Let me begin by saying two things:
1. The U.S. government classifies too much information.
2. While a number of the leaked documents are embarrassing, they probably do not damage U.S. national security.
But there are dangers to these disclosures.
There is an old military saying “the first report is always wrong.” The WikiLeaks document dumps are, by and large, first reports. For example, in a report dated June 23, 2008, released in the second “dump,” two Iraqis reported to U.S. military personnel that British soldiers had beat them. Their physical appearance was consistent with their story. But did British soldiers do it? That cannot be known from the report. It is only after an investigation that one could decide whether the report of British abuse was accurate. This is why the analogy between WikiLeaks and the Pentagon Papers is false. The Pentagon Papers was a study prepared by researchers in the Defense Department. It was not a series of “first reports.” Original documents were a significant part of the foundation of the Pentagon Papers but it took a team of researchers building on that foundation to make sense of what had happened. Could WikiLeaks be used in this fashion? Yes. But this has not been done.
Reports indicate that many names were redacted from the latest dump. But some people might still be able to infer the source (human, electronic or whatever) that supplied the information in the report. This could result in the loss of that source.
While a number of the disclosures in the document dump are merely embarrassing, some may have more serious consequences. A number of media outlets have noted reports from South Korean government officials suggesting that Chinese officials have lost patience with the government of North Korea. At one level, this is a good thing. It may mean that the Chinese government will work to ratchet down the North Koreans and bring a peaceful end to the current crisis. However if the leadership of North Korea reads these reports will they be less likely to be influenced by China? Who knows? I am skeptical that anyone truly understands what motivates the government of North Korea. But it is unfortunate that these disclosures are taking place now.
A more mundane but still significant issue is if U.S. government officials believe that there is a good chance that their most private reports will become public, they may be less than candid in their appraisals. Lack of candor in reports cannot lead to good foreign policy.
Should all classified documents be locked away from the public forever? No. Is there a place for unauthorized disclosures? Yes. But what is needed is a thoughtful assessment of these documents to determine which ones are truly dangerous if released and which ones are not. Equally important, the veracity of documents needs to be assessed and they need to be placed in a larger, more coherent context. Does this assessment need to be the exclusive province of the government? No. A variety of media, scholars and other groups do this all the time. Would all these groups agree on what is and what is not dangerous? No. But the critical element that is lacking in the WikiLeaks dumps is any sense of discrimination about what is and is not likely to be true, and what is and is not likely to cause great damage.
Richard J. Stoll, Ph.D., is the Albert Thomas Professor of Political Science at Rice University, and a Rice scholar at the Baker Institute. Stoll’s current research includes forecasting terrorism, accounting for Chinese international economic activity and predicting support for NATO’s mission in Afghanistan among European countries.