.

What's happened, of course, is that we've gone from this war-is-exceptional mentality to one in which we're always in some kind of low-level "war" about something or another. Congress has given up its power to declare war, basically, because it was easier just not to make a political commitment about any particular conflict. Add to that the billions invested in a war machine with pretty much nothing to do, and you have a recipe for a situation where secrecy can be used not to fight a war, but to prevent citizens from adjusting policy.

Ugh.

I think we're on the same page so far.

I think what you point out so well is that, as we've redefined "war", we've redefined how we talk about it. One side wants pictures of entrails and tortured orphans while another would have us push buttons and pop out for scones. This is part of the larger trend of war becoming this low level political thing instead of this huge clash of cultures.

But -- and this is my key point -- that doesn't mean that our kids aren't suffering and dying overseas. And that means, for me, secrecy and staying the course. You don't send somebody to risk his life and die on the condition that he make it look good on TV. At least I don't.

So, to the larger question, how does one monitor the progress of a war? That's a helluva question, grandalf, especially these new kinds of wars. I think this pattern where we lie to ourselves, then have some magic revelation (like the Pentagon Papers) then pull out and cause more chaos and death? That's pretty dysfunctional. Could you have total openness? I can't see that either -- you simply can't conduct combat and COIN operations totally open. Geesh frack, a reporter in Afghanistan won't show the face of a tribal leader who's helping the Americans because they have compassion and common sense. And we would leak hundreds of names and cheer?

I think that the only place for the citizenry to go is to argue the general principles of the "conflict". Do we know COIN? Are we able to implement it? Could we use a proxy force? Is this a situation where failure to act could result in the deaths of tens or hundreds of thousands of citizens of that country (by our hand) at some later date?

My solution is to take DoD back to it's old name: The War Department. Then form up a new agency or branch of service specifically for low-level, nation-building, COIN operations. Redefine war as a commitment that involves a national draft -- any other commitment is not a war. At that point, once we're clear on what things are and what they are supposed to do, we can talk about when to use them and why.

War is supposed to punch people in the gut. But that doesn't mean that anybody who hits them in the gut is doing the right thing. The system is totally out of control. But that doesn't mean that anybody who fights it is actually doing a good thing. I find that we agree on 90-99% of the problems. I just don't think any kind of action at all is going to work.

Hell, if I thought Wikileaks had a shot at doing the things I've outlined above, I'd be all over it. But all it's doing is playing the propaganda role for some enemy who is too pathetic to do their own propaganda. That's not fixing the system. Evening the balance? I don't know. I'm really not all that crazy about some random person on the net deciding to "even the balance" That's whacked.

You can't fix a structural problem with a system that you need by attacking the entire system. Because as bad as it might be, it probably does some good things, and it can always be worse. You have to fix the structural problem. And wikileaks isn't doing that. They're just out for themselves.

We are firefighters, at the fire station, and the firetruck is broken. Whenever anybody lights a match, it takes off and dumps millions of gallons of water on them. Maybe runs over a few people standing outside the building. We don't blow up the firetruck. Hell, we don't even talk about what it's doing right now. We fix it. We fix the structural and naming problems. Because simply because the firetruck is broken doesn't mean that there's never going to be a fire. And, unfortunately, we have an intelligent firetruck. If we try to attack it, it will adapt and overcome. And then we're in some long battle with firetrucks instead of doing our job.

(note to self. Do not attempt extended metaphor until first coffee is consumed)