Is the role of secrecy making "us" more secure? This is not to completely disagree with A. Wellerstein's thesis, however, it seems a very naive position for a h

Is the role of secrecy making "us" more secure? This is not to completely disagree with A. Wellerstein's thesis, however, it seems a very naive position for a historian to frame it this way (arguably a strawman fallacy). As a reaction to this piece (though I do like A. W.'s blog in general) I would suggest to write down the assumption he holds axiomatic, which are in-fact not, and explore this issue again. Secrecy is typically an aggressive stand, a denial of or active dis-information campaigns (through media or otherwise) are the current hallmark of nation-state interaction among themselves and are they are not keeping ppl safe, but the ruling body/organization. Same holds for relationships between citizens and a particular government (with only few cases can be argued otherwise). Nay, even interaction among individuals with unequal power stand is predicated on information denial (secrecy). (deliberate software obfuscation to keep one's job, anyone?). Each of these categories would allow volumes to be written in study cases, and they are available scattered around in dis-organized fashion.