There's lots to learn in these cables. For example:
There were grave fears in Washington and London over the security of Pakistan's nuclear weapons programme, with officials warning that as the country faces economic collapse, government employees could smuggle out enough nuclear material for terrorists to build a bomb.That's a lot to digest all of itself, and there's much more to sift through. In spite of what your media might be claiming this is an important catalogue of living history and a good look at the people behind the curtain and what they're really up to. It'll no doubt slip down the memory hole far too fast to have the affect it should have on the public's perceptions of the people who are acting on their behalf. This is a feast of information that will no doubt be treated like fast food by the rapacious media.
There are allegations that Russia and its intelligence agencies are using mafia bosses to carry out criminal operations, with one cable reporting that the relationship is so close that the country has become a "virtual mafia state".
The cables names Saudi donors as the biggest financiers of terror groups, and provide an extraordinarily detailed account of an agreement between Washington and Yemen to cover up the use of US planes to bomb al-Qaida targets. One cable records that during a meeting in January with General David Petraeus, then US commander in the Middle East, Yemeni president Abdullah Saleh said: "We'll continue saying they are our bombs, not yours."
You can go read in the Globe and Mail about some of Canada's part in all this that, ...former CSIS director Jim Judd went so far as to complain that judicial rulings and public naiveté were paralyzing his spies – specifically lamenting that Canadians were prone to “knee-jerk anti-Americanism” and “paroxysms of moral outrage.”
It's good to see the former head of our spy service getting one right. I'm pretty much apoplectic with moral outrage because none of this is how I expect my government to behave in my name. He can call it naiveté if he likes, I take no offense. I simply hold that we can accomplish our strategic goals without compromising what we believe. Why cede the moral high ground without a fight? To prove that we can be tough guys too? Sounds childish, like something that belongs back in the schoolyard and not in the halls of international diplomatic dealings. And perhaps therein lies the problem and the reason for the US's embarrassment. They can't even argue through all this that the ends justifies the means as clearly the ends are merely their own selfish goals -- there's no higher purpose in all this. And as for the means, well the less said about that the better!