Watchmen: Cable Guy, the Sequel

Here is my favorite line from this morning's New York Times story by Eric Schmitt on the two cables sent in November by Ambassador Karl Eikenberry to senior officials involved in President Obama's Afghanistan strategy review:

... the strong language of the cables may increase tensions between the ambassador and the Karzai government, especially as world leaders meet in London on Thursday to discuss a much-debated Afghan plan to reintegrate Taliban fighters.

At least, we can only hope that the leak will increase those tensions, because any fireworks at the London Conference and the ensuing recriminations in Kabul would make for great copy in the Times.

I had started to get over my previous sour note about the quality of reporting on Afghanistan, until I came across this example of conflict obsession, political category. The substance of the Ambassador's cables leaked when they mattered: during the strategy deliberations. What's the purpose of leaking them in full this week? Because it's "important for the historical record that Mr. Eikenberry’s detailed assessments be made public," as the high-minded Times source suggested? Because if the Times didn't, someone else would? Because the putrid stench of a dead controversy remains irresistible, even on the cusp of a possible political breakthrough that would help resolve the conflict in Afghanistan?

We can only speculate on the motivations, but one thing is clear. Arthur O. Sulzberger, Jr., now has the inside track on next year's Nobel Peace Prize.