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

[Ducimus]

Whatever, smart guy.

[Captain Vlad]

I seem to remember reading about the release of this material months ago...

[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.

[Skybird]

I have not voted for this government, I will not vote for any of the parties in the parliament now, becasue none of them is worth thr trust. People voting for a party often give me the strong impression that they take their program as literal as fundamentlaist take the bible literal. A politicans gets voted, he gets a certain rank or title or iffice and thus he has authority and reputation from thart, acoridng to the military saiyng "you do not greet the man but his rank". But I see this pltical system as deeply rotten and corrupted, torn apart by reckless selfishness and lobbying efforts that try to work around the vote of the electorate and claim legislative powers althoiugh these lobbies (their masters) have no democratic legitimation by the electorate to do so. That is what makes lobbyism a ursurping (?), a corruption of powers without needing to face being held responsibility by the only one sovereign there is in a democracy: the people. The office, the title does not enooble the man - the man must enoble his title and office. But mostly, politicians today do not act like that. They abuse the powers given to them, powers that they have obtained by fraud during election procedures when they used manipulative words to lull the voters and get their votes through promises, catch phrases and desirable words.

So, rejecting loyalty to such a poltical system, to such politicians, is no moral or reasonable failure - to me it is a moral imperative, else you become guilty yourself.

That the military usually is extremely concervative in orientation, both politically and relgiously, is not for no reason; I think this too is a symptom of what I described earlier as man's need to gain self-assurance about his motives when dealing with the existential doubt his profession of handling with life and death invitably brings. Somewhere I called it an armoud that should protect against this doubt. When it is in your power, as a soldier, to bring tremendous destruction and death upon others, then you need to put your trust into something that assures you that you are doing the right thing. And all too often, this trust becomes symbolised by the government. The president. and in extreme situation: the Führer.

Blind loyalty never is a good thing. Trust must be earned, it should not be given for free. After all, both in Germany now and America, if I recall it correctly, soldiers do their oath not on the goivernment, a president or any given name, but the people. And the people thus is the most superior soverieg there is, not a givernment. A government can, but most not act in representation of the people. and most time today, it does not, but serves lobby interest, plitcal power interests, party interest - often in explicit ignorration of the will or the legitimate interest of the people, the higher being of the nation, the community.

In Germany, the coalition government has messed up so extremely that it has no majority in the population to support it. Germans are sick and tired of it - after just 9 months. Nothing works in this coalition, both partners are fighting bitterly against each other, so do their official frontline figures. 8 key figures of the conservatie party have turned their back on Merkel in anger and frustration over her, leaving the party without any strong leading character. If there would be lections this week, the opposition would be able to form a government by strong absolute majority immediately. One coalition partner possibly would not even make it into parliament anymore, having dropped from 17 to 5%. This government is not representative for a majorty of voting people anymore. It has no majority, seen that way. Even the majority in the Bundesrat has been lost. A mere bureaucratic formality, a timing factor, is all that saves it from falling apart immediately. Now, it does not matter whether I agree with the political goals of the coalition or the opposition (I don't agree with any of them, btw). But this puts a bit into perspective what you said about "government representing the people", and the link between both. Elections do not establish a cuasal link between the will of the people and a government's policies, because election campaigns are pure propaganda stunts - and everyone who takes the show serious, cannot be helped. In an ideal world, in an ideal democracy, there should be such a causal link between a nations policy and the people's will, it should be like that. In such an ideal world people also would be noble and would form reasonable, altruistic decisions (only on this basis the idea of deo9icracy can function - egoism only inevitably leads to it's erosion and corrpution, turning it into a hidden oligarchy). but neither is the world like that, nor is man. Man is greedy, selfish and highly irrational, easy to be manipulated if you press the correct buttons in him. this is what made the idea of communism failing, and this is what makes the conception of democracy just an utopia as well. Both fail over massively wrong assumptions about the nature of man.

I'm a fan of Machiavelli. Not because he was like they say about him, that he was evil, unscrupoulous, underhanded, but becasue he was a preicse observer of masses and indovidual'S behaviour - and he did not allow his observations by sentimental daydreams about how it better should be and by emotions. He said if you want the crowd to do nthis or that for you, you treat them this and that way, you do this or that thing yourself. machiavelli was extremely precise in identifying the correct procedures in order to secure political power. but that does not make him an evil man or a tyrant. He was not, inf act he was a very sensible, modest man - he just did not close his eyes before man's nature. and he identified this nature to be anything but reasonable and logical. his recommendations do not reflect any will to be evil for the sake of being evil. They are just the logical consequence of how crowds and people behave. He was brilliant. And he is possibly the most misunderstood and misinterpreted political theoretician in western history.

[Zoomer96]

I believe that these leaks are being used to attack my country by those who hate it.....ie they hate me and mine. People who have given information that has assisted in the fight against the Taliban and Al-Qaeda will die because of this and in my opinion the person who leaked the info should be taken out and shot! The UCMJ isn't good enough for this traitor.
Sorry, no arguement will change my attitude and to be honest I do not want to hear it. I don't entirely agree with everything that is going on over there and I wish we had been able to take out the Taliban and Al-Qaeda a little quicker, but American servicemen are over there doing their duty and so are Servicemen from all over the world so the dirty little snitch should pay.

[SteamWake]

Originally Posted by The Wall Stree Journal

Website [Wikileaks] Collaborated With Mainstream Media on Afghan Leaks After Previous Scoops Failed to Win Enough Attention

Thats borderline treason I believe.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...sections_world

[Skybird]

that the leaking of the material is nillegal, is beyond question. However, my question is what weighs heavier: a treason by governments that start and run wars in the shadow of smokescreens they raise and try to maintain, or the btreason that reveals this treason of governments. My answer is clear: compared to the government's treason, the illegal act of revealing this governmental reason is relatively minor in criminological importance. what counts is that the masks gets ripped off the faces of the governments, for they betrayed their own people and their own soldiers.

I do not limit this to the amerian givernment only. The material leaked is about Germany as well, for example. And on the Germans, the material seems to prove the simply unbelievable, tremendous, monumental, most infantile naivety that Germany is basing it's Afghanistan policies on.

I can't say who kills my nerves more effectively, the Americans, or the Germans. Both are so very much unique and so very much bizarr in their ways and reasons to have messed it up completely.

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.

It is because they have outgrown the "my country right or wrong" mentality.

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.

Yet you still end up with the same suits but different faces election after election.

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

You are right, its a catch phrase the audience can repeat so they feel they are really part of the show.

[mookiemookie]

Originally Posted by Skybird

that the leaking of the material is nillegal, is beyond question. However, my question is what weighs heavier: a treason by governments that start and run wars in the shadow of smokescreens they raise and try to maintain, or the btreason that reveals this treason of governments. My answer is clear: compared to the government's treason, the illegal act of revealing this governmental reason is relatively minor in criminological importance. what counts is that the masks gets ripped off the faces of the governments, for they betrayed their own people and their own soldiers.

I can't agree more. Sunlight is the best disinfectant. The things being done in OUR name need to be brought into the light of day.

[August]

Originally Posted by Skybird

that the leaking of the material is nillegal, is beyond question. However, my question is what weighs heavier: a treason by governments that start and run wars in the shadow of smokescreens they raise and try to maintain, or the btreason that reveals this treason of governments. My answer is clear: compared to the government's treason, the illegal act of revealing this governmental reason is relatively minor in criminological importance. what counts is that the masks gets ripped off the faces of the governments, for they betrayed their own people and their own soldiers.

But where in those thousands of stolen documents is the actual betrayal? You know that if they had revealed anything of importance the news would be trumpeted by anyone with an axe to grind against the US government but that hasn't happened. It leads me to believe that there is little substance to them at all. I mean except putting our troops and the Afghans who help us at risk.

[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.

[mookiemookie]

Originally Posted by August

But where in those thousands of stolen documents is the actual betrayal? You know that if they had revealed anything of importance the news would be trumpeted by anyone with an axe to grind against the US government but that hasn't happened. It leads me to believe that there is little substance to them at all. I mean except putting our troops and the Afghans who help us at risk.

Friendly fire incident coverup: http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2010/...-soldiers.html

[August]

Originally Posted by mookiemookie

Friendly fire incident coverup: http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2010/...-soldiers.html

Except that:

The veracity of the WikiLeaks document hasn't been determined, and Drapeau acknowledged that the incident report could be wrong and not corrected.

and:

One of the soldiers' mothers said she believes the military. "The vehicle that he was in was hit by an RPG — that's a rocket-propelled grenade — and some of the shrapnel from it hit the turret and some of the shrapnel from the turret hit him in the neck. He bled to death," Avril Stachnik told The Canadian Press in an interview in Waskatenau, Alta.
"One of Shane's best friends was with him at the time and that's what he told me as well," she said.

So I guess if you buy the government cover up theory that must mean that Shanes best friend is a part of the cover up as well right?



I think you're going to need a clearer smoking gun than that dood...

[mookiemookie]

Originally Posted by August

I think you're going to need a clearer smoking gun than that dood...

Haven't read much of this closely, but it's just the first thing I came up with on a quick search.