It was another century and another U.S. Army, which has undergone many a change for the better since it was the largely conscripted force of the Eisenhower years.
It was the late 1950s, and out in Oklahoma's scrublands around Fort Sill, a G-2 officer was critiquing one of our field exercises, trying to teach us ROTC cadets some of the rudiments of military intelligence (yes, I know, some say that's an oxymoron) and maybe even just a little plain intelligence.
What he'd done was police the area after our artillery unit had used it as a firing base. He'd picked up some of the trash we'd overlooked -- scraps of paper, a hometown newspaper, half-written letters home, and even a field manual we'd left behind ("Notes for the Battery Executive").
He went through each one, pointing out that even what looked like an innocuous note might yield important information -- like the time and place of the mission, the size of the force, its composition, equipment, leadership, morale ... you name it.
Gentle Reader can just imagine the treasure trove of information -- I certainly can -- now available to this country's enemies in the estimated 92,000 classified documents that Wikileaks has just released.
Julian Assange, an Australian who identifies himself as Wikileaks' "editor-in-chief," pops up in London from time to time to propagandize. He might like to compare this document dump to the celebrated Pentagon Papers case back in the Vietnam Years. (The other day, he was posing in front of a picture from the Vietnam War.) But the release of that secret history of the war didn't tell the American public anything new, nor did it contain anything that directly threatened national security, however much it might have done to undermine public support for the war.
In contrast, there's no telling how many names, places, dates and disclosures are hidden in this pile of paper that's just hit the fan. Though you can bet our enemies will be poring over it. So will any and all kinds of snoops who have an interest in how American forces operate -- and not with an eye to helping them.
To quote a former CIA director, Michael Hayden, "If I had gotten this trove on the Taliban or al-Qaida, I would have called this priceless. ... If I'm head of the Russian intelligence, I'm getting my best English speakers and saying: 'Read every document, and I want you to tell me, how good are these guys? What are their approaches, their strengths, their weaknesses and their blind spots.' "