Four months ago, Steve Rendall wrote here (9/10/10) about the militarization of the State Department and its role in the continuing occupation of Iraq--developments that were getting little attention amidst all the talk of the "end" of the war.

Now Aaron Davis of the Washington Post (1/14/11) fills in some of those details, writing that "the contours of a large and lasting American presence here are starting to take shape." Davis adds that:

Planning is underway to turn over to the State Department some of the most prominent symbols of the U.S. role in the war--including several major bases and a significant portion of the Green Zone.

The department would use the bases to house a force of private security contractors and support staff that it expects to triple in size, to between 7,000 and 8,000, U.S. officials said.

The piece is worth reading, despite its unfortunate headline: "U.S. Plans for Presence in Iraq After Pullout." Obviously, if you're planning on being present somewhere, then you're not really "pulling out."

They don't show--at least in any significant way, with the caveat that thousands of e-mails still remain to be released--the U.S. government seriously misleading its allies. They don't show unauthorized war, fraudulent procurement practices or unexpected assassination. They don't show America forming significant alliances with sworn enemies or visiting unexpected deceit on friends.
--James Rainey on the "dearth of scandalous behavior" in the WikiLeaks material (L.A. Times, 12/1/10)

How good do you have to be to qualify as good? I haven't killed anybody. See, that's good, right? I haven't committed any felonies. I didn't start any wars. I don't practice cannibalism. Wouldn't you say that's pretty good?
--Calvin (Scientific Progress Goes "Boink")

Last night's broadcast of the PBS NewsHour (11/29/10) offered a discussion of the WikiLeaks documents. Who were the guests? As Judy Woodruff announced: "We turn to two former national security advisers with extensive experience in making and carrying out U.S. foreign policy. " That would be Carter's Zbigniew Brzezinski and George W. Bush's Stephen Hadley. The discussion was about as illuminating as one might expect.

Hours later on the Charlie Rose show, guest host Jon Meacham featured a typical Charlie Rose discussion: two reporters from the New York Times and former Clinton State Department aide Jamie Rubin. The Times reporters more or less retold stories they are reporting in the paper, so it was left to Rubin to hurl accusations against WikiLeaks:

I think the widespread dissemination of pretty much everything that the U.S. State Department does is an attack on the U.S. ability to operate in the world.  It's not on one policy, like I'm against Iraq War or I'm against the Afghan War.  It's an attack against the American government's ability to conduct its foreign policy, meaning America's being attacked in a cyber attack by a particular group of individuals who are trying to harm American foreign policy and therefore America, and therefore, in my opinion, harm the interests of the West.

Rubin went on to add:

And ironically, the State Department are the people who are trying to do the job that the WikiLeaks founder says he's trying to do, which is world peace.  It's not going to happen if the State Department can't make secret agreements sometimes with foreign leaders.

I wasn't aware that the State Department's job is to create world peace. But Jamie Rubin worked there, so he'd know better.