I've been struck of late (as have many other commenters on the internecine struggles within the Bush acministration) about the strategic divulging of information. (So much so, that I'm tending to question all divulging as strategic, perhaps giving more credit than is warranted to the protagonists (or is it antagonists) in the White House, OVP, DoD, DoS, and CIA?)
Witness the NY Times reporting on the deaths of two special ops:
Two C.I.A. Operatives Killed in an Ambush in Afghanistan
While a stark reminder of all that's undone (in every sense of the word) in Afghanistan, there was this tempting little nugget:
"The C.I.A. does not normally identify its covert employees, but the agency said in the statement that it had decided to release their names after consulting with the men's families and determining that the information would not jeopardize continuing operations."
Indeed, a political firestorm erupted about the outing of a CIA operative (name divulged differently and in different circumstances, to be sure).
Well, one might reasonably ask, why the exception in this instance? I'm not proffering any grand theory of strategic divulgence. In fact, this exception to its normal practice probably has as much to do with the fact that these operatives were killed in what amounted to combat as anything else.
Still, it caught my attention in my pre-caffeinated fog: in a time when the president is openly hostile to (and indeed potentially politically threatened by) the CIA, we may as well ponder any exception to normal procedure.