The New York Times Publishes More War Secrets

Back from taking our daughter to summer camp, I checked the headlines and was excited to see the New York Times headline, "U.S. General in Iraq Outlines Troop Cuts." My excitement turned to a disgusted rage as I read the Times article:

The top American commander in Iraq has drafted a plan that projects sharp reductions in the United States military presence there by the end of 2007, with the first cuts coming this September, American officials say.

According to a classified briefing at the Pentagon this week by the commander, Gen. George W. Casey Jr., the number of American combat brigades in Iraq is projected to decrease to 5 or 6 from the current level of 14 by December 2007.

Under the plan, the first reductions would involve two combat brigades that would rotate out of Iraq in September without being replaced. Military officials do not typically characterize reductions by total troop numbers, but rather by brigades. Combat brigades, which generally have about 3,500 troops, do not make up the bulk of the 127,000-member American force in Iraq, and other kinds of units would not be pulled out as quickly.

American officials emphasized that any withdrawals would depend on continued progress, including the development of competent Iraqi security forces, a reduction in Sunni Arab hostility toward the new Iraqi government and the assumption that the insurgency will not expand beyond Iraq's six central provinces. Even so, the projected troop withdrawals in 2007 are more significant than many experts had expected.

General Casey's briefing has remained a closely held secret, and it was described by American officials who agreed to discuss the details only on condition of anonymity. Word of the plan comes after a week in which the American troop presence in Iraq was stridently debated in Congress, with Democratic initiatives to force troop withdrawals defeated in the Senate.

What is it with the New York Times? Why does the Times find it acceptable to publish stories revealing information it admits is classified?

In December, the Times revealed the NSA's classified program of intercepting of Al-Qaeda communications with people in the U.S. Last week the Times published details the federal government's classified program to gather data from a Belgium-based consortium that handles international bank transfers which enables the government to track terrorists' funds. And now the Times publishes classified plans concerning troop levels in a war zone.

Michelle Malkin has rounded up some Photoshopped WWII-like posters which nicely sum up my feelings about the Times' publishing war secrets. The posters are worth viewing.

At Captain's Quarters, Ed Morrissey cautions that the Times' story "does little but confirm the strategy that the White House and DoD have stated from the time Saddam Hussein got chased out of Baghdad." That may be true, but the material is classified and it isn't the prerogative of the Times to decide to reveal such information.

Comments

[gary cruse]

"Why does the Times find it acceptable to publish stories revealing information it admits is classified?"

Because the administration has demonstrated, ala Sandy Berger et al, that the executive does not have the cajones to enforce laws that do not arise directly from the Commerce clause. Granted, that is a diminishing sector.

My anger at the treasonous media outing classified material has a counterpart in my disgust with Bush retroactively classifying information going back to the admininstration of his father, which is not only anally retentive but smacks of despotism.

I'd like to see President Bush be as interested in expanding liberty at home as he is abroad and as eager to alienate domestic opponents as he is our allies.

God, I'd love to see Newt in the White House.

[California Yankee]

Thanks Kip. The correct article is now linked.

[KipEsquire]

You seem to have linked to the wrong article.