You're drinking kool-aid too, just a different brand. So far, the majority of the leaked documents simply complicate and frustrate the international community's diplomatic efforts. Some of these efforts are laudable, such as dealing with and containing unsavory characters (like Mugabe) or unsavory governments (Iran and North Korea). How does throwing a monkey wrench in these delicate, but necessary, machinations benefit the citizens of the world?
One positive note is the exposure of the pressure applied to the German government to not prosecute CIA agents in a kidnapping case. Perhaps there will be other documents in the same vein. But the scarcity of this kind of exposure highlights my fear: long gone are the days when WikiLeaks was the refuge of the whistle-blower, giving a voice to the powerless in the pursuit of truth, and hopefully, justice. If this were *still* WikiLeaks' core mission, then the latest dump would have separated the chaff (Merkle is a teflon politician, Putin is an alpha dog) and highlighted the documents that detail morally dubious and corrupt government action.
More and more, WikiLeaks is conflating 'secret' with 'malfeasance'. Also, it's raison d'etre now seems to be to bloody the nose of the American government more than anything else. And we're all the poorer for it.
Well said.
1. No I'm not. I work with both military and civilian researchers that have gone to Afghanistan. In the open press (search through the NY Times archive) are accounts of field commanders working with villagers, tribal elders, and farmers to understand the "human terrain." This community cooperation was utilized in Iraq and has been chronicled in many unclassified sources.
2. You're assuming that the Afghans have a mature court system. They do not, as should be evident by even a cursory review of reports in the open press. Commanders have to weigh and cross-check the evidence gathered from sources while also protecting these sources from reprisal. This is not a court of law; it's a battlefield and the methods of gathering, processing, and prosecuting intelligence from the local populace reflects the different context. This should be self evident.
3. The Army does its best to protect secrets, but like any organization, there are those that for either ideological, venal, or plain stupid reasons leak classified information. To expect otherwise is to be naiive. In a position of trust, it is fairly easy to steal 100K documents if they are electronic and can be burned surreptitiously to a CD or DVD. Which is just what Bradley Manning did.
I generally support WikiLeaks, but in this case Julian Assange has published information that most likely will cost Afghans their lives. The Taliban have already threatened as much. What's really tragic is that this leaked information, again at the possible cost of human lives, does not substantially broaden the public's understanding of the Afghan war.
I must say that the nature and tone of your questions betray a fundamental lack of understanding of how intelligence in counter-insurgency operations is gathered and how classified material is used and distributed.
Worst yet, your characterization of Afghans that work with ISAF against the Taliban as Quislings betrays true ignorance (and bigotry) on your part.
The documents contain identities of Afghans who are providing information to us about the Taliban. The Taliban have issued a press release promising to extract the names from the documents and kill our sources.
There can be no question that WikiLeaks has done evil here - and not against American or NATO forces, but against Afghan civilians who merely wish to remain free of Taliban dictatorship.
Why isn't the US military just as evil or even more so for putting the names in the documents in the first place?
Are you purposely being obtuse?
The names are necessary for building cases against the Taliban militants and governors that are fighting American/NATO forces as well as terrorizing the civilian populace. The documents containing the names were classified *precisely* to safeguard them from prying eyes and those that would do the sources harm.
And remember that those who aided and abetted the US military can hardly be considered innocent civilians -- to the occupied, they are fifth colonists or worse: Quislings.
So, you blithely dismiss folks that are striving to keep the repressive Taliban regime from returning to power? Including fathers who want their daughters to go to school without fear of acid thrown in their face.
Really?
"Just about every intelligence agency on the planet said before the Afghan campaign that invading Afghanistan would not yield a positive result vis a vis terrorism.."
Err... WTF are *you* smoking? Most of the world supported the overthrow of the Taliban and the putting of Al Qaeda on the run. Revisionist history already? C'mon, this happened only 8 years ago!
Line Printer paper is strongest at the perforations.
