The leaks that are devaluing the Obama doctrine Little in the recent spate of intelligence leaks by the Obama administration can be compared with the cherry picking that took place under George W. Bush. Yet the two presidents share a guilty trait. Both can be accused of subordinating US national security to their short-term political interests. It is a temptation to which most presidents succumb. Bill Clinton's botched rocket attack on an al-Qaeda camp in Afghanistan occurred at a suspiciously vulnerable moment in the Monica Lewinsky saga. Richard Nixon somehow persuaded the North Vietnamese to continue fighting until after he reached office. And Mr Bush virtually integrated the terror alert code into the electoral calendar. To one degree or another, most presidents are Machiavellian. Yet there is something troubling about the audacity with which Mr Obama's aides have been leaking highly sensitive intelligence. Mr Obama will probably stave off calls to appoint a special prosecutor along the lines of Kenneth Starr to ferret out the leakers. And he will probably be able to delay until after November any awkward revelations that emerge from the internal inquiry that is now getting under way. But the insights the leaks offer into Mr Obama's priorities are already discomfiting - even if they reinforce what many have long feared. First, they confirm that governing and campaigning are joined at the hip in Mr Obama's White House. In the past 14 months, his administration has opened a faucet of leaks detailing the commando raid on Osama bin Laden's compound in Abbottabad, the president's intimate involvement in sifting through the terrorist "kill lists," the Stuxnet attack on Iran and the foiled cargo aeroplane plot from Yemen. In each case, the leaks presented Mr Obama as a tough but conscientious warrior who pulls the trigger frequently but reluctantly. Yet the motive behind them does not always seem conscientious. The revelations may have compromised important US national security programmes and endangered foreigners who had risked their lives for America. Iran - and more importantly Russia and China - now know the US is prepared to pursue undeclared cyberwar while calling for international rules to restrain it. Stuxnet may well have been justified and it was at least partly successful. But the operation was supposedly covert. Making it overt will only raise the stakes in the international cyber race. Likewise, White House leaks about the Abbottabad raid are thought to have led to the arrest of the Pakistani doctor who tried to gather a sample of bin Laden's DNA. Last month, Dr Shakil Afridi was sentenced to 33 years for treason. Presumably he had been motivated to help America rather than the Obama campaign. Meanwhile the British and the Saudis are furious that leaks may have exposed their Yemeni double agent. Mr Obama's national security doctrine is based on moving to a smarter age in which the US substitutes drones, better diplomacy and covert actions for large-scale military operations. Craftiness and discretion are paramount. In the courts, the Obama administration continues to deny the existence of the CIA's drone programme. In private media briefings, they hold to different standards. Plausible deniability is integral to the success of the Obama doctrine. Yet Mr Obama is apparently willing to auction it off for votes. The outcome is not necessarily smart. The Stuxnet revelations will almost certainly weaken America's ability to carry out future such operations and also rob it of leverage to restrain others. Likewise, details about how the White House undercounts civilian casualties - by defining any adult male in the vicinity of a drone strike as a militant - will make it even harder for the US to gain the acquiescence of others, especially Pakistan. Last week, a Pew poll showed rising global opposition to drone strikes. Only in the US, where 62 per cent were in favour, was there anything close to a majority. Second, the leaks show Mr Obama's growing concern about his re-election. Given Mitt Romney's attempts to portray Mr Obama as weak in the world, it must be tempting to remind Americans how tough he can be (although polls suggest this has never been a big vulnerability). But Mr Obama's eagerness to flesh out his national security persona also makes him look cynical. In 2008, candidate Obama ran as the antidote to Washington's "cynical ways." He depicted Hillary Clinton as someone who would "say or do anything to get elected." Mr Obama is now supplying Mr Romney with the same type of ammunition. There is plenty in Mr Romney's foreign policy platform the Obama campaign could (and does) attack. Yet a recent attack advertisement by the Obama campaign's "Truth team" implied Mr Romney would have lacked the spine to order the raid on bin Laden. The message was unfair and probably self-defeating. Critics say Mr Obama is guilty of unseemly bragging. Such attacks are more likely to reflect his growing electoral insecurity. Mr Romney says the Obama administration has appeased China and Russia. He also accuses the president of ignoring the advice of the generals in winding down his "hello I must be going" surge in Afghanistan. By furnishing such detail about his involvement in drone targeting - and other tales of presidential resolve - Mr Obama may be protecting his right flank. He is also undercutting whatever remains of his claim to being different from the rest.