It is certainly true that in war, information may bring not just power but victory. Each side to an armed conflict devotes considerable effort to protecting information about its own strengths, weaknesses, and plans, along with ferreting out information about the other side. The famous US slogan during World War II, “loose lips sink ships,” reflects a widespread understanding of the perils of allowing enemies to learn one’s weaknesses.

But beyond such immediate battle-related concerns, the appropriate relationship between security and disclosure proves far more complex and contentious. Within defense and intelligence circles, information is often shared on a “need to know” basis. Yet very often, those who hold the information are in no position to evaluate who else has a “need to know.” Bureaucracies reflexively respond to threats by attempting to hide vulnerabilities, but it is not always clear that security is best promoted by secrecy. Concealing vulnerabilities removes public pressure to do something about those vulnerabilities, and it also prevents the public from being itself able to respond appropriately. The one successful action taken on September 11, 2001 to counter the attacks came not from the government but from ordinary citizens—the passengers on the fourth plane who, when informed of what the hijackers were attempting to do, heroically thwarted the planned attack.

Conclusion

Most of the other arguments for secrecy, from privacy to protection of the deliberative process, similarly have a certain degree of validity but are easily exaggerated and exploited by agents who are simply unwilling to accept scrutiny. And in considering the costs of openness, it is also important to consider the costs of secrecy. The growing US penchant for secrecy affects more than the practice of democracy at home. It threatens to undermine a global trend toward greater transparency everywhere. That trend serves the US national interest, as well as the interest of citizens globally. Transparency is a crucial tool in the effort to create a world of well-governed, stable market democracies. In his November 6, 2003, speech on democracy, President Bush proclaimed that “the advance of freedom is the calling of our time; it is the calling of our country.” If he means it, transparency is a tool he should not readily throw away.