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

[August]

Originally Posted by Skybird

Also, it is was mentioned by the chief editors of the newspapers and Wikileaks as well, that critical information that could effect running operations or put lives at risk, get withhold from public release, or get blacked out.

Yeah I read that too. My question is what makes a newspaper editor such an expert that he can make such determinations?

Also, what is their chain of custody like? Is it good enough to keep the withheld critical information out of the wrong hands? I'm betting it isn't.

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by August

Yeah I read that too. My question is what makes a newspaper editor such an expert that he can make such determinations?

What makes a poltiician or a committee member such an expert? Are you sure those having a word on hiding or releasing these things do so much better a job? I don't.

The expertise of an editor depends on the person and his background. Note that it were complete teams, not indovudual persons, and that they spend weeks on this task. also note that it were three different intenrational papers, not just one bean-counter in the back corner of some forgotten office. I assume they have not put their "local news" editors on it. However, blacking out names and faces and adresses should be something not so impossible to acchieve. however, I must wondering that when you are so distrustful to them, why you do not complain about the trust beytrayed by the government that runs the war and wants to keep the reality of it hidden. Do you really have any reason to be so sure that they do that much a better job with the responsibility they have? When I look at how Afghanistan and the ISAf mission detoriated over the past 7 years, I see no reason at all to put any trust in my or your government's handling of the war at all. Both stink, both ignore unwanted realities, both raise false promises about the future, and the other governments do like that as well. And these people's deeds you want to let go by unmonitored and uncontrolled, although their failure and betrayal cannot be hidden and they are costing the lives of your own and our own troops?? Listen to their public statements and conferences and promises - their words speak for themselves in order to illustrate how disconnected from reality they are. They need to be stopped.

Also, what is their chain of custody like? Is it good enough to keep the withheld critical information out of the wrong hands? I'm betting it isn't.

when judging the way the war has been handled for 7 years you may want to be more concerned about the lack of realism and expertise of both the Bush and the Obama governments and the way they "managed" the war, as well as the failure of the other nation'S governments driven by illusions as well. And if their competence to withhold any knowledge from the public (that the public depends on in order to form an educated opinion on the war), can compensate for that lacking sense of realism and expertise, is highly in doubt.

I do not knopw if in 2014 their realyl will be a major withdrawel. but I can tell you for sure that in 2014 the Afghan security apparatus still will not derseve that name and still will be as impotent as it is now and has been two years ago and has been three and four and five years ago, with the Pakistani not stopping the ways in which they run their game. Why should they if it runs so well for them.

[August]

Originally Posted by Skybird

...however, I must wondering that when you are so distrustful to them, why you do not complain about the trust beytrayed by the government that runs the war and wants to keep the reality of it hidden.

Well mainly because my level of trust in my government, or your views on their ability or culpability for that matter, aren't what I was asking about when I made that post. A question BTW that I still haven't seen answered (see below).

Do you really have any reason to be so sure that they do that much a better job with the responsibility they have?

Well, actually yes I have plenty of reason to believe this (which is what led me to the question I reference above).

As a former US Army Signalman I once held a Top Secret security clearance and I am quite familiar with the military's methods and procedures for safeguarding classified material. Chains of custody, storage requirements, vetting of personnel, compartmentalization of information, need to know limitations, all of it is very strictly regulated and enforced.

I highly doubt that a civilian news organization. let alone an international one, let alone three of them, will come close to those standards, so i'm betting that any information the media has redacted will be available to our enemies, if not the general public, in short order.

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by August

Well mainly because my level of trust in my government, or your views on their ability or culpability for that matter, aren't what I was asking about when I made that post. A question BTW that I still haven't seen answered (see below).



Well, actually yes I have plenty of reason to believe this (which is what led me to the question I reference above).

As a former US Army Signalman I once held a Top Secret security clearance and I am quite familiar with the military's methods and procedures for safeguarding classified material. Chains of custody, storage requirements, vetting of personnel, compartmentalization of information, need to know limitations, all of it is very strictly regulated and enforced.

I highly doubt that a civilian news organization. let alone an international one, let alone three of them, will come close to those standards, so i'm betting that any information the media has redacted will be available to our enemies, if not the general public, in short order.

On the trustworthiness or moral authority of your or my government we will totally disagree forever. The moral authority you see in it and that commands your obedience, to me is non-existent and is already proven to be a source of criminal energy that now abuses it's powers and right to try denying it's repsoinbility for messing it up. Or in other words: those you pay respect and trust to, I have identified as the most dangerous enemies of our people and our freedoms. Not one milligram of trust I give them. As I see it, the good will of soldiers - to serve for their country - gets betrayed and abused by those being in political command. That I say with regard both to the Bundeswehr and the US Army, but also with rgard to the other armies in Aghanistan. And this is a form of treachery like I cannot imagine any bigger. Why you military folks tend to have such a character feature that makes you so very prone to putting more trust into your politicians than they deserve, I probably never will understand. I just can note that I see it in many professional soldiers, no matter their nationality. they usually think of it in terms of obedience, honour or duty. While I recognise the need of discipline and sense of duty, I nevertheless see this big trust into political leaders as something different: as uncritical naivety.

Your question on the competence of an editor I have adressed, btw. By pointing out that it depends on his background and education/experience, and that it was not just on editor, but a whole team of people, and that they were given the documents weeks in advance of wikileak's publication. To add to that, I think it is very well possible that somebody who deals with security issues by profession, for example, or is an analyst in his field of profession, not only may be able to understand such reports and their context as good or even better than a politician or president (who is totally depending on the advisors and lobbyists he is surrounded with), but I even think that the moral authority and character of politicians rates significantly below the mean value of the average population.

[August]

Originally Posted by Skybird

I see it in many professional soldiers, no matter their nationality. they suaully thiknk of it in terms of obedience or duty. While I recognise the need of discipline and sense of duty, I nevertheless see this big trust into political leaders as something different: as uncritical naivety.

Look, this isn't about me, or you, or for that matter the government. I asked a simple question about the medias handling of classified information and you either have an answer to it or you don't.

FWIW political leaders do not have access to classified military information unless they have a need to know and even then their access is recorded and severely restricted. Can you say the same about an international news organization, let alone three of them?

[Platapus]

Originally Posted by Skybird

Why you military folks tend to have such a character feature to make you so very prone to putting more trust into your politicians than they deserve, I probably never will understand.

Because we have voluntarily taken an oath of honour to serve the civilian leadership of our country.

- Whether we agree with the politician or not is irrelevant.

- Whether our political party of choice is in power or not is irrelevant.

- Whether we believe or do not believe in the specific action is irrelevant.

- Whether our personal morals agree or disagree with the government's is irrelevant.

- Whether our government appreciates or does not appreciate our service is irrelevant.

- Whether our government rewards us or ignores us is irrelevant.

We "military folks" have taken an oath on our personal honour to serve. This is why no one is, or should be forced to serve. To some it is a duty to serve, to others it is a honour to serve. To some it is a desire to serve. To all, it is service upon our honour.

To those who have not served, it may be difficult to understand. And I don't mean that in an insulting manner at all. Service to your country is difficult to understand even for those who serve. But we do it, because we feel that it is, for myriad reasons, the right thing for us to do.

Personally, I never look down at someone who chooses not to serve, nor do I especially encourage someone to serve. I don't even think I have any special feeling of pride for serving my country, in one form or another, for going on 30 years. My service to my country goes far deeper than pride or patriotism for I am neither a prideful nor a patriotic man . It goes to a level that defies words. My service to my country just is.

Perhaps you may understand it a little better now, but if you don't, that's OK too.

[Ducimus]

Originally Posted by Platapus

Because we have voluntarily taken an oath of honour to serve the civilian leadership of our country.

- Whether we agree with the politician or not is irrelevant.

- Whether our political party of choice is in power or not is irrelevant.

- Whether we believe or do not believe in the specific action is irrelevant.

- Whether our personal morals agree or disagree with the government's is irrelevant.

- Whether our government appreciates or does not appreciate our service is irrelevant.

- Whether our government rewards us or ignores us is irrelevant.

We "military folks" have taken an oath on our personal honour to serve. This is why no one is, or should be forced to serve. To some it is a duty to serve, to others it is a honour to serve. To some it is a desire to serve. To all, it is service upon our honour.

To those who have not served, it may be difficult to understand. And I don't mean that in an insulting manner at all. Service to your country is difficult to understand even for those who serve. But we do it, because we feel that it is, for myriad reasons, the right thing for us to do.

Personally, I never look down at someone who chooses not to serve, nor do I especially encourage someone to serve. I don't even think I have any special feeling of pride for serving my country, in one form or another, for going on 30 years. My service to my country goes far deeper than pride or patriotism for I am neither a prideful nor a patriotic man . It goes to a level that defies words. My service to my country just is.

Perhaps you may understand it a little better now, but if you don't, that's OK too.

My 2 cents along these thoughts.

Nobody goes to war thinking their the bad guy. But that's how our society usually judges things. Good guys and bad guys. Well, if nobody goes to war thinking their the bad guys, who's to say is the bad guy? Them? Us? Who's standards do we use to make that determination? Theirs? Ours? Is there some universal standard, and how's to make THAT determination?

I dwelled on that alot. I have been to alot of places and done many things i didn't agree with. So, the answer i came upon was this:

It's all relative to perception, and you have to make a stand in the world somewhere, and we are NOT always right. Many times we are wrong. But, as Right or as wrong as we may be, It is still MY country, It is still MY home, and this i would defend.

[Platapus]

Well put, Decimus.

And most though provoking. I too have helped my country do things that may not have been right, nor even necessary.

Perception is the key. The people we are fighting are as dedicated to their mission as I am to mine. Maybe even a little more dedicated. Their belief in the justice of their cause is as strong or perhaps stronger than mine.

The United States has been lucky in that "our side" writes the history books, but that luck won't last forever.

I wonder what will be worst for our cultural cognizance

Losing a just war or winning an unjust war?

It will be a cultural shock when we are the bad guys.

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by Platapus

Because we have voluntarily taken an oath of honour to serve the civilian leadership of our country.

- Whether we agree with the politician or not is irrelevant.

I recommend to be more choosey regarding whom you voluntarily offer your loyalty.

- Whether our political party of choice is in power or not is irrelevant.

All parties are the product of the same poltical culture mechanism. they suffer all from the same basic flaws, and are object to the same factors and distortions of democracy that hijack them.

- Whether we believe or do not believe in the specific action is irrelevant.

Nice for a robot.

- Whether our personal morals agree or disagree with the government's is irrelevant.

Nice for a robot.

- Whether our government appreciates or does not appreciate our service is irrelevant.

One of my complaints about the Iraq war and the Afghnaistan war is that the government even dispises the soldiers, even when they reutrn home wounded. Not only becasue the army gets send of claimed lies, but for example the bush adminsitration even cut pensions for disabled.

We "military folks" have taken an oath on our personal honour to serve. This is why no one is, or should be forced to serve. To some it is a duty to serve, to others it is a honour to serve. To some it is a desire to serve. To all, it is service upon our honour.

I prefer not to seve a country or a government, but people living in it. And serving that way you can do in many other ways than just miolizary ones. If you think soldiers are the more honourful being or the better citizens, then you are wrong. The man serving the community in some "ehrenamtliche" work, is serving his people. The medic working unpayed overtime while there are other servicemen available, serves the people. the teacher engaging himself in his private time for trying to influence kids towards longing for a better future, serves the community.

And when you start risking your own lifes, you really should have better qualitative criterions that define what you find it worth to die for, than just a term of honours that in all my life so far no military ever was able to define to me. If you think you just owe it to the buddies in your company, then this is a selfish way of defining war - because by that you make it your own private war and declare the right that you may have this private war of yours.

To those who have not served, it may be difficult to understand. And I don't mean that in an insulting manner at all. Service to your country is difficult to understand even for those who serve. But we do it, because we feel that it is, for myriad reasons, the right thing for us to do.

I aoso do not want to offend you, or soldiers when calling them naive in their willingness to always take the words of their poltical leaders literally withoiut questioning them. There is just no better term to describe it then "naivety". If oyu have been around long enough, you may remember that even in the hot and angry debates in 2003, 2004, I hardly, if ever attacked the military and the soldiers for the Iraq war, only when the personal failing were obvious, like in case of war crimes or the guards in Iraqui prisons absuing the prisoners. I always focussed my attacks and criticism on the political leaders, becasue they decided for or against the war, and they messed up the way in which the war was managed, or better: was not managed.

It is thoughts like all this, that has kept me away from seeking a career in the military after school. Having lift in West-Berlin at that time, I was not drafted, but I nevertheless was seriously considering to volunteer. But time and again I found myself asking the question: do I trust these kinds of modern politicians to act respoinsibly with the decisions on war and poeace, and how wars would be fought. And since 25 years now i time and again answer that question with a sounding "No, I do not trust them at all". And Iraq 91, Iraq 03 and afghanistan all have proven me right both regarding foreign governments, and the German government as well. Plus the several other operations the bundeswehr is enaged in, from the somali coast to the mission offshore Lebanon - I have stroing reservatiuons against the way these missions get run, and abused for prestige reasons, and tax money gets wasted all for just political face-saving.

these things are not worth to risk my life for. Or yours. Or that of any western soldiers currently fighting in the mentioned places. They all get betrayed, and all their willingness to serve gets abused by their political superiors for the lowest of selfish reasons of politicians at home. serving the home nation, serving one's own people, has not much to do with Iraq or Afghanistan. It is about serving the selfish interests of the few elites on top - at the cost of the people at home, and the legitimate freedom and securityinterests of one'S own nation. when I attacked Bush and Blair so harshly in the past, ohne of the reasons also was a motivation to defend American soldiers against their abuse of powers. This abusing of the good will of those in services is what makes me so angry about politicians, and this is the reason why I since years want the tropps getting brought home from Afghanistan. They are not there for the reasons that once has been given to them. They are there for political party interests at home. they should not wear national emblems, but emblems of political parties and economic corporations that laugh about them.

What has "honour" to do with this, hm? I differ poride from honour. with pride I do not know what to do with it, and relgiously it evens rates as a sin in Chriostian tradition. "honour" I quite respect, it has a meaning to me. but part of honour is not only what forms this honour, and the behavior it results in, part of honour also is the motivation of the individual that decides for what it invests it's resspurces, and for what not. And I cannot save most military people I ever met (and I met deployed Germans, British and French personally) from telling them that their good will gets abused and that they allow to get abused, and that they are too uncritical in believing their polical leaders. And that at least puts a dark spot on their image of honour.

the military is a very traditional institution, insisting also on certain rites and rituals. This is, imo, becasue people are qquite aware that in their profession they deal with life and death and possibly face their own death whuile serciving. In the face of this uncertai8nty, this exietntial dojbt, man finds it ghard to find peace of mind and calm ness if he does not think that there is something that makes it worth it to take these risks. Man must beleive that somehow it nevertheless makes sense, and that in his action he is "on the right side" of a conflicting situation. Thus the rites and rituals you have in the military, and thus an underdstanding of the term "honour" that is very stiff and solidified. It serves as an armour to protect against the doubt, that exisxtential doubt that comes aspart of the job. Because this job of being a warrior is not just like most others. This jobs handles with life and death - that of others, and that of oneself.

Anyhow, I just want you to understand that I am neither mindless nor trying to be insulting when I mentioned "naivety" in the context I did. I mean it very factual (if that is the right word), not emotional and not rethorical. Offence is not meant when saying "naivety". But I stick to the term, and the statement in which I used it.

[August]

This is a bit off topic but I must say that i've always been intrigued by this mostly European concept that the government of their country is some separate and autonomous entity that they can just divorce themselves from ideologically.

Maybe it comes from generations of serf ancestors who lived or died at the whim of some tyrannical potentate who claimed divine authority to rule over them. Maybe it comes from the Parliamentary system where leaders are appointed by political parties rather than the voters themselves. Maybe it's a combination of all that and something else. I don't claim to be an expert.

All I know is that thankfully here in the States this self destructive belief system isn't nearly as pervasive. All of our leaders as well as our President are constantly reminded that they were elected by the people they represent and they have to either produce for us or we'll demand to know why.

"Government for, by and of the People", it's not just a fancy concept.

[Wolfehunter]

Originally Posted by Platapus

Because we have voluntarily taken an oath of honour to serve the civilian leadership of our country.

- Whether we agree with the politician or not is irrelevant.

- Whether our political party of choice is in power or not is irrelevant.

- Whether we believe or do not believe in the specific action is irrelevant.

- Whether our personal morals agree or disagree with the government's is irrelevant.

- Whether our government appreciates or does not appreciate our service is irrelevant.

- Whether our government rewards us or ignores us is irrelevant.

We "military folks" have taken an oath on our personal honour to serve. This is why no one is, or should be forced to serve. To some it is a duty to serve, to others it is a honour to serve. To some it is a desire to serve. To all, it is service upon our honour.

To those who have not served, it may be difficult to understand. And I don't mean that in an insulting manner at all. Service to your country is difficult to understand even for those who serve. But we do it, because we feel that it is, for myriad reasons, the right thing for us to do.

Personally, I never look down at someone who chooses not to serve, nor do I especially encourage someone to serve. I don't even think I have any special feeling of pride for serving my country, in one form or another, for going on 30 years. My service to my country goes far deeper than pride or patriotism for I am neither a prideful nor a patriotic man . It goes to a level that defies words. My service to my country just is.

Perhaps you may understand it a little better now, but if you don't, that's OK too.

I can respect this. Especially if a Government values its people and protects there interests over there own.

I can't understand why someone would serve legal criminals who serve there own personal agenda for greed or power. Government who can send kids to kill more kids. I can't work for criminals its against my morals.