I see a lot of anger directed at the individual responsible for the leak, but not so much anger at the apparent ineptitude of his superiors. Right now, their prime suspect is some Army PFC Intelligence Analyst. Assuming he's actually the perpetrator, why did this kid have access to this amount of information, and why wasn't he detected before he had the chance to disperse it? We're talking about the most advanced military force on the planet being embarrassed by some 20-year-old nobody. I'm hearing way too much "How dare he" and not enough "Why the fuck was the United States Army asleep at the wheel?" Also, I'll reiterate this question: was Wikileaks wrong to publish these documents on their website? Should there be limits to what the press can release?
As far as how he got ahold of all the documents, just look up what exactly the SIPR is. I have NOT had access , but had NIPR (the non classified one) and there was just an amazing amount of data that was relatively easy to access. The theory behind the SIPR is that if you can qualify for that level of clearance, then the military will trust you and not make your life in a warzone even more complicated. I was in Iraq outside the wire while this fucktard fobbit was collecting the intel he leaked and firmly believe he should be shot. This is not a civilian trying to leak a vast conspiracy, but a disaffected E4 who was trying to get one over on the system before he got out. As far as the rest of it goes, there is far too much communication and too many cameras to cover up some giant massacre. If the Joes didn't take pictures then the civilians would, then sell them to the Taliban or Al Qaeda in Iraq. Additionally, unlike Vietnam, we fucking listen to our detainees. I worked at an interment facility in Iraq early in the war, post-Abu even the slightest allegation that was made to the US or NGO reps (that came to inspect) was would open a massive investigation. EDITED TO ADD: I completely forgot this part. I firmly believe that we need few war movies, games and less exposure to the war at large (i.e. fewer Joes w/ cameras) for no other reason than it gives the public at large a perception, most aren't even aware of it, that they have a clue though most of the populace knows very few, if any, Afgan/Iraq vets. On a personal level this means that they will lose respect when you say you don't want to talk about something, and even push because "they get it". On a societal level it scares the shit out of me because a society that doesn't fear war wants it.
See, I always love that kind of argument because it contains a lot of fancy phrases like "guardians of freedom" and "the best and most just country on Earth." Seems to me we are only the "guardians of freedom" where it suites our interests for democracy to exist. And as for best and most just country on Earth, well, ok, that's an opinion. The best? I'm sure there are quite a few countries out there that could compare. The most just? Really? I'm not sure I can buy that one either. Feel free to elaborate Mr. Crow on why, factually, we are these things, and I'll give you a gold star. Or anyone for that matter.
One more reason to why secrecy can be vital to all parties, not just in covering up baby-killing: <a class="postlink" href="http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/29/world/asia/29wikileaks.html?ref=global-home" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/29/world ... lobal-home</a> Congrats to whoever leaked this- you now have blood on your hands. Even if names weren't released; father's names (meaning that they can track a specific tribe) and villages. At best there is some intertribal warfare, worst the Taliban now has a bullseye.
Because there weren't indigenous conflicts before the leak? And the Taliban wasn't already targeting civilians who were known to aid ISAF forces? Please. I absolutely respect the fact that these documents have the potential to cause harm, but let's not act like it will be anything we aren't already seeing en masse. The human factor is great for PR and all, but their primary concern will be the loss of some potentially valuable intelligence sources.
So if your father or close family member was an informant for a Law Enforcement Agency here in the U.S., you would be O.K. with their information being leaked into the public for all to see because, well, criminals target snitches anyways right? Don't forget the Taliban/AQ not only target people working directly with Coalition Forces, but their families as well. Just because the information in the leaked documents aren't all 100% accurate or reveal some outrageous-mass-murder-raping-burned babies conspiracy doesn't mean some clever counter-intelligence can't piece things together to develop a clearer picture on our SOPs, and more obvious to me at least a full documentation of our past 9 years of Troop movement, intelligence gathering and actionable targets would be a pretty good estimate of what we might do in the future. It might seem like something obvious, but war is a little different from the inside than the out. And if I'm reading into some of these reports correctly, the prime suspect for the leak was the same kid who leaked that video of an Apache engaging people in Baghdad a few years ago, where some innocent people were killed. I agree his leadership dropped the ball, but that doesn't make him any less guilty (allegedly).
What if your father was Hitler's nephew who owned a pack of wolves that would shit in their neighbor's yard at 3 in the afternoon every Saturday. If y'all are going to discuss politics here use analogies that aren't retarded.
Recently in the building I work at, they put up a "wall of shame" depicting a bunch of people who leaked classified information, or were convicted of espionage. Perhaps in reaction to this? Oh great, another hero. These types are the worst. Out of the four reasons people do this (money, ideology, coercion, and ego), this is the hardest to figure out. Dumbass kids who want to feel like they're exposing all the injustices of the world. War is war, and people die. There are plenty of mistakes, but they can't be publicly exposed for good reason. The enemy uses it as propaganda, which helps recruit MORE enemies. Lots of regimes use shit like this to make us look evil. Ahmadinejad probably threw a party as soon as this happened. That being said, one thing people do need to know about is Iran and Pakistan's support for the Taliban. I doubt anyone is very surprised about Iran. Pakistan on the other hand.. we give them so much financial aid, just to let them play games. Why the fuck don't we expose this, and everything else we have on them, to the rest of the world? Pakistani intelligence actively supports the groups that kill our soldiers and their own citizens. It's fucking disgusting. edit: For the people wondering why one person had access to this much information.. <a class="postlink" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/JWICS" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/JWICS</a>
From what I've heard and read, the leaks are all involving information that's happened in the past and don't show anything on current and/or future troop movements or strategies. If that's the case then I think it's alright that they got leaked. The public needs to be informed of what has happened in order to assess who to vote for in the future. If the public isn't aware of civilian casualties or isn't aware that the effort in question is futile, they might be more likely to vote for a pro-war candidate even if it might not be in their best interest. Ultimately we're funding this war, we deserve the right to know what our money has paid for. As for the civilian casualties themselves, I don't think they should be covered up. I don't really see what the problem would be with admitting mistakes when they're made instead of trying to make them disappear. Personally, I'd rather be an honest fuckup than a lying fuckup. I would hope that the public is mature enough to accept that civilian casualties are an inevitable part of war.
Here's the head of Wikileaks being interviewed by the Economist. While his argumentation is very weak, the comments are interesting. http://www.economist.com/blogs/multimedia/2010/07/wikileaks_and_afghan_papers
Are some of the people responding to this thread (ghettoastronaut and Obviously5Believer) really naive enough to believe that the "good" side in a conflict never commits war atrocities against the "bad" one? Of course they do, whether it's the Soviets defeating the Nazis, the Americans repelling the Japanese, or any other conflict in the history of mankind. It's a plain, simple, unavoidable fact of war that atrocities always occur from both sides, and no amount of pie in the sky statements about a country's "higher standards" will change that. In fact, all these issues have been written about at length centuries ago, perhaps most effectively in Von Clausewitz's "On War", where he discusses the fallacy of trying to "fight honorably" while the opponent does everything in his power to win. With that simple consideration out of the way, is there any good from releasing the documents? No, none whatsoever. They will, however, lead to the death of Afghan collaborators and make it easier for terrorists to kill our troops by knowing their general logistics and protocol. Congratulations; Julian Assange and the leaker have more blood on their hands than any soldier mentioned in the reports. I think that in any sane country, Assange would have had his head on a pike with the eyes gouged out an entire week ago, instead of carousing around the world, speaking at conferences about his mass murders. But then again, both the US and most of Europe has been crazy for a few decades now, and the mental illness is only getting worse. Compare that to the Asian nations (xenophobic, but plenty sane), which regardless of whether they're socialist/communist or more democratic, have avoided many of the recent economic problems and terrorism. Wonder why that is?
I think Gerry Adams makes a good case here giving context for while a lot of people outside the US welcome the leaks: <a class="postlink" href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/aug/02/wikileaks-british-lies-afghanistan-ireland" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree ... an-ireland</a> Personally, although unlike Mr.Adams, I support the coalition in Afghanistan, I do not trust either the US or Britain to not be reckless with innocent lives. Knowing what America did in Vietnam and Britain in Ireland, it is hard to trust either military to properly engage in a humanitarian war. Regular leaks help to keep check on what's actually going on and to re-evaluate support for the war.
I don't, actually. Maybe a little argumentatively weak, but hypocritical? That I don't get. Let me see if I can explain myself better. When ISAF forces cause the death of innocent Afghan civilians, it's referred to as unfortunate collateral damage. When Assange's leak causes the death of innocent Afghan civilians, it is an unacceptable loss of life that qualifies as murder. Assange uses the same argument going in the opposite direction: when ISAF forces kill innocent Afghan civilians, it's murder. When he leaks documents causing civilian deaths, it's a necessary step toward ending the war for the greater good. Neither side is going to admit the moral deficiencies of their positions, so I've stopped looking at it from the subjectively emotional viewpoints that both are using to sell their cases to the American public. Point in case: this 'Blood on your hands' business. It should tell us something that both Assange and the US Government are throwing this phrase around like a frisbee. It's a politician's trick used to assign absolute guilt in situations where guilt is not absolute. Every single person involved in this exchange has 'blood on their hands' by one manipulated definition or another. Those Afghan civilian casualties that both sides have caused or will cause were/are arguably preventable, and I maintain that they are merely a distraction from the real cruxes of the issue: 1) the U.S.'s loss of intelligence sources and possible personnel casualties, and 2) Assange's ongoing vendetta against U.S. military actions in the Middle East. Cut the heart-wrenching politicized nonsense out of it and we're left with a veritable spit-fight between two entities, neither of which can rightfully claim the moral high ground, both of which are trying their hardest to do just that.
I skimmed most of the responses here, but here's my .02: -The Taliban already has a much better idea about our intel and logistics apparatus than most soldiers do. There have been so many on-the-ground OPSEC violations that there is no mystery or illusion to the tactics and techniques of US Forces. I mean fuck, soldiers were walking around with yellow laminated cards that stated their specific Rules of Engagement. The bad guys won't learn anything from these documents that we haven't already taught them through our own stupidity. -Yes, human intelligence is classified for 25 years for a reason, but anyone at home or on the ground that believes sources exist in Afghanistan that aren't already under Taliban control is delusional. I won't go into further reasons why this is true, but it is. Afghan informant = bad guy. -Everything else in those leaked documents is news only to someone that hasn't paid attention for the last 9 years. Someone who is an avid reader of "The Economist" would already know 99% of the things in those documents because, for the most part, they are already a matter of public record. You remember in "Full Metal Jacket" when they are punished for forgetting to lock their foot lockers? Once the documents are out in the open, they are out in the open. The Wikileaks guy has no moral imperative to keep them hidden because he fancies himself a journalist. Any deaths that come from this should fall on the shoulders of the soldier who leaked them, and for that he deserves to be executed.
I wish you would, but I understand why you might not be able to. I'll try to keep my questions as non-specific as possible. Is this why we haven't seen any publicized accounts of informants being evacuated? I know there were several accounts of Iraqi interpreters/informants and their families being granted asylum in the U.S., and it was usually viewed as an act of benevolence and appreciation on our part, so I'd expect the same thing to occur in this instance. If they're really just vehicles for misinformation, though, that would explain why not.
Here's a shitty, unclassified, common sense analogy: You're fighting a war in a country where you don't speak the language or look like the local populace. You don't have unrestricted freedom of movement, and it is very difficult to meet with your informants. The enemy knows when you leave the base because he watches you 24/7. The enemy knows where you go when you leave the base. The enemy knows who you talk to when you leave the base. You aren't always the most secure when you talk to your informants, either. Sometimes these informants come right to your FOB because you can't leave. Now lets say that, in this scenario, you have informants you have been meeting with for years that, when asked why they are still alive, simply tell you that they know the area well and can move around undetected. This informant gives you extremely detailed information that is corroborated by other informants you work with, so you trust him. Question: are all of these informants working for and being orchestrated by the bad guys?
The problem is that there is no (successful) sliding scale. No war in the history of the planet and the history of Wars has ever been won without the use of Total War. That means the absolute and utter destruction of your enemies. If you're not willing to do anything and everything to win, then you shouldn't be willing to fight at all. And if you outright want to lose a war, be sure you're fighting a Humanitarian war. But as to the main focus: I don't think these documents are really going to reveal anything mindblowing. However the Army guy who allegedly stole them initially will hang for treason. As he should. Just as much as you or I will never even bother to read 10 out of the 75,000 documents, the Army defendant wouldn't have had a chance to read them either. He had no clue what he was throwing up into the air.
Jesus, that's bleak. So this outrage over the loss of these informants is manufactured for the sake of its influence on public opinion? And if this is common-sense knowledge among troops on the ground, why even engage these people in the first place, especially if it presents such a significant risk? Is it a 'we know that they know that we know' kind of thing? Again, I realize you can't discuss this in detail, but any explanation you can offer is appreciated. Also, you have stated that anyone with an Economist subscription already possesses the info that these documents contain, and that the enemy already has a more comprehensive understanding of our operations than your average enlisted soldier, so how might the leaked docs present a threat to troops? What do they contain that is actually dangerous to our people? Or is that simply too complex a situation to predict at this point?
It isn't manufactured; we're just that ignorant. Very few people at high levels in the US military are capable of hearing "we've been beaten" or "what you are asking is impossible." This is NOT common sense knowledge among the troops because soldiers aren't paid to analyze intel, they are paid to go after bad guys. Officers are evaluated by how many targets they hit, not by the quality of those targets. The information comes in about "bad" guys and we go after them because that good evaluation report might help a Colonel put on his first star. THAT'S what's really bleak. I don't believe the documents will reveal anything the enemy doesn't already know, but I still believe the person responsible should be executed for treason. That said, I have no idea. We don't have very many upper-hands left in Afghanistan (thanks, Stan) so I'm not sure this will effect anything one way or the other. You want to hear something really crazy? How about being in a 27 hour firefight and not getting close air support for 9 hours because the Taliban know once they hear aircraft to put down their weapons so the pilots aren't legally authorized to engage them. Happens every day.