Sorry, that's an abysmal argument. The fact that human rights are mentioned is not at all proof that US intelligence cares about them, when there is clearly no regard for them in the actions.

Hegemony is a publicly stated goal of the US. What do you think that entails? What do you think is necessary for a nation of 327 million to be the hegemon over 7.5 billion?

I'm not sure what argument you're responding it, it doesn't sound like it's one I made. The point I'm making is about how these cables are characterized by the OP, not US policy. What they reveal is much closer to The Quiet American than, I dunno, Star Trek's Cardassians and that's an easy thing to check by looking at the cables.

> Hegemony is a publicly stated goal of the US.

Where? Stated by whom?

A president? We’ve had 46 with wildly conflicting public statements and goals. A Congress? We’ve had 117 sessions of Congress.

“The US” isn’t a single entity. I don’t think you can make any blanket statements across that much time and that many people much beyond “they are all humans.”

I'm not sure if I agree with the OP that it's publicly stated but the bipartisan hysteria towards China, Russia, or even one or two generations ago Japan (interesting historical piece[1]) is kind of constant. With very few exceptions American politics, however divided internally is generally unified in some McCarthy style campaign against this or that perceived foreign threat.

The prospect of the US having to live in a world shaped by forces it has no control over is melting brains across the board. Americans, and yes this is a generalization but not a wrong one, cannot imagine a world that is run on values utterly foreign to them.

[1]https://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/fortune_archive/1987...

Ah, I did qualify that statement with the search term 'SECRET' (classification level box) on the CableGate archive.

Yes, there are unclassified and even classified cables discussing human rights initiatives - but I'm guessing 'SECRET' is what they really care a lot about, and that stuff in my experience of reading literally hundreds of cables (okay I was leaning more towards energy research) that's just not an issue anywhere I've seen. For example, Syria? It's all about forcing Assad to cut ties with Iran and get into the Saudi-Qatar gas pipeline deal. UAE? Huge arms deals. Ditto for Saudi Arabia. For grim laughs, look up Raytheon and Yemen.

It's really not very flattering, although the writers seem intelligent and well-informed.

Oh I see, I misread it as scare-quoted secret rather than specific classification level but there are also piles of SECRET documents/cables that are about human rights, promotion of democracy, etc as well.

I don't think it makes much difference either way because I think you're over-interpreting the classification level as some sort of extra level care. All of this stuff was readily available to a Private First Class stuck on a forward base in the Iraqi desert. And I think my point still holds - whatever views one might have on US foreign policy, one can form them and support them just as well by simply reading the news. Besides piles of detail, the cables don't tell you anything different. They're basically this but for diplomacy:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TEtrT3E4vb8

Really? You have specific sources? Pretty sure last time I checked there wasn't much 'SECRET' communication about Saudi human rights abuses for example. Not anywhere really. . . I mean, we want to ban solar panels from China 'cause 'human rights' but where's the ban on Saudi oil imports?

Doesn't explain the heavy handed procecution then.

I wish we had moderation policies that would just remove mantras like the above, which contribute precisely zero to the conversation. We all know what they are: "do you like [licking or some variant thereof] that boot [, bootlicker]?", "cry more, libtard", etc. They only serve as a thought-terminating cliché, to assert the speaker's own tribal allegiance and to place their interlocutor on the 'wrong side'.

I really don't think HN would be any the worse if they were removed. Anyone who wants to have a slanging match rather than an intelligent exchange of ideas can go to the Other Site.

You're making a tone argument but calling it a thought-terminating cliche. Anyone who's capable of forming an opinion on the CIA's policies has already settled on one. On the other hand, the parent downplays the CIA's actions, starting off with "Whatever one might think of US diplomacy", which oozes of propaganda and should be called out.

Talking about places like "the Other Site" certainly sounds like tribalism though-- I hope that observation helps you on your journey!

Yes. Only the correct (i.e., pro natsec) position allowed. Good hacker ethos.

If you actually go through and read the cables they show the opposite of humanitarian interest. It's mostly horse trading and appeasing despots. Above all else, the empire must be maintained.