cimmaron---my response is basically that i see opposition to the entire operation as plausibly ethical or political or even strategic--if your comrades are consistently in harms way and there seems no purpose to it and no prospect that it'll change and nothing leads you to think that there's much hope of things changing, then functionally it's ethical or political. or exposing an operation become absurd. and the legality of the action doesn't change anything about its absurdity.
that as a way to expand the terminology to include how i used it.
but in the end, it's just a metaphor.
in reality, my position is close to loquitor's. but i'm also really curious about the documents, so i've been reading them as time permits. but i've come to no particular interpretation or conclusion about what i've been reading. but then again, i've not had much time. maybe on the weekend.
as an aside, i stumbled across this "iconic imagery" blog, which has some interesting photography, particularly about afghanistan. to wit:
Mythic Visions in Afghanistan | NO CAPTION NEEDED
and this guardian just released this 15 minute clip from sean smith, someone about whom i know nothing but who is to be featured in tomorrow's edition, about life on the front near helmand:
Video: Endgame in Afghanistan: 'It's taken a year to move 20km' | World news | guardian.co.uk
i doubt this would've been released this way a week ago.
for better or worse.