War in Afghanistan.

[Crusader]

Wikileaks does it again and publishes an Afghan war diary. With a mind-blowing 75.000 out of 91.000 reports published this could be one of the biggest leaks... well, ever? Mainstream media is on it. It apparently proves there have been quite a few cover ups and that both sides did some real bad things.

I, as a Dutchman, am waiting for the first proof that the Dutch covered up something bad, but nothing so far. The site mentions it's mostly USA's documentation and that the European forces are mentioned in them, but they don't have reports from the European nations directly. I'm still hoping that somehow we kept our hands more or less clean, or that at least nothing was hidden from the public and that we can keep confident that our military behaves as properly as possible. If we have another Srebrenica support for the military would drop so low that any politician uttering anything about sending our soldiers out on another foreign mission will commit political suicide. Not to mention the stain on the profession of soldiers, who are often also doing good things that never get mentioned.

Note that I do not support us (the Dutch) being in Afghanistan, I believe we shouldn't be the ones cleaning up the (insolvable?) mess, but while they're there, from what I can see is that we're at least trying to make something out of a hopeless situation and sounds coming from the local Afghan populace is that the Dutch are popular there as far as support for the military presence goes. Sadly, the Afghan military is a joke that won't be able to take over for years, if not decades to come. Soldiers report they betray their own to the Taliban constantly for some cash and almost all are addicted to opiates. I think NATO will be stuck there for a looong time. It dug a pit for itself it can't climb out of much like Iraq.

This 2008 British documentary describes the problem of the Afghan soldiers betraying their own (4:50):
http://www.vbs.tv/nl-nl/watch/vbs-news/i...tan-1-of-2

This part shows them getting stoned:
http://www.vbs.tv/nl-nl/watch/vbs-news/i...tan-2-of-2

[kandrathe]

Wikileaks does it again and publishes an Afghan war diary.

I predict the site will be shut down soon, and Julian Assange will be prosecuted for whatever they can stick on him. If for no other purpose than to... ... "smash it through a plate-glass window. Take a snapshot of the bleeding mess and send it out in a Christmas card to let them know that they need to live in a state of constant fear."

http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-s...in-danger/

[Jester]

I predict the site will be shut down soon, and Julian Assange will be prosecuted for whatever they can stick on him.

My bet? They have nothing, and Julian Assange will continue to do what he's always done. I'm optimistic that Wikileaks will remain in operation.

If for no other purpose than to... ... "smash it through a plate-glass window. Take a snapshot of the bleeding mess and send it out in a Christmas card to let them know that they need to live in a state of constant fear."

If it works twice as well as the original, we can expect to see Wikileaks alive and well long into the next century.*

-Jester

*The original did also include a disclaimer that this was not meant literally - whereas the US government might well be more direct.

[kandrathe]

I predict the site will be shut down soon, and Julian Assange will be prosecuted for whatever they can stick on him.

My bet? They have nothing, and Julian Assange will continue to do what he's always done. I'm optimistic that Wikileaks will remain in operation.

If for no other purpose than to... ... "smash it through a plate-glass window. Take a snapshot of the bleeding mess and send it out in a Christmas card to let them know that they need to live in a state of constant fear."

If it works twice as well as the original, we can expect to see Wikileaks alive and well long into the next century.*

-Jester

*The original did also include a disclaimer that this was not meant literally - whereas the US government might well be more direct.

If the spooks are subtle, it will appear as if he died in a freak accident where they could only be a million to one chance, or he will just disappear without a trace. The questions is *whose* spooks will get him. When you mess with engaging in asymmetric information warfare against all of NATO and their allies, you wouldn't know who hired the contractors. They may just be allied mujaheddin as well, and we're handing out tons of cash for dirty deeds.

[Crusader]

I, as a Dutchman, am waiting for the first proof that the Dutch covered up something bad, but nothing so far.

And we got our first (minor) coverup. In an engagement that was mentioned to the public, it was not mentioned that there were 4 civilian casualties. No reaction from the public so far, since it's unclear how it happened.

[Jester]

If the spooks are subtle, it will appear as if he died in a freak accident where they could only be a million to one chance, or he will just disappear without a trace. The questions is *whose* spooks will get him. When you mess with engaging in asymmetric information warfare against all of NATO and their allies, you wouldn't know who hired the contractors. They may just be allied mujaheddin as well, and we're handing out tons of cash for dirty deeds.

Killing an international celebrity whose whole purpose in life is to publish leaked documents in a "million to one" accident is the exact opposite of subtle - which is why I don't think they're going to bother.

Besides, much like Robin Hood, or V, Wikileaks is not a singular entity. It is an idea. Killing the individual person organizing it wouldn't stop the concept. Whoever took up the torch next would just stay underground.

I'm reminded of The Barnhouse Effect. All you really need is someone willing to do it, and I'm sure there lots of those.

-Jester

[kandrathe]

[quote='kandrathe']Killing an international celebrity whose whole purpose in life is to publish leaked documents in a "million to one" accident is the exact opposite of subtle - which is why I don't think they're going to bother.

Besides, much like Robin Hood, or V, Wikileaks is not a singular entity. It is an idea. Killing the individual person organizing it wouldn't stop the concept. Whoever took up the torch next would just stay underground.

I'm reminded of The Barnhouse Effect. All you really need is someone willing to do it, and I'm sure there lots of those.

-Jester

I suppose. This is the type of crap that makes them want to regulate the internet. If they had the power of the "panic button", it would have been pressed last week. I hope people keep track of how many death's of leaked "collaborators", and NATO soldiers will be on WikiLeaks heads.

[Lissa]

I predict the site will be shut down soon, and Julian Assange will be prosecuted for whatever they can stick on him.

My bet? They have nothing, and Julian Assange will continue to do what he's always done. I'm optimistic that Wikileaks will remain in operation.

If for no other purpose than to... ... "smash it through a plate-glass window. Take a snapshot of the bleeding mess and send it out in a Christmas card to let them know that they need to live in a state of constant fear."

If it works twice as well as the original, we can expect to see Wikileaks alive and well long into the next century.*

-Jester

*The original did also include a disclaimer that this was not meant literally - whereas the US government might well be more direct.

If the spooks are subtle, it will appear as if he died in a freak accident where they could only be a million to one chance, or he will just disappear without a trace. The questions is *whose* spooks will get him. When you mess with engaging in asymmetric information warfare against all of NATO and their allies, you wouldn't know who hired the contractors. They may just be allied mujaheddin as well, and we're handing out tons of cash for dirty deeds.

You don't kill someone like this in this day and age, you discredit them or get them jailed for trumped up, but highly likely charges. Killing someone makes them a martyr now, tarnishing their image makes people no longer pay attention to them.

Besides, the information that went up is 6+ months out of date. A lot of things have changed from the most recent items they published. The only thing this publishing is going to do is make it less likely that Afghan's will work with the NATO forces.

[--Pete]

Hi,

You don't kill someone like this in this day and age, you discredit them or get them jailed for trumped up, but highly likely charges. Killing someone makes them a martyr now, tarnishing their image makes people no longer pay attention to them.

Exactly. Except in spy novels, assassination is a greatly overrated technique. It usually fails (ask Castro) and when it does succeed, it often backfires.

The only thing this publishing is going to do is make it less likely that Afghan's will work with the NATO forces.

Less likely? You mean they've extended the cooperation scale into the negative?

EDIT, Afterthought. Are the USA leaders using the '55 to '75 history of Vietnam as the playbook for Afghanistan? If so, they might want to flip ahead to the end. Spoiler: we lost.

--Pete

[Jester]

I suppose. This is the type of crap that makes them want to regulate the internet. If they had the power of the "panic button", it would have been pressed last week.

Isn't there something somewhere in the Constitution about freedom of the press? The First Amendment? I'm pretty sure the government is constitutionally forbidden from just outright censoring the internet.

I hope people keep track of how many death's of leaked "collaborators", and NATO soldiers will be on WikiLeaks heads.

My guess is very few, if any. Nothing in those documents was classified higher than "secret". It's not like there are long lists of informants in there, or the secret identities of deep undercover CIA agents. The worst of it is embarrassingly public admission of things that were already more or less common knowledge - the Taliban is surprisingly well armed, special forces and black ops are used to go after high-value targets beyond the official scope of operation, the Pakistani secret service is in cahoots with the enemy, and so on.

-Jester

[swirly]

I hope people keep track of how many death's of leaked "collaborators", and NATO soldiers will be on WikiLeaks heads.

My guess is very few, if any. Nothing in those documents was classified higher than "secret". It's not like there are long lists of informants in there, or the secret identities of deep undercover CIA agents. The worst of it is embarrassingly public admission of things that were already more or less common knowledge - the Taliban is surprisingly well armed, special forces and black ops are used to go after high-value targets beyond the official scope of operation, the Pakistani secret service is in cahoots with the enemy, and so on.

My understanding from the admittedly "having as little clue as us" pundits that I listen to is that Wikileaks actually has more info that they decided not to leak because it might endanger people. So it isn't like they just released anything and everything. They went through and made an analysis of what would be safe and what wouldn't be. I've heard it argued that it isn't their job to make that call. That the Military is the one with enough info to do it correctly. Wikileaks seems to feel it has enough info to do it though.

So, for me, I think that is kind of an interesting side topic. Who do we let make such decisions. The military obviously has all the information and so can make more complete analysis of it, but they also would likely not release half the data for reason not related to casualties. Wikileaks has a good amount of data and so maybe can make less informed, but still solid calls on what to release. Yet their goal is clearly to release things and so they might error too far on the side of release and get some people killed by doing so. So what is the correct solution? Personally I'm fine with Wikileaks doing how they did. Giving as much care as they can not to release dangerous info, but still releasing a good amount.

Once again, this is just what I have heard from pundits (tech pundits even so not exactly their field). I didn't even look at the article they were referring to as a source. So take it for what it is. : )

[--Pete]

Hi,

That the Military is the one with enough info to do it correctly.

As much as I admire and respect the military, no organization should ever be in charge of policing itself. There once was a time when the respected news media could be trusted. Actually, I guess that's still true, except there isn't a respected news media anymore.

Not perfect, but for me this is adequate.

--Pete

[kandrathe]

That the Military is the one with enough info to do it correctly.

As much as I admire and respect the military, no organization should ever be in charge of policing itself. There once was a time when the respected news media could be trusted. Actually, I guess that's still true, except there isn't a respected news media anymore.

Not perfect, but for me this is adequate.

The military may know which of their friends is at risk. For example, there was one report posted in the NY Times, the names were redacted, but not the town, it listed enough info to know when the Taliban attack occurred, and it didn't redact the part about the sources brother in law, who was missing both his legs. It's a pretty simple equation, 2+2=4, and that source is dead. I just see many reprisals, and blood on the hands of Wikileaks.

[kandrathe]

I suppose. This is the type of crap that makes them want to regulate the internet. If they had the power of the "panic button", it would have been pressed last week.

Isn't there something somewhere in the Constitution about freedom of the press? The First Amendment? I'm pretty sure the government is constitutionally forbidden from just outright censoring the internet.

It doesn't stop them from trying to clamp down on the other forms of media, and the internet is an unknown we haven't quite figured out yet.

I hope people keep track of how many death's of leaked "collaborators", and NATO soldiers will be on WikiLeaks heads.

My guess is very few, if any. Nothing in those documents was classified higher than "secret".

There are three classifications; 1) Top secret, 2) Secret, and 3) Confidential. About 3% of documents are at 1), and about 75% are at 3), leaving about 22% at 2). It is against the law to expose any of this. This is probably worse than 1000 Anna Chapman's could ever dream of uncovering. If reveals details of methods, which jeopardizes our abilities, and whether you think so or not, it jeopardizes the people who helped us obtain the information. There will be lots of exclamations of "Aha!, Hassan is a traitor!"

It's not like there are long lists of informants in there, or the secret identities of deep undercover CIA agents.

In the 260,000 pages of documents, my guess is that they will mention many people.

The worst of it is embarrassingly public admission of things that were already more or less common knowledge - the Taliban is surprisingly well armed, special forces and black ops are used to go after high-value targets beyond the official scope of operation, the Pakistani secret service is in cahoots with the enemy, and so on.

Well, yes, that too. It was a surprise to me to learn the extent that Iran, and North Korea were involved in arming and training the Taliban. I guess it should really be no surprise though.

Wikileaks has indicated that they will release the other information they have in the near future. I'm 100% against the war. I'm just shocked that there are liberals so blinded by their opposition that they are willing to be accomplice to the murder of thousands of people by the Taliban in reprisals.

[Jester]

It doesn't stop them from trying to clamp down on the other forms of media, and the internet is an unknown we haven't quite figured out yet.

I would be shocked and appalled if online media were not granted the same press protections as their print, radio and television counterparts. I guess that's up for the courts to decide, but it seems like a pretty ironclad case to me.

There are three classifications; 1) Top secret, 2) Secret, and 3) Confidential. About 3% of documents are at 1), and about 75% are at 3), leaving about 22% at 2). It is against the law to expose any of this.

Where do you get those numbers? From the reports I've heard, there are no top secret documents, and that the likely source (Bradley Manning) didn't even have access to that level of information. But I haven't seen anything more in depth than a good newspaper article.

It is certainly against the law to publish any of this. This is a form of international civil disobedience, revealing the truth about operations that purportedly democratic countries fail to tell their citizens about. Wikileaks watches the watchers, I suppose.

If reveals details of methods, which jeopardizes our abilities, and whether you think so or not, it jeopardizes the people who helped us obtain the information.

We'll see. I hope they've done a good job of purging the documents. Perhaps not. It would be a tragedy for informants and collaborators to lose their lives over this. But I see this as an inevitable consequence of operating beyond the law - people who disagree with your methods are going to expose you. If our militaries had been open and honest about what they were doing, in the generalities if not the particulars, then there would be little need for this kind of leak.

In the 260,000 pages of documents, my guess is that they will mention many people.

The question is whether it names or otherwise identifies sensitive people, and what consequences that has.

Well, yes, that too. It was a surprise to me to learn the extent that Iran, and North Korea were involved in arming and training the Taliban. I guess it should really be no surprise though.

North Korea sells weapons. It's practically their only export. They'll sell to whomever is buying.

As for Iran, we'll see. It's a complicated business, and from what I gather, these are allegations, and not demonstrated facts. But then, I haven't combed the documents.

Wikileaks has indicated that they will release the other information they have in the near future. I'm 100% against the war. I'm just shocked that there are liberals so blinded by their opposition that they are willing to be accomplice to the murder of thousands of people by the Taliban in reprisals.

I would have released them myself - although the job of redacting them to purge dangerous information would not be an easy one. But it is simply unacceptable that governments would continuously lie to their own people about key facts in war - about the state of their allies, about the strength of their enemies, about the nature of their operations. Nobody is asking for a blow-by-blow, but it's clear that official secrecy has gotten way, way out of hand.

That kills far more people, and does far more damage, than any number of Taliban reprisals.

-Jester

[--Pete]

Hi,

Where do you get those numbers? From the reports I've heard, there are no top secret documents,

I believe that kandrathe meant those three are the levels of classification and the respective amount of material in each overall, not that of these specific documents. That, BTW, is the DOD breakdown. DOE uses a much different system.

The DOD system is a matrix. Confidential, secret, top secret are the level. The type of information is the other dimension. Classifications like NATO military information, critical nuclear weapons information, etc. are the other dimension. To get legal access to any specific piece of information, a person has to have the appropriate level of clearance, the appropriate classification(s), and need to know. Also, there are programs which require specific 'read ins'.

Just a little clarification if y'all are going to talk clearance.

--Pete

[Jester]

I believe that kandrathe meant those three are the levels of classification and the respective amount of material in each overall, not that of these specific documents.

Oh. Well, if that's what he meant, I don't care how much of classified material is in what classification, overall. It's neat trivia, but the question at hand is what's been leaked, not what exists.

Just a little clarification if y'all are going to talk clearance.

Above my pay grade, as they say. I'm only interested in what's been released, at least for now.

-Jester

[kandrathe]

I would be shocked and appalled if online media were not granted the same press protections as their print, radio and television counterparts. I guess that's up for the courts to decide, but it seems like a pretty ironclad case to me.

Be shocked and appalled. We have the Patriot act. Luckily, as the years pass more and more provisions are being found to be unconstitutional. Yet, until enough time passes, and people have expended fortunes defending themselves from our government apparatus, we suffer a loss of freedom.

There are three classifications; 1) Top secret, 2) Secret, and 3) Confidential. About 3% of documents are at 1), and about 75% are at 3), leaving about 22% at 2). It is against the law to expose any of this.

Where do you get those numbers? From the reports I've heard, there are no top secret documents, and that the likely source (Bradley Manning) didn't even have access to that level of information. But I haven't seen anything more in depth than a good newspaper article.

I meant in general. From what I've read all of this is the middle category, "secret" to protect sources and methods.

It is certainly against the law to publish any of this. This is a form of international civil disobedience, revealing the truth about operations that purportedly democratic countries fail to tell their citizens about. Wikileaks watches the watchers, I suppose.

This crime is punishable by death in the US.

If reveals details of methods, which jeopardizes our abilities, and whether you think so or not, it jeopardizes the people who helped us obtain the information.

We'll see. I hope they've done a good job of purging the documents. Perhaps not. It would be a tragedy for informants and collaborators to lose their lives over this.

They have not, because they have no idea what might jeopardize what. Context matters... again...

But I see this as an inevitable consequence of operating beyond the law - people who disagree with your methods are going to expose you. If our militaries had been open and honest about what they were doing, in the generalities if not the particulars, then there would be little need for this kind of leak.

First, I've not heard of anything illegal being leaked. Sad, yes. Second, are you nuts? You cannot operate asymmetric warfare in the open. Read Sun Tzu. The art of war is deception, and misdirection. This is not two lines of guys with muskets, and even then deception and feinting were a big part of winning.

Wikileaks has indicated that they will release the other information they have in the near future. I'm 100% against the war. I'm just shocked that there are liberals so blinded by their opposition that they are willing to be accomplice to the murder of thousands of people by the Taliban in reprisals.

I would have released them myself - although the job of redacting them to purge dangerous information would not be an easy one. But it is simply unacceptable that governments would continuously lie to their own people about key facts in war - about the state of their allies, about the strength of their enemies, about the nature of their operations. Nobody is asking for a blow-by-blow, but it's clear that official secrecy has gotten way, way out of hand.

These are the blow by blow allegations written in field reports. Some of the officers in the field may have been wrong in their conclusions, or the information given by informants may have been false. These are not summaries, and they are not verified. They are also spanning a huge country over almost a decade. It's an information avalanche, where you really cannot see the pearls from the manure. Often, the documents usefulness was at the time it was written, for the person who it was written for, in the area where it occurred. After that, it may only need to be secret to protect sources and methods, and publication of it will harm people, and the ability to employ those methods in the future. Perhaps Mr. Assange, would be willing to put up all the money he earns from his web sites and donate it for setting up refugee camps in Australia for dispossessed Afghan's who need to flee or die.

The horror of war (and the loose lips of commanders), is why the practice of embedding journalists with the troops was stopped after Vietnam. People like their war sanitized, and distant. And... The raw feeds of military unit reports have always been both secret, and sensitive. How do you think WWII reports may have looked from Tarawa (35K troops with 9.4% casualties in one day), if the raw data had been in the newspaper the next day or week. Anyone who's ever looked at the aftermath of a battle would ever think it was worth it. But... People can (and should) stand up against war without betraying their country.

[Jester]

They have not, because they have no idea what might jeopardize what. Context matters... again...

Hm. Disturbing.

First, I've not heard of anything illegal being leaked. Sad, yes. Second, are you nuts? You cannot operate asymmetric warfare in the open. Read Sun Tzu. The art of war is deception, and misdirection. This is not two lines of guys with muskets, and even then deception and feinting were a big part of winning.

Deceiving who? The Taliban is surely under no illusions as to what the US is doing - they're fighting the war! They know full well what's happening and where, except perhaps at the level of specifics, which I don't think civilians have any need to know in any case. But it must come as no surprise to them that they have rockets, or that they brought down a chopper we were never told about, or that the US has units hunting their leaders.

No, this is about deceiving *us*, sugar-coating and burying information that might make the war look unpopular. Once a democratic state is in the business of lying to itself, raison d'etat takes over.

These are the blow by blow allegations written in field reports.

Yes. My point is, their release would be entirely unnecessary if they did not also contain information that we should already know, but don't, because the government denies it, or simply fails to mention it. If this was merely a flood of documents released just for the sake of releasing them, I'd be much less sympathetic.

Some of the officers in the field may have been wrong in their conclusions, or the information given by informants may have been false. These are not summaries, and they are not verified. They are also spanning a huge country over almost a decade. It's an information avalanche, where you really cannot see the pearls from the manure. Often, the documents usefulness was at the time it was written, for the person who it was written for, in the area where it occurred.

Agreed on all points. These documents need to be read as having a context and a level of uncertainty we may not be aware of.

After that, it may only need to be secret to protect sources and methods, and publication of it will harm people, and the ability to employ those methods in the future. Perhaps Mr. Assange, would be willing to put up all the money he earns from his web sites and donate it for setting up refugee camps in Australia for dispossessed Afghan's who need to flee or die.

Well, for now, I think it would behoove the coalition forces to devote more effort to keeping their civilian informants safe from reprisals. If I understand Petraeus' Iraq strategy at all, then he will no doubt pursue this course anyway.

Mr. Assange has more to answer for than I initially thought - his job of redacting the documents is shoddy in parts, and it doesn't take many mistakes to yield targets.

The horror of war (and the loose lips of commanders), is why the practice of embedding journalists with the troops was stopped after Vietnam.

What about these guys? Regardless, the idea that civilians should be "protected" from the "horrors" (read: truth) of war is disgusting. War is ugly, and if the people don't want to fight it, what on earth is their purportedly democratic government doing trying to deceive them into it? The government is the servant of the people, not the other way around.

And... The raw feeds of military unit reports have always been both secret, and sensitive. How do you think WWII reports may have looked from Tarawa (35K troops with 9.4% casualties in one day), if the raw data had been in the newspaper the next day or week. Anyone who's ever looked at the aftermath of a battle would ever think it was worth it.

If it's worth it, then it's worth it. If it's not, then it's not. But that's for the people to judge, and not the military, or the government. The people can't do that without the relevant information. That doesn't mean this kind of information overload minute-by-minute reporting we get from these documents - they are a second-best substitute for transparency. But it does mean all the major facts (like, say, the effectiveness of the Taliban) are on the table for all to see.

-Jester

[Thecla]

Deceiving who? The Taliban is surely under no illusions as to what the US is doing

And my understanding is (not that I've read any of the leaked documents) that some of the most interesting info concerns details (with more or less corroboration) about the deals between Pakistan's secret service (the ISI) and the Taliban.

Of course that's not news --- we all know that the Taliban are basically Pakistan's allies in Afghanistan --- but it's certainly cunning asymmetrical warfare on the part of the US to keep that info secret from the Taliban,