WikiLeaks release of war documents is an act of political warfare

The release is highly likely to cost lives as the Taliban targets named informants for assassination.  People will be less willing to cooperate with the U.S.  This is a shame.  While there is a long history of CIA agents getting killed through the compromise of sources, the U.S. military had a stronger record on this—one of many reasons they have been able to cooperate well with locals in recent counterinsurgency operations.  Enemies and strategic competitors of the United States will review every single report on WikiLeaks to learn not only specific information, but to draw more general insights on how the U.S. collects and uses information.  Our strong and weak points will be noted and our adversaries’ strategies adjusted accordingly.

What is to be done?  For one thing, the Obama administration might start taking the War on Terror seriously and see this as political warfare, not free speech.  White House spokesman Robert Gibbs stated pathetically that all we could do was ask WikiLeaks not to post more reports, which it is expected to do.  Congress should investigate if we are truly so helpless.  Can we not insist that our NATO ally Iceland, where the site is hosted, shut the site?  Can we not use cyberwarfare to close the site and prevent subsequent disclosures?  Can we not ask our British allies, with their more robust Official Secrets Act, to pursue participants who fall under British jurisdiction?

Congress should also investigate how an intelligence leak of this magnitude could take place.  Reports indicate that Army Private Bradley Manning is suspected of being the source.  How is it that anyone, much less an Army private, can first access and then steal this mountain of classified information?  This contravenes the most basic tenets of compartmentalizing intelligence and tracking its consumption.  If the Obama administration values the lives of those who cooperate with the U.S. and provide us with vital information, we would expect to see serious actions taken in response.  But once unlawful dissemination was detected, what serious steps were taken to contain the information?  What systemic corrective actions have been taken to guard against the next Private Manning having the means and opportunity to violate his oath of office in the service of anti-Americans abroad?  These questions need to be answered.  So far, as with so many crises of the past two years, the Obama White House comes across as a deer in the headlights.

Mr. Yates was deputy national security adviser to the U.S. vice president from 2001 to 2005.  Mr. Whiton was a State Department official from 2003 to 2009 and served as a deputy special envoy.  They are respectively the president and principal of D.C. International Advisory LLC.