Very similar thoughts here, and I'm disturbed that our government didn't anticipate that result. This kind of communication-squashing scenario is what they designed the Internet for back in its military/scientific days, to begin with. More recently, we've had a decade of watching increasingly sophisticated ways to circumvent censorship firewalls or exchange files be created by idealistic programmers within days of having the previous approach eliminated by a government or corporation. If governments have an ounce of brainpower, they'll realize that the kind of network that would arise to handle WikiLeaks isn't something that they want out in the 'wild'.

Yes i agree, it will be good. Yet often what is "good" must first come from what is bad. For example consider multinational corporations vying for resource extraction from African nations. Some people will get jobs (low paying perhaps) but there will often be both the removal of resources for African use as well as stark contrasts made in terms of "haves" and "have nots", and we should all know that amount of wealth it self is not a measure of stability as much so as equality is. But in the end these corporations will "increase the welfare" by being there, right?

Consider the sheer obsessiveness of the US culture with consumption and entertainment media, and the habit of vicarious thought and perception which the citizens use to present their opinions on matters. Yet among all this is a deep reliance on technology: technology to vote for American Idol, technology to read the latests news bits and blogs (for ones opinions of course), technology simply to transfer all this information around, to hold an able device and be one equal material grounds with peers. Consider that this culture is perhaps not using technology to it's best advantage but rather towards other ends which are less favorable in terms of finding global unity, towards an end which is almost an embarrassment as to where we could be.

In essence, an empowered and knowledgeable population which understands the proceedings of the whole group and has the capacity to face with sober and rational discourse the issue of the globe at large will far outperform a small population of diplomats and elected officials which speak on a shakily defined "Behalf" of the USA people. Yet the time for this type of culture of technology empowered individuals is not yet now. The vast majority of the populace is still in their technology infancy, so to say, stroking their pleasure centers with media. Don't get me wrong, i love a good media, especially when it is an art which expresses the disgusting nature of USA culture. However, this is not a war between the state department and USG at large and wikileaks but rather the cultures which are represented. On one end you had lazy consumers who couldn't fathom the intricacies and sensitive nature of diplomatic relations from their current position, and the other is advocates who spend their life exposes the secrecy inherent in a system which will one day be seen as legacy as a new generation rises up to face the challenges in novel ways that cut through the bullshit.

So the question is, should diplomacy proceed as it does? For now, yes, for USA citizens are frankly too stupid and factioned, fragmented, to deal with issues as a group with coherence, yet the future potential is far more powerful and frankly to me it is worth it for the culture to become dismantled in order for the new method to arise. I understand that those in power now are afraid of nuclear material getting into the wrong hands and view their desire to prevent this as more important that most other things, but frankly it would be wise for them to reflect more openly on the culture which they seek to protect... cultures which may or may not truly be worth protecting.