From the DoD Dictionary of Military Terms, Security Classifications: (reformated and emphasis added for clarity)

(DOD) A category to which national security information and material is assigned to denote the degree of damage that unauthorized disclosure would cause to national defense or foreign relations of the United States and to denote the degree of protection required. There are three such categories.

a. top secret--National security information or material that requires the highest degree of protection and the unauthorized disclosure of which could reasonably be expected to cause exceptionally grave damage to the national security. Examples of "exceptionally grave damage" include armed hostilities against the United States or its allies; disruption of foreign relations vitally affecting the national security; the compromise of vital national defense plans or complex cryptologic and communications intelligence systems; the revelation of sensitive intelligence operations; and the disclosure of scientific or technological developments vital to national security.

b. secret--National security information or material that requires a substantial degree of protection and the unauthorized disclosure of which could reasonably be expected to cause serious damage to the national security. Examples of "serious damage" include disruption of foreign relations significantly affecting the national security; significant impairment of a program or policy directly related to the national security; revelation of significant military plans or intelligence operations; and compromise of significant scientific or technological developments relating to national security.

c. confidential--National security information or material that requires protection and the unauthorized disclosure of which could reasonably be expected to cause damage to the national security. See also classification; security.

Are you saying that the facts of this matter have NOT caused serious damage to our interests and security in that region?

There was no cover up. Within 2 days of being notified of the allegations, the military appointed an investigating official and notified the press of the allegations. A little over 2 months later, they announced that criminal charges had been brought against several personnel. Compared to the civilian world, that's a quick investigation (see Scott Peterson and Coby Bryant as a couple high profile examples of how long these things can take). Had they released this information earlier, not only would it have done the damage that we're seeing today, it would've been an example of the leadership exercising "undue command influence" in a military criminal proceeding. Like it or not, those accused soldiers still are entitled to the presumption of innocence and a fair trial.

It's far more than a matter of hostile pretrial publicity like you see so often in civilian cases, it's the fact that the officers who will try these cases could possibly be influenced by their command leadership. Of course, in a week or two, people will be condemning Bush and Rumsfeld for that, too.