Dear Joe:

Thanks for your column. I read, with rolling eyes, of Woodward's claims that no damage was done by the "outing".

You don't have to be much of an expert in what intelligence work really means to understand that an "outing" doesn't have to expose James Bond in mid-microfilm-purchase to "damage national security".

For argument's sake, let's assume that Mrs. Wilson was among the least of the CIA's "assets". That she was an expert, for what it's worth, in one extremely minor African country of near-zero strategic or economic importance. That her main function was to sit in her cubicle, grinding through such chores as comparing all the stated outputs of that country's mines to stated purchases of same. Perhaps to see if any, ummm, copper ore was going astray. And perhaps financing some deputy minister's political base, say. Whatever. Most such work is very mechanical and dull paper research.

Her ability to do this job was much enhanced by her personal connections to a number of political and business figures in that country, from her days as "the wife of the American ambassador". From which position she can go to lots of dull parties when visiting, and make chitchat - about how the mine expansion is going and doesn't Mr. Mkende seem to be the Rising Star in the Party lately?

The personal connections occasionally turn up actual information and more often provide hints about things that are hard to read from satellite photos or mine output reports: the looks people get from other people, the size of entourage somebody showed up at a party with, the rumours that are flying around amongst the wives. Hints that help indicate who's gaining and losing power in the local politics.

Then she is outed. Sure, they knew before that she was the American Ambassador's Wife and not somebody to tell your secrets to. Some may have even known she had her own government job. But now, the difference is, nobody will speak to her AT ALL. No chitchat about how work is going, none about current rumour mills, people will flee corners of the room she strolls near.

Is the CIA much damaged? Of course not. One minor employee is less good at her job; has no personal connections any more, could be replaced by any data analyst that likes to read mining reports.

They can probably replace the resource in a few years, just slip another employee into the embassy social whirl and rotate back to the states after a few years to start a program of frequent return visits to Stay In Touch with friends. Hardly more than a few hundred thousands of salary dollars and a year or two before you're back up to the same information level.

Now then: at exactly what point would you arrest somebody if they broke into the CIA parking lot and started playing Demolition Derby with the Company cars: after $100,000? $200,000? Could Scooter and Bob just pop in to smash up a half-dozen Hummers and write it off to petty cash?

There's no need for professionally-aghast liberals to play this up as high treason and risk to life & limb; all they have to do is hold to the position that some significant damage was done to the CIA's capabilities in one area. Maybe the loss is almost meaningless; maybe Ghana becomes some kind of hotspot tomorrow and there we are, half-blind to the local political nuances when we need it most. It doesn't matter.

Damage was done. The CIA has a job to do, and a right to expect not be damaged that way without very good reason to sacrifice the asset - or just part of the asset's abilities. No good reason has been given. Case closed.