I loved the comment on Berlusconi, saying his "constant partying" means he is rarely in good shape at important meetings. LMAO, I know that's how many Italians feel about him too:a real emperor Nero character.
With regard to secrecy, in extremis WL do run a risk of throwing people on the ground to the wolves: people who have been cooperating with the CIA for instance. But we've seen enough lying and trumped-up storytelling by the US and UK authorities and media already and it's not more acceptable just because they're "our boys".
On the whole I agree. Risks mostly can't be avoided all the time during a war, even if some operations are turkey shoots because one side is so superior - in airpower or the like. But having thousands of your own soldiers killed in a short time is much more touchy now than fifty or eighty years ago. Especially if it's far away in another continent.Originally Posted by Thorne
In the old days, let's say during WW1, a general could throw a hundred thousand men into a desperate or misguided pitch, forget about those who were killed and hang medals on those who came out alive - even if they hadn't gained any substantial victory. The media in those days didn't put any effort into finding out how people had died on the battlefield and didn't follow up widows, refugees or sons who seemed to show an "unpatriotic" attitude. Running operations that way is not really possible anymore, unless there seems to be a decent reason for making the assault at that place and time it isn't readily accepted by the public when theyu get to hear of it. That's progress, I'd say, not lack of civic spirit, and Wikileaks help bringing out information on how and why wars are conducted that's quite welcome.