Defence departments love it: 92,000 documents on Afghanistan operations leaked

[Skybird]

In an unprecedented development, close to 92,000 classified documents pertaining to the war in Afghanistan have been leaked. SPIEGEL, the New York Times and the Guardian have analyzed the raft of mostly classified documents.

Der Spiegel:
Explosive Leaks Provide Image of War from Those Fighting It

The Guardian:
Afghanistan war logs: Massive leak of secret files exposes truth of occupation

The NY Times:
The War Logs: Pakistan Spy Service Aids Insurgents

The full original documents will be made available here:
http://wikileaks.org/wiki/Afghan_War_Diary,_2004-2010


This should make some politicians weaseling in agony, I hope. The ammount of lies to the public and wanted wetsern self-deception over Afghanistan must be brought to an end - better two days ago than yesterday. Our troops get thrown into the fire for nothing but illusions that nobody has the guts to clear - now that one has spent so many years with raising and maintaining them.


Trapped in the Afghan maze.

[Zachstar]

Couldnt be worse timing for pro-war repubs and democrats this election season. But then it is very healthy for a democracy when the gov fears the people.

[Skybird]

The underhanded way in which lies, propaganda and illusions about the nature and reality of Afghanistan get fed to the people by their governments, to me cannot be justfiied with national security interests or protecting the troops. what politicians here are trying is to protect themselves from being held responsible - and this they try by running to win time and delaying the truth from becoming known. It is a state-run national conspiracy against the people and against the troops. the purpose is not to save Afghanistan and it is not about security and counter-terrorism, but to hide the grim truth about the war being lost, the mission having failed, and the troops getting exposed to fire for nothing but lies and illusions. It is about trying to evade political responsibility for the mess until another government has taken over. It's about delaying the enlightenment of the people, and it is about not knowing what to do instead of just keeping the current path and hoping that a miracle would save the mess from becoming obvious for everybody.

It is a conspiracy by governments to deceive their own people. Military objectives, Afghan interests have nothing to do with it anymore.

[SteamWake]

Originally Posted by Zachstar

Couldnt be worse timing for pro-war repubs and democrats this election season. But then it is very healthy for a democracy when the gov fears the people.

The timing is uncanny isint this. Why only now??

[Skybird]

Because the source did not decide or did not manage to leak the info earlier, maybe...!?

As long as there is no further hint for malicious motives, let's follow good academic habit and take that explanation that explains something best and in the easiest way possible.

[AVGWarhawk]

Anyone verify the material in the "leak"? I'm sure the WH looked it all over before making a statement. Just like the Sherrod debacle.

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by AVGWarhawk

Anyone verify the material in the "leak"? I'm sure the WH looked it all over before making a statement. Just like the Sherrod debacle.

Three independant international major newspapers from three countries were given the material in advance, I think I have read: weeks in advance, for proper inspection.

If you have solid information that puts the original nature of the material into doubt, I'm sure they would love to know.
The release of these infos is a coordinated effort by not only wikileaks, but these papers as well.

Think of it as wikileak outsourcing verification procedures.

I also read that the US government has a foamy mouth. Nice! Where there is foam, there is pain and anger. It's clear that this hits them quite hard. Can't say i shed a tear for Obama here. He followed Bush and his follies on his feet and continued a stupid policy that is very much disconnected from the facts of reality.

[August]

Well I hope they catch the guy who leaked this stuff. I take a dim view of the unauthorized dissemination of classified information. Somebody needs to go to jail for a long time.

[CaptainHaplo]

A black unit targetting leadership without trials? Thats a suprise to people? C'mon - last time I checked this was combat - taking out leadership is a common and acceptable tactic. No different than tankers told to look for red star tanks with command antennae....

Unmanned drones that don't work as expected? Nothing is 100% - better the cost of a 3-5M for a crashed drone that crashed vs 17M for an F-16, plus the cost of a human life lost or captured. Gee they have bugs - big suprise. Show me a new weapon that doesnt......

Not every civilian casualty is reported by and to the press? Wow - now thats a shocker let me tell you. Even the articles linked point out how "hundreds" of civilians have been killed by coalition forces - but also admits multiple thousands have been killed by extremists using stuff like roadside bombs. Funny how the mainstream media doesn't keep a real tally. Lets point out the deaths on ALL sides why don't we - or would that make the media admit that the people who are actively targetting civilians - and not caring if any innocents are hurt - are in fact the terrorists. But the media doesn't want to do that....

144 civilian incidents that went "unreported". Funny - how could they go unreported if they were in the documetation. Someone reported them - there was a record of them. Just because the news media wasn't briefed it somehow becomes "unreported"? Give me a break. Oh - and 144 "incidents" in 5 years. Basically 29 per year. A little over 2 a month. Think about this. Combat happens in multiple places there every day - and its suddenly "Oh my god - we in the media didn't KNOW about this" and that makes it a coverup?

Did no one notice how the Guardian article stated French troops in 2008 had an incident, 2007 Polish troops did to - but when mentioning US troops it gave absolutely no date frame at all?

Of course - one look at the title of that article and you already know its leaning...... "occupation" makes it clear they have a predefined view. Yet isn't it odd the article itself doesn't make any kind of case for occupation - and in fact details the weakness of the current government - which is WHY allied forces are still in country - to prop up a weak but democratically elected government. So what would it be if the pakistani/iranian supported taliban took over? Would they still call it an "occupation"? I doubt it.

I agree this war has gone on far too long and at too high a price. But trying to villify those who are fighting it - when the decisions to be there and HOW we fight it are political - is putting the blame on the wrong people.

When bullets fly, bad **** happens no matter what. People die. But if your going to fight a battle or a war, you have to be willing to actually fight it. That still has not really happened. When the media is more about trying to "nail the soldier" - so that they ignore the more heinous and intentional acts of the enemy, as well as fail to hold the political leadership accountable, they lose total credibility.

Want to end this war? Then decide how you want to do it. Either victory (meaning extremists lack the ability to organize and do more than minimal disruption) or failure (meaning a withdrawal in which a legal government cannot continue to function). We have the means to do either one - I support the first option - but the leadership of NATO has consistently lacked the will to pursue it. This war could be over in one year. Or it could be over tommorow. If your going to pursue failure (which both Bush and Obama have done) - then we should end it tommorow - or today. If you are going to pursue success - then the leadership has to make the determination and make it happen. Forgive me, but I am not holding my breath.

And for those who want to say "the people don't have the will to pursue success" - that is because the media has sapped their will to do so. If you turned on your TV and saw the carnage that the taliban create - saw the tears of the families of those they brutally murder - then you would know why those men and women were there fighting. But the media doesn't show you that, now does it.

Fair and balanced my big fat ass - and that goes for every single outlet out there.... Some are simply closer to actual news than others.

[Foxtrot]

atrocities committed by military in the name of "protecting freedoms" are NOT classified documents.

And these documents are just a tip of the iceberg.

Of course - one look at the title of that article and you already know its leaning...... "occupation" makes it clear they have a predefined view.

Occupation is the correct term, ISAF is the occupying body in the ongoing conflict despite the change from transitional government and the two elections. Just as the Coilition in Iraq remained an occupying power until they did the deal which meant the terms were completed and the occupation was ended by a sofa

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by August

Well I hope they catch the guy who leaked this stuff. I take a dim view of the unauthorized dissemination of classified information. Somebody needs to go to jail for a long time.

the governments betraying their own people weighs much heavier. the leaking of this material I consider to be some kind of an ultima ratio in self-defence - becasue there is zero idnication that our governments are stopping to betray us: you, me, all others, and last but not least: the troops in the field, no matter the nationality.

As I see it, if ranking the enemies by importance and priorities, the greatest enemy of the troops fighting is their own governments, next it is the Pakistani and the ISI (preaching this since years, don't I), and then, maybe, finally, it is the Taliban.

Compared to this, the leaking of these documents is a minor crime. And why should our governments ever change their approach and their deception of the public, if the public can be successfully deceived by hiding such reports from it?

As somebody above put it: if this makes the governments more afraid of the people, then it is a good thing. I personally am sick and tieed of listening to government'S infantile stupid claims about what they plan and can do in Afghnaistan. It is so very disconnected from realities, and own troops are being told to risk their lives for this governmental crime.

to me, the crime of leaking secret stuff is put into relation if that deeds helps to enforce more realism and honesty from politicians. A politician will lie if it helps his interest - but only if he sees that he gets away with it. that's why free media are so important in a democracy, and that's why gagging media or limiting the protection of their sources is a direct assault on the very basics of free, democratic political and social order.

If those in power are allowed to hide too much from the people, freedom dies.

[August]

Originally Posted by Skybird

As somebody above put it: if this makes the governments more afraid of the people, then it is a good thing.

What if it identifies people who have been working for us to the Taliban and they are killed and/or tortured as a result? Would it still be a good thing then?

There are good reasons for assigning security classifications to information and i'm betting that somewhere in those 97 thousand documents there will be some information that will put some good people at risk. I don't trust the media one bit to choose what is safe to disseminate and what isn't.

What if it identifies people who have been working for us to the Taliban and they are killed and/or tortured as a result? Would it still be a good thing then?

Once they pull out then its gonna happen anyway isn't it.

I don't trust the media one bit to choose what is safe to disseminate and what isn't.

But do you trust the government to?

[Kazuaki Shimazaki II]

Originally Posted by August

What if it identifies people who have been working for us to the Taliban and they are killed and/or tortured as a result? Would it still be a good thing then?

There are good reasons for assigning security classifications to information and i'm betting that somewhere in those 97 thousand documents there will be some information that will put some good people at risk. I don't trust the media one bit to choose what is safe to disseminate and what isn't.

Letting the military choose means none of it ever will. Sometimes, the security provision does serve a useful purpose (with almost 92000 documents to choose from statistically some may well have critical information), but governments have developed too many bad habits in using it to deny information, thus shafting it of its original purpose.