POLITICAL heads were spinning after US President Barack Obama's sharp reversal of his earlier decision not to block the court-ordered release of pictures depicting detainee abuses.

The President, keeping in mind the damage done to global public opinion after pictures from Abu Ghraib emerged in 2004, defended himself by saying releasing the photos would endanger troops in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Those on the left were disappointed that Mr Obama seemed to be falling into the familiar patterns of his predecessor, hiding from the American public evidence of misdeeds done in its name.

Conservative commentators weren't sure whether to praise Obama for protecting national security or lambaste him for "flip-flopping".

It's easy to accuse Mr Obama of political kowtowing, and there's no doubt his objection to releasing the photos will win him plaudits from the right — it already has.

But, as The Atlantic's Andrew Sullivan suggests, Mr Obama's decision might have more to do with politics in Afghanistan than at home.

General Stanley McChrystal, Mr Obama's new appointee to command US and Nato forces in Afghanistan, was in charge of soldiers who were accused of abusing detainees in US custody.

If released, the 44 photos in question could potentially cast a dark shadow over Gen McChrystal's upcoming confirmation hearing, which could endanger Mr Obama's hopes of starting fresh in Afghanistan — not to mention the troops that will soon be under Gen McChrystal's command.

The original photos from Abu Ghraib were revolting. As I revisited some of those images — men smeared with faeces, smiling soldiers posing with thumbs raised over piles of entangled flesh — it's not hard to see why they caused so much outrage.

Would releasing a new batch — which Obama said are "not particularly sensational" compared to the originals — actually embolden US enemies?

Maybe, but as liberal blog Daily Kos argues, "It's just as arguable that Al-Qaeda and any other terrorist organization will be able to recruit if President Obama doesn't make a clean break with and repudiation of Bush/Cheney policies as it is that these photos will do further damage."

Mr Obama has had a hard time looking towards the future while reconciling the past. He would just as soon move past one of the ugliest episodes in America's recent history than to tear open old wounds.

That's understandable, but it also flies in the face of what Obama himself said in a statement praising the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) shortly after he took office:

"The government should not keep information confidential merely because public officials might be embarrassed by disclosure, because errors and failures might be revealed, or because of speculative or abstract fears," his statement said.

Honouring FOIA is deeply important. But the full disclosure of damning offences from years ago could indeed complicate matters in the Middle East.

It seems more important for the US to get a handle on Afghanistan and pull out of Iraq as cleanly and as simply as possible.

If the sacrifice is not seeing a few photos depicting things we already know happened, I don't think the public's "right to know" has been terribly violated.