War in Afghanistan.

[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. : )