America is Wikileak’s true enemy — by guest blogger Steve Schippert *UPDATED*

A question about Wikileaks was posed by my best and closest friend in this life who nominally follows such things. My dear friend queried, “I need you to explain to me who Wikileaks is, and why they would release sensitve documents that could compromise national security. In layman’s terms please.”

In answering, care was taken to avoid punching the screen or writing in flames. My opinion of Wikileaks, Julian Assange and those who support them and feed them classified material marginally meets NC-17 standards at best. Likewise, care was also taken to avoid technical military- or intelligence-speak. Layman’s terms it was.

And in the end, it must be acknowledged that ones view of Wikileaks is less reflective of Wikileaks or Julian Assange and exponentially more reflective of ones views of America herself. This is a truth that cannot be avoided in honest, quiet, personal reflection.

Below, my quickly hammered out response in answer to the question, “Who is Wikileaks.” Best understood by first pondering, “Who is America?”


Wikileaks is a small cabal of people who, in their own site description, “Publishes and comments on leaked documents alleging government and corporate misconduct.”

In reality, what they are is a like-minded gathering of hardcore Leftists who see their greatest enemies and threats as the American military and intelligence coupled with free market capitalism.

For instance, when they say they expose documents on “government abuse,” what they mean — almost exclusively in practice — is that they fish for folks to send them secret operational documents potentially damaging to the US military and intelligence. They create entire waves of news cycles. The intent is to damage military ops in Iraq, Afghanistan and elsewhere. The reality is that they get people killed. Names of Afghans and Iraqis who have cooperated with us have been exposed publicly — and they have been snuffed out by al-Qaeda and other like-minded enemies. Usually quite gruesomely.

When they say they expose leaked documents on “corporate misconduct,” what they mean is that they do so for documents that are seen to be damaging to the concept of free-market capitalism — the basis of our economy — for the purposes of presenting central governmental control of the economy, redistribution of wealth, and fomenting class warfare. They see themselves in this sense as some modern version of Robin Hood.

Notice that they do not seek or publish secret documents about or from within, say, the Iranian regime’s nuclear weapons program or its slaughter of its own citizens in the streets — especially since last year. No, that’s because the enemy, for them, is America. America and its free market economy is the real enemy — of mankind.

Imagine a small cabal doing this during World War II. How long would they be doing this damage? Why is it different now? Because we are more enlightened? Because in 1942, our patriotism was rote, recited and robotic without thinking?

In order to understand what you really think of Wikileaks, you have to ask yourself one simple question:

Do I think the United States is what’s wrong with the world? Does our economic system make people poor? Are our companies evil, greedy abusers? Is our military ruthless and murderous?

If you think yes, then you agree with the Wikileaks folks and their supporters, and probably see them as courageous information warriors fighting a righteous fight against a deadly, greedy machine and for the little people.

If you think no, then you disagree with them and their supporters, and probably see them as traitorous saboteurs who get American troops and their foreign cooperators and intelligence sources killed.

You have to decide, and it has little to do with Wikileaks and everything to do with what you think of America, for all her imperfections. There is no middle ground on this one.


You can follow Steve Schippert on Twitter and Facebook.

Steve Schippert is a National Security analyst, writer and commentator and co-founder of and the Center for Threat Awareness, a 501(c)3 non-profit. He has been published by the Washington Times, National Review, The Weekly Standard and others. Steve has been a frequent guest on national and local radio shows and has also guest hosted.

UPDATE:  Bookworm here, suggesting you might find interesting a related post I did about the New York Times‘ approach to the WikiLeak documents.

Be Sociable, Share!
  • Danny Lemieux

    I don’t know why the nature of WikiLeaks is in question. Whatever the question is, though, the answer should be a Predator Drone with a Hellfire missile. These people are traitors, pure and simple.

  • Gringo

    Another point about Wikileaks is that while Wikileaks wants [some] governments to be transparent,  the funding of Wikileaks  is, shall we say, anything but transparent.
    Pot, meet kettle.

  • Ymarsakar

    It’s an enemy spy organization. The natural solution was to break the circle by taking one person under interrogation, breaking them, and then scooping up the rest.

  • Zhombre

    I agree with Danny. These people are quislings, and should share the fate of Quisling. They are endangering American soldiers and Afghan civilians and are objectively aiding Taliban murderers.

  • Pingback: Bookworm Room » WikiLeaks: Everything you always wanted to know about the New York Times, but thought might make you sick()

  • Pingback: Wikileaks Releases Classified Documents Detailing Iraqi Police Abuse()

  • Spartacus

    Sometimes the most disagreeable situations can provide for the most interesting discussions.
    As Daniel Pipes recently observed, Anwar al-Awlaki is technically an American citizen, but quite obviously an Al Qaeda member, and now living in Yemen: precisely how should we neutralize the threat that he poses while still giving an appropriate nod to his civil rights and due process as an American citizen?
    And now, we have Julian Assange, an Australian, who is a member of a group which somehow obtains large quantities of our state secrets and publishes them: precisely how should we guard our classified info without alienating our allies by resorting to rather rough methods with some of their citizens?
    (And purely as an aside, how on Earth did anyone get such a treasure trove of classified documents anyway?  Are these not stored securely and accessed only on a compartmented, need-to-know basis?  Who would have such unrestricted access?  Was it a military person, or a political appointee?  If a political appointee, is this their best attempt at an October surprise?  No, I don’t assign a high likelihood to this scenario, but as a process-of-elimination-style thinker, I like throwing all possibilities onto the blackboard before erasing most of them.)

  • Ymarsakar

    The document was leaked by a gay member of the US military that got favorable treatment and a top secret classification.
    That was, of course, only some of the documents. But it was a lot.


    The leaker (Wikileaks) and the leakees (NYT, Guardian) or in legal terms the former receives stolen property and the latter profits from the theft and neither are prosecuted raise the question – Why Not? Am I missing something in the story. A quick count: 79,000 pages initially, another 400,000 with a sordid promise of another 17,000 pages and it’s nearly and half million pages and we have been given only two names, Julian Assange and a single soldier?
    Spartacus raised the same points. A tweaked line from Jaws: We’re gonna need a bigger blackboard.

  • vanderleun

    “And now, we have Julian Assange, an Australian, who is a member of a group which somehow obtains large quantities of our state secrets and publishes them: precisely how should we guard our classified info without alienating our allies by resorting to rather rough methods with some of their citizens?”
    These days there’s only one way to stop people like this.

  • suek

    There needs to be the SSS solution.
    The one where everybody _knows_ what happened, but nobody can prove anything.  Otherwise, there’s going to be some nasty goings on.


    WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange and his organisation are famously liberal with the secrets of the U.S. military – but the man is not so forthcoming about his own private life.
    Australian-born Mr Assange walked out on a CNN interview after the reporter had the temerity to ask him about his often terse relationship with fellow workers – and an even more serious personal court case in which he was cleared of sex abuse charges in Sweden.
    Read more: Don’t be surprised if there’s an increase in the cost of ‘hiking’ boots – looks like Julian watches The View ;