PDA

View Full Version : Wikileaks and the Afghan conflict



coelacanth2
07-26-2010, 05:05 AM
This could prove interesting...was waking up to the BBC this AM and this came on:91000 plus leaked documents relating to the conduct of the war. I think this could result in a lot of turmoil on all sides.

skuthorp
07-26-2010, 05:22 AM
On our news they said it was already causing a rukus in Pakistan and the Afghani govt.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2010/07/26/2964720.htm

Andrew Craig-Bennett
07-26-2010, 05:56 AM
There is a fairly comprehensive summary on the British "Guardian" newspaper's website, here:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/series/afghanistan-the-war-logs

Here's a good bit to get you started:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/jul/25/pakistan-isi-supporting-taliban-washington

skuthorp
07-26-2010, 06:10 AM
So ACB, do you think Wikileaks is a Trojan horse?

seanz
07-26-2010, 06:28 AM
This could prove interesting...was waking up to the BBC this AM and this came on:91000 plus leaked documents relating to the conduct of the war. I think this could result in a lot of turmoil on all sides.

Did someone lose a laptop?

It doesn't sound like there's anything earth-shattering in them......just the usual WarisHell/Trustnobody/Peopleareexpendable official drone that we've come to know and hate.

SMARTINSEN
07-26-2010, 06:35 AM
Three front page articles on the NYT today, as well.

In the U.S, there is mounting public opposition to the fruitless, expensive, and ultimately un-winnable war in Afghanistan, and, hopefully, this is the beginning of the end, ala Vietnam. The sooner that TBTB realize that we cannot win, the better off we all will be.


As the new American commander in Afghanistan, Gen. David H. Petraeus (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/p/david_h_petraeus/index.html?inline=nyt-per), tries to reverse the lagging war effort, the documents sketch a war hamstrung by an Afghan government, police force and army of questionable loyalty and competence, and by a Pakistani military that appears at best uncooperative and at worst to work from the shadows as an unspoken ally of the very insurgent forces the American-led coalition is trying to defeat.

Deja-vu all over again.

Can someone explain to me what we are trying to do over there? Our commitment to this debacle makes absolutely no sense to me.

Andrew Craig-Bennett
07-26-2010, 06:46 AM
So ACB, do you think Wikileaks is a Trojan horse?

No, I don't think so; I think these are the 92,000 documents passed to Julian Assange of Wikileaks by the US soldier, SPC Bradley Manning, who was dobbed in to the FBI by another leaker, Adrian Lamo, to whom he unwisely confided a few weeks ago. Lamo turned State's evidence.

This looks to me like the "Pentagon Papers" of the Afghan war.

Syed
07-26-2010, 06:46 AM
Two front page articles on the NYT today, as well.

There is mounting public opposition to the fruitless, expensive, and ultimately un-winnable war in Afghanistan, and this is the beginning of the end, ala Vietnam

Tough conditions, no doubt.

Link (http://english.aljazeera.net/news/asia/2010/06/201062213151402507.html)

skuthorp
07-26-2010, 06:50 AM
ACB, combined with the enquiry over the legal status of the Iraq and Afghani operations and the war crimes implications, will this tip the balance re the UK's continuing operations in those theatres?

Andrew Craig-Bennett
07-26-2010, 06:54 AM
I'd say that there is no doubt that popular feeling in the UK is now very strongly against the continuation of military operations in Afghanistanby the UK.

Almost the only people in favour of it that I can find are Army officers. Everyone else is opposed.

I think that Cameron is going to have to come round to accepting this and pull out.

purri
07-26-2010, 07:00 AM
Officers jest luuuurve metal.

skuthorp
07-26-2010, 07:03 AM
If the enquiries report goes the way it seems, will Cameron risk being tarred with the same brush as Blair if he keeps the UK in for one hour longer? And what of the MP's who voted under party discipline (we did what we were ordered) for it? I hear the echoes of Nuremberg. Of course a whole admin in the US is guilty as hell, but they don't recognise anything so unless someone is arrested by a third party we won't hear much about this.

SMARTINSEN
07-26-2010, 07:10 AM
This looks to me like the "Pentagon Papers" of the Afghan war.


I agree. As the Pentagon Pagers was a turning point, so is Wikileaks.

Y Bar Ranch
07-26-2010, 08:33 AM
Can someone explain to me what we are trying to do over there? Our commitment to this debacle makes absolutely no sense to me.
Keep Islamic fundie terrorists from having a safe haven they can use to export their violent jihad from. Protect Pakistan and their nukes from falling into fundamentalist hands. Hunt down and kill Bin Laden.

Y Bar Ranch
07-26-2010, 08:40 AM
Afghanistan is fundamentally different from Vietnam in that if we pull out, they'll be emboldened and declare a victory, and spread. That is their ultimate goal.

So if you're in favor of pulling out, then the discussion needs to be on what you think will occur once we're gone, and how we deal with it. Will they turn their full efforts on Pakistan? Ramp back up their efforts to export jihad? Can play the different sides against each other in order to keep them focused on killing each other in Afghanistan and not have the energy to look outward?

The real concern to me is Pakistan and their nukes.

SMARTINSEN
07-26-2010, 09:03 AM
Hunt down and kill Bin Laden.


How is that working out? He is probably dead anyway.

Our massive expenditure of people and materiel for the past 9 years has yielded little tangible result, in many ways, we are worse off tha we were in 2001. Did you read Syed's link, or see the picture of the Taliban in a U.S. supplied Ford pick up?

Our attempts to throw the massive weight of 21st century military prowess against a small cadre of zealots simply does not and cannot work. We can bomb them back to the stone age, and guess what?--THEY WILL STILL BE THERE FIGHTING AGAINST US. We are alienating the entire populace in the meantime.

The whole strategy is wrong, never mind, as ACB points out the impossible logistics. We are squandering our men and materiel, and we need a better approach.

With regard to nuclear weapons in Pakistan, it is a case of as ye sow, so shall ye reap. I believe, but cannot prove, that the nuclear weapons in Pakistan were developed in secret collaboration with the U.S. in an attempt to achieve parity in a hedge against India. I think that the Pakistani military and the U.S. know right where these weapons are, and that they do not pose as great a threat of falling into the wrong hands as you imply.

Andrew Craig-Bennett
07-26-2010, 09:09 AM
Tough conditions, no doubt.

Link (http://english.aljazeera.net/news/asia/2010/06/201062213151402507.html)

I have no doubt at all about that link, Syed.

That's why the "war" cannot be won by NATO.

For every gallon of fuel used by ICAF forces, 11 are used to get it to them. Now, if I was driving a fuel truck into Afghanistan, would I be paying for the very best protection that I could get? I rather think so! ;)

The "war" is a logistical insanity.

Andrew Craig-Bennett
07-26-2010, 09:14 AM
Keep Islamic fundie terrorists from having a safe haven they can use to export their violent jihad from.

Taken a look (from a safe distance) at Mogadishu, lately?


Protect Pakistan and their nukes from falling into fundamentalist hands.

The people best able to protect Pakistan are the Pakistanis. The ICAF presence in Afghanistan and drone attacks inside Pakistan are the best recruiting sergeants that fundamentalists could hope for.


Hunt down and kill Bin Laden.

Very funny!

Y Bar Ranch
07-26-2010, 09:27 AM
Taken a look (from a safe distance) at Mogadishu, lately?
In fact, yes

Syed
07-26-2010, 09:44 AM
I have no doubt at all about that link, Syed.

That's why the "war" cannot be won by NATO.

For every gallon of fuel used by ICAF forces, 11 are used to get it to them. Now, if I was driving a fuel truck into Afghanistan, would I be paying for the very best protection that I could get? I rather think so! ;)

The "war" is a logistical insanity.

And moreover, paying to the enemy for that protection.

elf
07-26-2010, 11:58 AM
How much of Pakistan is Pashtun? Why is Pakistan trying so hard to keep Qetta and the rest of the Pashtun area in Pakistani hands? Are the Pashtun really any help to the Pakistanis against the Indians? The Pashtun want what they consider their lands reunited. Why is that a bad idea?

Y Bar Ranch
07-26-2010, 12:24 PM
Leaking secret US documents is like stealing candy from a baby. Brit docs too, I guess. I wish Wikileaks and the world of hackers would put some effort into equal opportunity leaking of Russia, China, North Korea, Iran, Turkey, etc. All they're doing right now is making it easier for competing intelligence services. Transparency for them appears to be a one-way mirror.

nw_noob
07-26-2010, 12:40 PM
The sad thing is that none of this stuff is "News", it's all been reported by foreign outlets and alt-news sources for years. The story Syed posted about paying protection money to the Taliban was told in mcclachy papers long ago. The only reason people are paying attention now is because they are seeing U.S. military source material. Afghans and Pakistanis have been talking about this stuff for years, but apparently their word was less credible than press releases issued by the military. If the Army says they didn't kill any civilians the press just prints it, regardless of the number of child-size body bags the locals drag into the streets for the cameras. The propaganda machine that passes for a free-press in this country is despicable.

Captain Blight
07-26-2010, 12:42 PM
I have no doubt at all about that link, Syed.

That's why the "war" cannot be won by NATO.

For every gallon of fuel used by ICAF forces, 11 are used to get it to them. Now, if I was driving a fuel truck into Afghanistan, would I be paying for the very best protection that I could get? I rather think so! ;)

The "war" is a logistical insanity.


And moreover, paying to the enemy for that protection.
I can not believe that this isn't common knowledge throughout the US, UK and Australia. I tell people and provide them with original source material, and am dismissed as trying to further my liberal agenda (whatever that means). But it's not something to believe; it's something to look up and verify.

On a semi-related note, I feel sick. (http://costofwar.com/) Thanks a lot,Dubya.

Captain Blight
07-26-2010, 12:43 PM
the sad thing is that none of this stuff is "news", it's all been reported by foreign outlets and alt-news sources for years. The story syed posted about paying protection money to the taliban was told in mcclachy papers long ago. The only reason people are paying attention now is because they are seeing u.s. Military source material. Afghans and pakistanis have been talking about this stuff for years, but apparently their word was less credible than press releases issued by the military. If the army says they didn't kill any civilians the press just prints it, regardless of the number of child-size body bags the locals drag into the streets for the cameras. The propaganda machine that passes for a free-press in this country is despicable.

thank you!!

John Smith
07-26-2010, 01:15 PM
Keep Islamic fundie terrorists from having a safe haven they can use to export their violent jihad from. Protect Pakistan and their nukes from falling into fundamentalist hands. Hunt down and kill Bin Laden.

Why do that need a location? Can't they plan over the internet from anywhere?

Personally, I think the best way to defuse the funding of Islamic terrorists is not to give them protests over a Muslim cultural center proposed to be built here.

No matter what we may succeed in doing over there, such anti-Muslim **** here only helps THEM recruit fighters and donations.

Very poor strategy.

Y Bar Ranch
07-26-2010, 01:40 PM
Why do that need a location? Can't they plan over the internet from anywhere?
They need a safe haven to operate from for training camps. Military and paramilitary training requires space and assets. Organization building too. Once trained, the terrorists can flow out and do their thing, using comms technology to coordinate.

Personally, I think the best way to defuse the funding of Islamic terrorists is not to give them protests over a Muslim cultural center proposed to be built here.
We are who we are. A big squabbling flocks of seagulls arguing about everything, and doing it all in public. If we change how we behave, the terrorists win.

nw_noob
07-26-2010, 02:14 PM
We are who we are. ... If we change how we behave, the terrorists win.

So are you saying that perpetual war is the key to eventual peace?

Y Bar Ranch
07-26-2010, 02:20 PM
So are you saying that perpetual war is the key to eventual peace?
No. Are you saying we should stifle debate to avoid offending people?

Captain Blight
07-26-2010, 02:31 PM
It would seem you'd stifle any rational examination of the Islamist mindset because you see it as 'apologising' or something.


You ain't gonna learn what you don't want to know~ Grateful Dead

nw_noob
07-26-2010, 02:32 PM
No. Are you saying we should stifle debate to avoid offending people?

No, open debate is a great thing, and the people on this forum are particularly good at it, that's why I come here.

I just fail to see how dropping bombs and commissioning mercenary forces to "root out the terrorists" is going to eliminate terrorism. Most people who have been studying this strategy objectively say that the opposite is true.

As long as bombs keep falling in foreign lands, the people living nearby will continue to be pissed off about it, and some will take up arms. As long as the only literate people in the tribal regions are the Imams, the young men will continue to believe that their interpretation of the Koran is true.

A war on terror is a war against ideas that breed crimes. Bombs and guns are ill suited tools for a fight against ideas IMO.

John of Phoenix
07-26-2010, 02:41 PM
"Don't start a war that you cannot win and dare not lose." - Me in a letter to dubya.

The549
07-26-2010, 03:28 PM
what do that afghanis want?

Osborne Russell
07-26-2010, 03:50 PM
They need a safe haven to operate from for training camps. Military and paramilitary training requires space and assets.

You must have a special definition of "terrorist". Why do they need any military and paramilitary training at all? To make, deploy and explode an IED? Look back in history at terrorists -- the whole point is to not be military.

Terrorism is not new, all propaganda notwithstanding.

When, as a response to terrorism, did anyone employ indefinite occupation? When did it ever work?

I understand that a couple of the 9-11 hijackers had been to Afghanistan. So what, they did some pushups and learned how to clean a rifle. The others, zip.

Would a NATO occupation of Afghanistan have prevented 9-11? Obviously not. So what are you talking about?

Y Bar Ranch
07-26-2010, 04:08 PM
You must have a special definition of "terrorist". Why do they need any military and paramilitary training at all? To make, deploy and explode an IED? Look back in history at terrorists -- the whole point is to not be military.
Executing an attack like the Beslan Massacre or the Mumbai attacks takes training. Same for the Nairobi and Tanzania Embassy attacks, the USS Cole, the original WTC attacks. When you don't train, you get knuckleheads like the New Jersey homegrown jihadis.

The Jihadists bring them to the camps so they can indoctrinate them with the mission, observe them and pick out the front runners, and train them in the tradecraft of terror. The training camps are central.


When, as a response to terrorism, did anyone employ indefinite occupation? When did it ever work?
How long have we been "occupying" Europe for the Cold War?


Would a NATO occupation of Afghanistan have prevented 9-11? Obviously not. So what are you talking about?
It would have prevented it, and a bunch of other stuff too. And we're there at the behest now of the Afghani's democratically elected government. Occupation is the wrong word.

skuthorp
07-26-2010, 04:34 PM
I'd suggest that you remember that "terrorist' and 'patriot' are terms often defined by a point of view. The Maquis were terrorists to the occupying Germans. Similar situation in the Slavic countries. In the long term, like Kenya (Jomo Kenyatta) and Israel the solution was political and the former 'terrorist' became a politician and then the honoured statesman.

Y Bar Ranch
07-26-2010, 04:39 PM
I'd suggest that you remember that "terrorist' and 'patriot' are terms often defined by a point of view. The Maquis were terrorists to the occupying Germans. Similar situation in the Slavic countries. In the long term, like Kenya (Jomo Kenyatta) and Israel the solution was political and the former 'terrorist' became a politician and then the honoured statesman.
Well, duh. We've been trying to put some space between the Taliban and Al Qaeda for some time. The Anbar Awakening was all about taking the guys who'd been killing us and turning them.

What's your point?

purri
07-26-2010, 06:52 PM
Looks like "The New American Century" isn't.

Peter Malcolm Jardine
07-26-2010, 07:01 PM
Afghanistan is fundamentally different from Vietnam in that if we pull out, they'll be emboldened and declare a victory, and spread. That is their ultimate goal..


Yep, just like the commies did. Dirty reds.

Besides, this is all Obama's fault.

WX
07-26-2010, 07:06 PM
Afghanistan is fundamentally different from Vietnam in that if we pull out, they'll be emboldened and declare a victory, and spread. That is their ultimate goal.

Oh no, not another domino theory!

George Jung
07-26-2010, 10:50 PM
anyone read this link?



There is a lot to be disturbed by in the battlefield reports from Afghanistan released Sunday by WikiLeaks. The close-up details of war are always unsettling, even more so with this war, which was so badly neglected and bungled by President George W. Bush.

But the most alarming of the reports were the ones that described the cynical collusion between Pakistan’s military intelligence service and the Taliban. Despite the billions of dollars the United States has sent in aid to Pakistan since Sept. 11, they offer powerful new evidence that crucial elements of Islamabad’s power structure have been actively helping to direct and support the forces attacking the American-led military coalition.
The time line of the documents from WikiLeaks, an organization devoted to exposing secrets, stops before President Obama put his own military and political strategy into effect last December. Administration officials say they have made progress with Pakistan since, but it is hard to see much evidence of that so far.
Most of the WikiLeaks documents, which were the subject of in-depth coverage in The Times on Monday (http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/26/world/asia/26isi.html?hp), cannot be verified. However, they confirm a picture of Pakistani double-dealing that has been building for years.
On a trip to Pakistan last October, Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton suggested that officials in the Pakistani government knew where Al Qaeda leaders were hiding. Gen. David Petraeus, the new top military commander in Afghanistan, recently acknowledged longstanding ties between Pakistan’s Directorate for Inter-Services Intelligence, known as the ISI, and the “bad guys.”
So we're making real headway, eh? Looks like, to me, we're stuck between the realistic choices of declaring victory, and evacuating, or turning the country into a parking lot. The current 'plan'... well, it's not working so well.

Gerarddm
07-26-2010, 11:08 PM
This does have the potential to be this war's Pentagon Papers. Several differences, though. One can only hope that the Best & Brightest have learned something in the past 40 years or so...

Me, I think Obama has tried to make the best of a lousy set of cards he was dealt with. The answers are not clear.

I sure wish we'd concentrate more on Pakistan, though. Turning that's snake's den around is gonna take a LONG time...

nw_noob
07-27-2010, 12:03 AM
This does have the potential to be this war's Pentagon Papers. Several differences, though. One can only hope that the Best & Brightest have learned something in the past 40 years or so...

Me, I think Obama has tried to make the best of a lousy set of cards he was dealt with. The answers are not clear.

I sure wish we'd concentrate more on Pakistan, though. Turning that's snake's den around is gonna take a LONG time...

Gerard, if our conduct in Afghanistan illustrates one thing it is that we most certainly do not learn anything from our past mistakes, or the mistakes of others.

That said, I'm afraid your focus on Pakistan is shared by many. It's even more ominous when you look at the massive amounts of military funding we've given the Pakistani government in the last ten years. Things haven't turned out so well for other country's in the region that we've given massive amounts of military aid to in recent history like Iraq and Afghanistan. So Syed, I sincerely apologize on behalf of all peace-loving Americans for the impending carnage that is likely to befall your countrymen in the not-so-distant future. We're already fighting there with mercenary's, the CIA, and through proxy's, though most Americans don't seek out the news sources that report about that.

I hope I'm wrong about the impending carnage thing, but I keep hearing the beat of the war drums heading east...

nw_noob
07-27-2010, 12:19 AM
Yup, he'll be a force for peace alright... one bullet at a time.

I have noticed he really furrows his brow deep when he talks about how worried he is about Pakistan though. That makes me think he'll only allow more drone missions there after he's carefully considered all the implications of his actions. Someone should give the guy another prize... a Daytime Emmy sounds about right.

Syed
07-27-2010, 06:34 AM
1. How much of Pakistan is Pashtun? 2. Why is Pakistan trying so hard to keep Qetta and the rest of the Pashtun area in Pakistani hands? 3. Are the Pashtun really any help to the Pakistanis against the Indians? 4. The Pashtun want what they consider their lands reunited. Why is that a bad idea?

1. All Pakhtoons make around 15% of Pakistan's total population. They have greatest concentration in the Khyber Pakhtoon Khaw province (recently changed name from North Western Frontier Province). But no province of Pakistan has entire Pashtun populace. Peshawar is their main city and the language of the people of Peshawar (city) is Hindko, surprisingly close to the Punjabi spoken in Lahore.

2. Quetta is the provincial capital of the Baluchistan Province, where duly elected provincial government is functional under a Baluch chief minister. Why should Pakistan let any of its cities fall in the hands of miscreants?

3. No more than any other ethnic group of Pakistan.

4. This issue is a dead horse, which died with the collapse of Soviet Union, the sponsors of so called 'Pashtoonistan'. You can always find people ready to launch it again if proper sponsorship is available in terms of funds etc. But I doubt if masses in Pakistan would be interested in this issue. (BTW; The champions (then) of Pakhtoonistan are now ruling the province and their leader (Asfand Yar Wali) is a good friend of USA. These people were known as communists and had open contacts with Moscow.

I hope you are aware that Pashtuns spread on both sides of Durand line. On Pakistan side the area is divided into two parts. One is settled area and other is known as FATA (Federally Administered Tribal Area). FATA is part of Pakistan with the precondition to be governed by their own unique laws. This promise was made at the time of inception of Pakistan but now this arrangement is being violated in the name of WOT.

Cheers!

Duncan Gibbs
07-27-2010, 08:20 AM
"Never start a land war in Asia." Vincenzi, in The Princess Bride.

Andrew Craig-Bennett
07-27-2010, 09:23 AM
1. All Pakhtoons make around 15% of Pakistan's total population. They have greatest concentration in the Khyber Pakhtoon Khaw province (recently changed name from North Western Frontier Province). But no province of Pakistan has entire Pashtun populace. Peshawar is their main city and the language of the people of Peshawar (city) is Hindko, surprisingly close to the Punjabi spoken in Lahore.

2. Quetta is the provincial capital of the Baluchistan Province, where duly elected provincial government is functional under a Baluch chief minister. Why should Pakistan let any of its cities fall in the hands of miscreants?

3. No more than any other ethnic group of Pakistan.

4. This issue is a dead horse, which died with the collapse of Soviet Union, the sponsors of so called 'Pashtoonistan'. You can always find people ready to launch it again if proper sponsorship is available in terms of funds etc. But I doubt if masses in Pakistan would be interested in this issue. (BTW; The champions (then) of Pakhtoonistan are now ruling the province and their leader (Asfand Yar Wali) is a good friend of USA. These people were known as communists and had open contacts with Moscow.

I hope you are aware that Pashtuns spread on both sides of Durand line. On Pakistan side the area is divided into two parts. One is settled area and other is known as FATA (Federally Administered Tribal Area). FATA is part of Pakistan with the precondition to be governed by their own unique laws. This promise was made at the time of inception of Pakistan but now this arrangement is being violated in the name of WOT.

Cheers!

It takes time and careful persuasion to get a lengthy post out of our Lahore correspondent, but it's always worth it.

Thank you Emily; thank you Syed!

Osborne Russell
07-27-2010, 03:00 PM
Executing an attack like the Beslan Massacre or the Mumbai attacks takes training.

Yes but does the training require a country like Afghanistan?


The Jihadists bring them to the camps so they can indoctrinate them with the mission, observe them and pick out the front runners, and train them in the tradecraft of terror. The training camps are central.

Why Afghanistan? Assuming camps are needed.


How long have we been "occupying" Europe for the Cold War? As a response to threats of terrorism, a couple of years, tops.



It would have prevented it, and a bunch of other stuff too.

How would the occupation of Afghanistan have prevented 9-11?




And we're there at the behest now of the Afghani's democratically elected government. Occupation is the wrong word.

What's the right one? The current regime doesn't have the legitimacy to call it a mutual defense treaty. Its more like the Indian treaties. They find a guy, liquor him up and get him to sign.

Ian McColgin
07-27-2010, 03:10 PM
The revelation of bad stupid secrets to one's own citizens - our enemies, victems and most of our allies already know this stuff as it's months old and of no military value at all - is a crime for a reason. A bad reason. This leaker should get a medal.

Y Bar Ranch
07-28-2010, 08:17 PM
Good Afghans will die for the disclosure, and others will know better than to cooperate with us.


One specific example cited by the paper is a report on an interview conducted by military officers of a potential Taliban defector. The militant is named, along with his father and the village in which they live.

"The leaks certainly have put in real risk and danger the lives and integrity of many Afghans," a senior official at the Afghan foreign ministry told The Times on condition of anonymity. "The U.S. is both morally and legally responsible for any harm that the leaks might cause to the individuals, particularly those who have been named. It will further limit the U.S./international access to the uncensored views of Afghans."

One former intelligence official told the paper that the Taliban could launch revenge attacks on "traitors" in the coming days.
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503543_162-20011886-503543.html
It's OK, they're just pawns.

Y Bar Ranch
07-28-2010, 08:22 PM
Yes but does the training require a country like Afghanistan?...Why Afghanistan? Assuming camps are needed.
Yes, training requires a safe haven where folks can congregate and train. Most training programs take a couple of months to take some well-meaning future jihadi and teach him what he needs to know to execute, along with indoctrinating him, etc. On-line correspondence courses just don't cut it. To some extent it is their achilles heel, the need for a place to train in weapons and skills. Requires space and equipment and leaves a footprint.

Afghanistan is a good choice because of the Taliban and their providing a warm nest, plus access to narco-funds. Somalia is moving in that direction. The hinterlands of Yemen offer quiet valleys where they can get their jihad on. Basically wherever the rule of law is not so much. Failed states are great. They had dreams of Iraq, but we kicked their $%# there.

htom
07-28-2010, 09:32 PM
The problem (http://www.blackfive.net/main/2010/07/jaccuse-assange-meurtrier.html) is what WikiLeaks calls the "collateral damage". Which is neither collateral nor unintentional. Treason is what it is.

nw_noob
07-28-2010, 10:06 PM
Good Afghans will die for the disclosure, and others will know better than to cooperate with us.

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503543_162-20011886-503543.html
It's OK, they're just pawns.

Thank you for for posting that.

My estimation of Wikileaks just plummeted. I was glad they leaked this stuff but the way they did it goes way beyond irresponsible and reckless. They could have at least blacked out names and other identifying information to protect peoples lives. Excuse me, I'm about to have a 'try not to smash the computer' moment here...

coelacanth2
07-29-2010, 11:37 PM
Ian, I will chime in here with an opinion - I respectfully disagree with you. It is not news that a goodly portion of Pakistan's intelligence apparat is in collusion with our enemies over there, or that all is not perfect with the way the conflict has been prosecuted, but the exposure of the names of our allies and information sources is criminally careless. I saw the interview with the fellow who founded and maintains Wikileaks and he struck me as a self-righteous prig, breaking a story as fast as he could to get his moment of fame. In his defence, he supposedly went to the WH first and received no communication in reply. Doesn't help the fact that many of the people who have worked with us over there are now at risk, along with their families. I can also understand (and approve of ) the ire expressed by the Administration. Finally, exposure of secrets like these in a time of war will probably be construed as treason. Someone more familiar with military justice should comment here, but the soldier who dropped this blivot could very well face capital punishment.

purri
07-30-2010, 01:29 AM
Cough. Treason cannot be commited by foreign nationals unless it is against their own.

coelacanth2
07-30-2010, 06:20 AM
The young man involved (so far ) is a private 1st class in the US Army. If his actions are shown to have contributed to the death or injury of other US service personnel, that would be treason. It might be assumed that death or injury to a member of an Allied force would be viewed similarly. In any case, if proven true, he is in a world of trouble. I'm not saying that whistles don't need to be blown, this wasn't the way and the consequences both inte3rnationally and personal could and probably will be devastating.

purri
07-30-2010, 07:46 AM
I'm talking abt Assange.

htom
07-30-2010, 08:00 AM
Mr. Assange may have had a good idea, but he has been (and appears to be willing to continue to be) willing to let others die for his publicity. He would do well to remain in hiding until the deaths he's brought about are forgotten by those who'd seek to avenge those torturous murders.

coelacanth2
07-30-2010, 09:48 PM
Sory, Purri, I was thinking of the private who leaked the documents to Assange.

purri
07-30-2010, 10:12 PM
no wukkas.

seanz
07-31-2010, 06:51 AM
Mr. Assange may have had a good idea, but he has been (and appears to be willing to continue to be) willing to let others die for his publicity. He would do well to remain in hiding until the deaths he's brought about are forgotten by those who'd seek to avenge those torturous murders.

Apparently some of the leaked documents contain details of civilian deaths caused by Coalition forces. What would you recommend the soldiers named in the files do?

The549
07-31-2010, 09:29 AM
heard in interview about the leaks on the bbc. the idiot in charge of/representing wiki leaks started out with a logical fallacy in argument which was his main form of defense. his defense of the question "won't this contribute to innocent deaths" (as described above) was: "why is the press sec focusing on our hypothetical deaths instead of the collateral ones that are proven to have happened." again and again his defense wasn't a defense but simply a religious perfunctory critique of the American government. His surprisingly obvious lack of effort to preserve innocents' safety was incredulous and shed light on whether or not seemingly antiwar organizations care about contributing to innocent casualties etc.

"the us government will have killed a lot more than us"/"their crap stinks way more than my crap". I marched in San Francisco against the Iraq war. But i am not so naiive as to think than something like wikileaks is anything more than their upfront agenda. nor do they care about human life/freedom. This from someon who thinks we should focus on pulling out of afghanistan.

Y Bar Ranch
07-31-2010, 09:38 AM
What would you recommend the soldiers named in the files do?
Worry for their families.

Captain Blight
07-31-2010, 12:43 PM
Mr. Assange may have had a good idea, but he has been (and appears to be willing to continue to be) willing to let others die for his publicity. He would do well to remain in hiding until the deaths he's brought about are forgotten by those who'd seek to avenge those torturous murders.

The very heart of our philosophical divide is that apparently, Messrs Cheney, Bush, and Rumsfeld all felt exactly the same way. I heard an interview with Mr Assange on the BBC; he made a very good point-- that if foreign nationals are indeed at risk, it is because the US military is not following its own rules. Now, I find that specious-- but also something worth at least looking into.

htom
07-31-2010, 05:24 PM
If that's what he said, he's a fool. Blaming Manning for his blabbing of sources and methods doesn't cut it with me.

Pugwash
07-31-2010, 05:54 PM
In the wake of strong U.S. government statements condemning WikiLeaks’ recent publishing of 77,000 Afghan War documents, the secret-spilling site has posted a mysterious encrypted file labeled “insurance.”................................. ....

..................Cryptome, a separate secret-spilling site, has speculated that the new file added days later may have been posted as insurance in case something happens to the WikiLeaks website (http://cryptome.org/0002/wl-diary-mirror.htm) or to the organization’s founder, Julian Assange. In either scenario, WikiLeaks volunteers, under a prearranged agreement with Assange, could send out a password or passphrase to allow anyone who has downloaded the file to open it.




http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2010/07/wikileaks-insurance-file/

Osborne Russell
08-01-2010, 10:11 AM
"the us government will have killed a lot more than us"/"their crap stinks way more than my crap".

That is a very irritating argument indeed. It's not only illogical but they're shoving a big plate of crap at you while they're making it, and telling you it's not crap.

So if we toss that out, what are the remaining justifications?