Crime & Federalism

In the latest corporate- and government-sponsoered attack on Wikileaks, the Economist and other sources argue that Wikileaks is making diplomats less effective. People no claim that "diplomacy will no longer be possible." 

So what if "diplomacy would no longer be possible"? Is the U.S. suddenly going to collapse? Why should I care if "diplomacy" is no longer possible?

What have our diplomatic relations accomplished? The Saudis are still funding terrorist groups. China is hacking into Google. Pakistan is hiding terrorists. And yet we invaded Iraq.

Yes, although the Saudis are the ones funding Bin Laden, we invaded Iraq. How is this logical? Why haven't we invaded Saudi Arabia? Why haven't our "diplomatic relations" with Saudi Arabia led to the arrest of the Saudis who are funding Bin Laden?

It seems our diplomacy has been an epic fail. Why continue with our failed diplomatic relations policy? Let's just bring the incompetent diplomats home.

The U.S. could shut down every embassy office in the world, and the only people who would be impacted would be favor-traders who raise money in order to become diplomats.

You do realize, don't you, that one does not become a diplomat through any objective qualification? Instead, you raise a lot of money/do a lot of favors for the political elite. Then you become Ambassador.

If Embassy offices were staffed with the most qualified instead of cronies, maybe there'd be a point to the Economist article. Yet that's not how the system works.

Thus, the article's entire logic fails due to a faulty premise. Because "diplomacy" - at least how it's done by the U.S. Department of State - is such an failure, then Wikileaks does not harm U.S. interests.

By the way, if the Wikileaks stuff is so dangerous to good citizens everywhere, and is a danger to national security...Where are the bodies? Shouldn't people have been killed by now?

Or is the attack on Wikileaks more Big Government fear mongering?