Quote of the day: Gates on WikiLeaks and the nature of foreign policy

Posted By Thomas E. Ricks Wednesday, December 1, 2010 - 10:30 AM Share

Defense Secretary Gates' comments Tuesday on WikiLeaks and the nature of foreign policy are worth reading:

Now, I've heard the impact of these releases on our foreign policy described as a meltdown, as a game-changer, and so on. I think -- I think those descriptions are fairly significantly overwrought. The fact is, governments deal with the United States because it's in their interest, not because they like us, not because they trust us, and not because they believe we can keep secrets. Many governments -- some governments deal with us because they fear us, some because they respect us, most because they need us. We are still essentially, as has been said before, the indispensable nation.

So other nations will continue to deal with us. They will continue to work with us. We will continue to share sensitive information with one another.

Is this embarrassing? Yes. Is it awkward? Yes. Consequences for U.S. foreign policy? I think fairly modest.

blprnt_van/flickr

EXPLORE:MILITARY, OBAMA ADMINISTRATION, U.S. FOREIGN POLICY

(3)

HIDE COMMENTS LOGIN OR REGISTER REPORT ABUSE

FERAL JUNDI

5:57 PM ET

December 1, 2010

The Valuable Hide Of Julian Assange

You know, this quote of Secretary Gate's has been cut and pasted, and spread all over the blogosphere as some kind of rally cry. 'It's not as bad as you think guys, trust me!!!!' Or at least that is what he wants you to believe. lol I beg to differ.....

A couple of things of concern that Mr. Gates forgot to mention. It is not what Julian has posted, but what Julian has not posted on wikileaks that needs to be talked about. Specifically, the file called 'insurance'. My question on this is what is in this file that is so damaging? (compared to the known damage of the most recent posts--the largest national security breach of classified/secret documents in our country's history)

And my second point is why are we allowing Julian to walk around freely, knowing full well that an enemy of the US could kidnap Julian and extract that information from him through any means necessary?

I mean we might not have the courage to arrest and charge him directly, nor do we have the political will to torture or kill him. But be warned, he is a walking treasure chest of information that organized crime, terrorists, and countries that do not like us, would greatly benefit if they were to kidnap him and extract that info. I also think these groups are carefully watching what Julian posts next, and will only strike when they are indeed threatened. Until then, they are sitting back, eating popcorn, and taking notes on all the wonderful information on wikileaks.

So the question I have is that do we wait for someone else to capture him, or do we get him first? Or do you allow this animal to walk around with it's hide of valuable information, just screaming to be harvested by a poacher? Maybe Secretary Gates would like to answer that one?

DMDENNIS

9:25 PM ET

December 1, 2010

Once again, Bob Gates is the

Once again, Bob Gates is the most sane guy in the whole room.

I really need to make an "I <3 Gates" shirt one of these days.

-Dave

WALKING WOUNDED

10:26 PM ET

December 1, 2010

'indispensable nation' status makes us...

'indispensable nation' status makes us the dog everyone wants to wag, especially that most special tail in the Levant. And the target in the crosshairs of every other continental economic combine.

I think wikileaks is the last (or at least engame) huzza of the internet's vanishing freewheeling days, before gov't takeover. As the 'Feral' comment above illustrates, Cheney's 1% Doctrine dictates that the mere threat of a leak justifies the extinction of that channel. Dick is gone, but the heads that guard the crown still dream fitfully.

(Re 'insurance' for Team Assange, our famously well connected tail in the Levant boasts badasses that a muckraker might well fear. We know that our CIA had nothing to do with the Kennedies... because they died.)

So far, Juan Cole's take has been more interesting than the 'damn that Julian' discussion I've read here. As others have suggested, perhaps our BD host 'protesteth too much?'