You're also selectively quoting the document, and also ignoring how these statements only make claims about first-order impacts, not follow-on effects. The document also says, for example, "there is the potential for serious damage in two critical areas: 1) risks to intelligence sources, informants, and the Afghan population, and 2) U.S./NATO SIGINT collection methods and capabilities." - First, do you care about Afghans, and in particular those Afghans who help the U.S.? Then you should acknowledge that Wikileaks almost certainly got some of them killed. Second, as I noted, the document doesn't get into follow-on effects; does it not do "real harm to U.S. interests" when foreigners are less likely to help us because they're afraid of getting doxed by outfits like Wikileaks, and does it not do "real harm to U.S. interests" for U.S. intelligence methods and capabilities to be damaged? Of course it does. Which do you think was better Mr George Ziogas: Afghanis under U.S. occupation, or the current Taliban back in power? Wikileaks almost certainly helped the current Taliban come back into power.