Questions as to the source of these documents - as with anything ‘official’ or ‘unofficial’.  RE: Cass Sunstein’s suggestion to ‘cognitively infiltrate’ (also, very disturbing alternate options he explores - basically amount to thought crimes or more ridiculous yet making thought crimes punishable via taxation)  The documents paints Afghanistan as a quagmire but also is being easily spun into vilifying the ISI/Pakistan and more problematically hyping the threat of Iran.  Ideologically we’ll see who benefits from this - as it doesn’t now appear that it will lead to deescalation (RE: Kucinich’s 92000 reasons) in the middle east, seems like unfortunately instead, it’s fueling an expansion, i.e. Obama responding by saying the documents tell us nothing new.  So continuing down the same line of reasoning, besides Iraq and Afghanistan we can add Pakistan Iran and realistically we better also add - Lebanon Syria Yemen Somalia and Sudan.  Point is, it’s a totally illogical response if the context is how these military engagements have been presented to us / framed by the media (both left and right leaning) - which means either there is a epidemic of idiocy amongst the politically influential (there’s not) or there’s other reasons.  Not a brilliant revelation by any means just pretty clear it doesn’t add up.  That’s where the relevant questions are I think.  Important to remember we can’t expect to remain sovereign if we abdicate power to ‘professionals’.