BOAC
As always, your posts are thought provoking.
You and/or Mrs BOAC appear to be saying that individuals, disenchanted with the way events are unfolding in the Middle East, are doing the right thing by reporting military failures/ embarrassments/ perceived transgressions of Rules of War, to organisations such as Wikileaks. Should I have read your post correctly, I respond as follows.
I believe it was right to invade both Iraq and Afghanistan on the terms that we did. Clearly, the results have not been what we had hoped and the loss of so many good people has caused me to question my beliefs (daily) and wonder if it would not be better just walking away.
Nonetheless, no amount of "Monday Morning Quarterbacking" can change the fact that the reasons we went in are as valid now as they were then; namely;
Afghanistan: Firstly, to deny a safe haven to Terrorist Organisations/ quasi military organistions that had established a proven track record in causing measurable harm to our civilian citizens, and their way of life, both of which we, as a legitimate military, are charged to protect. These organisations were attempting to use their success as leverage to alter our Foreign Policy, particularly in the Middle East, a strategically important area to this country and a region containing Israel.
Secondly, to protect Women and those who did not share the Taleban's hard-line views.
Iraq: Firstly, to remove the regime of Saddam Hussein. A regime that had invaded one of it's neighbours, continued to threaten a number of his neighbours, some of whom were granted protection by formal Treaty or by our Foreign Policy. His regime had engaged in acts of genocide and used Chemical weapons on his own citizens. Under, UN mandate we placed our aircraft over his territory in an effort to protect his own people. He repeatedly fired upon those aircraft.
Saddam had made threats towards the West, and whilst these threats had never been taken too seriously, 911 had caused a major re-think over the ability of smaller countries to unduly effect larger countries. Sanctions, whilst successful in hurting Iraqs' poor, had failed to unduly affect Sadam's regime. Moreover, France and Russia were gaining traction in getting sanctions eased. Sanctions were doomed to fail.
Secondly, to establish a successful vibrant democracy in Iraq thereby destabilizing Iran and other hard-line ME states in a similiar way the Warsaw Pact broke up in the 1990s.
I accept that many will disagree with what I have just written and that is of course is their right. However, what is not their right is to engage in leaking sensitive material to the press or any other organisations that they know will use that material to embarrass the UK Military and/or use it for purposes the "whistle-blower" has not contemplated. Should they have witnessed any event that they believe to be wrong, there are ample avenues other than publicly embarrassing and undermining the efforts and sacrifices of their comrades. They would be wise to study a quote from Saul Alinsky;
"There can be no such thing as a successful traitor, for if one succeeds, he becomes a founding father".
In other words, the difference between a freedom-fighter/Patriot and a re-viled traitor is to back the winning side.... I do not see Wikileaks as being the winning side in this matter.