Daylife/Getty Images used by permission
|
A whistle-blower website has published what it says are more than 90,000 United States military and diplomatic reports about Afghanistan filed between 2004 and January of this year.
The first-hand accounts are the military’s own raw data on the war, including numbers killed, casualties, threat reports and the like, according to Julian Assange, the founder of WikiLeaks.org, which published the material Sunday.
Here’s the link. When I prepared this post, last night, their servers were pretty much swamped.
“It is the total history of the Afghan war from 2004 to 2010, with some important exceptions — U.S. Special Forces, CIA activity and most of the activity of other non-U.S. groups,” Assange said…
The significance lies in “all of these people being killed in the small events that we haven’t heard about that numerically eclipse the big casualty events. It’s the boy killed by a shell that missed a target,” he told CNN.
“What we haven’t seen previously is all those individual deaths,” he said. “We’ve seen just the number and like Stalin said, ‘One man’s death is a tragedy, a million dead is a statistic.’ So, we’ve seen the statistic.”
The website held back about 15,000 documents from Afghanistan to protect individuals who informed on the Taliban, he said.
The easier it becomes to collect data, the easier it is to lose control of it.
WAR professed as good.
How many dead children
Blind men to evil?
>> Olo Baggins of Bywater said, on July 26th, 2010 at 9:18 am
>> Greg…No, of course I don’t think crimes against civilians should be covered up. If that’s all that was leaked is proof of such crimes, fine. But far more was released than just that.
Whew! I’m glad you are still in touch with your humanity. When it comes to war and the military, so many people aren’t.
If the leaker has released only his own edited and redacted version of these documents then it would have no credibility.
It’s a conundrum, I admit.
The moral confusion get even more complicated because in recent decades, our government has become one huge secrecy machine in contradiction to principle of open democracy.
I agree that the military needs to keep some secrets but they seem to make EVERYTHING secret, long after the need is there.
How does a civilian government police its military if the military classifies EVERYTHING?
Imagine the truth
as a conundrum – some do.
Truth as opposed to?
>> RTaylor said, on July 26th, 2010 at 9:07 am
>> This isn’t a war you win, in fact you can’t. It’s counter insurgency and maintaining forward position bases
Counter-insurgencies have been won, in the past, even by occupational forces. (uprises against Soviet Union occupiers come to mind.)
But it takes a long long time — far longer than Americans have money, troops or patience for.
I mean, these crazy wars are making our country go broke already!
Greg Allen–there is no conundrum except those that have bought into the propaganda of the day.
Its well understood that the harm possible by total openness is far less than the harm possible by total conspiracy.
Hard for hooman beings, especially religious one’s, to think in terms that aren’t black and white but that isn’t even your challenge.
SECRECY in OPPOSITE living in a FREE SOCIETY. With THAT as your baseline, we can then carefully consider the tactical and strategic benefit of OPERATIONAL SECRECY that few would disagree with.
Define Conundrum: which is heavier, an ant or an elephant. Yes, a real puzzler.
>> bobbo, student of the haiku said, on July 26th, 2010 at 9:37 am
>> Imagine the truth as a conundrum – some do.
>> Truth as opposed to?
Here’s the conundrum I was referring to:
1) Transparency is essential to democracy.
2) There are legitimate reasons for the government to keep secrets.
>>bobbo, student of the haiku said, on July 26th, 2010 at 9:43 am
>>Its well understood that the harm possible by total openness is far less than the harm possible by total conspiracy.
He. He. It’s _only_ the religious who think in black-and-white terms?
Really?
I’m reading about these leaks and found a particularly helpful page. It’s at:
http://wardiary.wikileaks.org/
It explains how to read these reports, the context they were written in and gives links to a number of sites that have popped up because of them.
Greg–yes really. Where you see a conundrum, I see only a need for balanced values, honesty, and a little finesse.
Conundrm:
1. A confusing and difficult problem or question.
2. A question asked for amusement, typically one with a pun in its answer; a riddle.
There is nothing difficult about applying judgment to a contesting set of ideas: keep everything reported/transparent vs keep everything secret. No different than evaluating Why does man suffer vs God is all Merciful.
First, you just have to “get real” and understand that mistakes and harm fall ON BOTH SIDES OF THE EQUATION-with both answers. So, what kind of “harm” do you really want to suffer? Typically, with the military, if you have full reporting then every once in a while you will lose troops or a battle because a secret is made public. But keep everything a secret and you lose more troops and your economy because the war has gone on for all too long and was a needless expense? See the easy balance there for THE TRUTH?
and I just don’t feel like needling you about Pink Unicorns today, so I’ll let that go.
bobbo,
I’m a little confused why you are bringing religion into this — religious people span the whole range of thinking styles.
Fundamentalists are famous for being “black and white” while mystics are famous for living totally in the gray areas.
The vast majority of religious people (like all people) are somewhere in-between.
I find the conservative vs. liberal distinction a better indication of thinking style.
Greg Allen==I will totally engage you: who knows? I think your categories are true. How we get a numbers count after that is problematic.
Mark it down to my own unreasonable prejudice.
>> bobbo, student of the haiku said, on July 26th, 2010 at 9:57 am
>> There is nothing difficult about applying judgment to a contesting set of ideas: keep everything reported/transparent vs keep everything secret.
But who is contesting for either of those extreme ideas?
Nobody that I know of.
The real debate is in the gray area between the benefits of openness and the legitimate need for some things to be kept secret.
I, personally, think our government should default on openness and transparency but I would never argue for _total_ openness. That would be crazy.
Well, bobbo, I can’t engage you because I gotta get some real work done. Sorry!
Have a great day. Bye.
Well that was nice of him. Actually, it was explained to me a couple days ago that, where classification of documents is concerned, it is oftentimes the case that the content itself is not what warrants the classification, but where it came from.
#42–Greg==real work is a good thing, but so is personal growth/reflection. Whenever given a choice, do both.
Silly me, lapsing into posting I might have “an unreasonable prejudice.” No. In fact you are correct, when I say “the religious mind is rigid tending to think in either/or, black/white, all or nothing terms, I am of course thinking of what you like to call the Fundies. Isn’t there a continuum? Fundies on one end and reform on the other? Fundies on one end rationalists on the other? Fundies on one end and atheists on the other? Mystics somewhere in the middle. “Thinking” religionists somewhere to the Fundy side of middle? And so forth.
Again – words.
Good.
The more we know the better off we all are.
Cursor_
#13 Actually Bobo the war on drugs can be won and has been won on at least one occasion. The Shogun of Japan said no more opiates and by the edge of the sword the opium trade died. With no one selling and no users left to purchase the trade ended in Japan.
I hope we have more leaks. So we can find out the real tale of the lame war. Because when you get all your info from the Army/Gov, you know you must have the BS meter close by.
#47–do-ill==you are a bit late to kick me while I’m down. Both McGuyver and myself already agreed the “War on Drugs” (even it it is “won”) was a misuse of the idea being discussed regarding “WAR” and Afghan.
But I thank you for informing me of that interesting factoid. I did not know of it and do take it as you present it. Compare that to the USA War on Drugs. The Hot War ended a few decades ago when Sons and Daughters of US Politicians started getting sick or died from Paraquat sprayed MJ plants in Mexico. We don’t want our rich kiddies getting sick from our War on Drugs so that program was stopped. I agree with the Shogun of Japan. War does mean War. War means innocent people are killed in order to get to the guilty ones. There is after all a steady supply of innocent people.
I do assume you are all for keeping everything a secret?
As far as the timing of this, we don’t know how long Wikileaks has had these documents. The three newspapers were given time to pour over the documents, with the agreement that they publish their ‘take’ on them today.
You think the armed forces timed these leaks? I think you’re looking at it too simplistically. The leaks were timed, but not by the US government. Instead, Wikileaks timed this with the $300billion bill that would extend this war.
Let’s hope this war is brought to an end before our troops are shifted into Pakistan or Iran!
Leaks? If they result in an American soldier’s death then I hope a world of hurt comes down.
Generals do have a tough job, having to placate politicians and our sleazy media outlets, makes winning a war such as Afghanistan a near impossibility.
The public likes to think that battle is a rather “clean” affair, this attitude really gained strength during Gulf War I with guided munition videos. The truth is war is not clean, and really bad things happen, innocents get killed, and as long as they are people this will be true.
To be honest, in war everyone above the rank of captain is full of shit.
US’s policy seem to me is to be the worst policy of the war, they dig for oil under the name of war on terror. By contueing this bad policy, thay will not only the faked gamble named war, but they will face the the distiny of the USSR in this holy land.
One thing I want to say clearly it is that they use the money of American people for making and creating enemies of them, not the making friends. they dig the grave for it’s own nation.
thanks
The Entire Wikileeks fiasco reeks of BS and hints of secret organizations behind this release.
BTW Do you hold a Secret Security clearance? because if you don’t and this is for real. …..
Ya there are federal laws at play.
GL out there people. most of you know the score.
Hi Dears,
It is bot the leakage of the docs from US army, think about the economy, US’s casualties in Afgh & Iraq … War had eaten all the good and bad of many nations.
The leaders are also leaked, the heads seems to be empty of brain, because they cannot continue to rule on a rightuos policy.
It is the right signal that the country is no more able to live, we must pray for the rightuos people of this big nation to have safe time after the up coming domesday on this country.
We pray
WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange (sp?) was interviewed on Nightline.
Q: “What drives you?”
A: “I am a combative person. So I like crushing bastards.”
Q: “But Is crushing bastards in its own right a just cause?”
A: “It depends on who the bastard is. Real bastards are People who have power and abuse their power to afflict people who are weaker than they are.”
More damaging reporting re USA committing war crimes was covered on Larry King:
http://edition.cnn.com/2010/TECH/web/07/26/wikileaks.founder.lkl/?hpt=C2#fbid=wDXzynlDKyZ
And this is why kiddies the UN is kept ineffective. Who wants to be held to their propaganda spin/treaties signed/international law?
The truth. Those in power always hate the truth. They wrap their lies in the flag, call it patriotism, and none may disagree.
WAR is the LAST resort and only by necessity. Not some retard pretending to be from Texass playing cowboys and indians.
Silly Hoomans.
#53–Asem==student of the Islamic lie eh? I can only “wish” we invaded the Middle East for oil. Right now, it looks like we are spending lives and capital in Afghan to make it safe for China to steal its mineral resources.
No, my Islamic nutbag, It is by the Will of Allah and therefore a great mystery why the USA is in the Middle East. We can only hope that fiscal sanity will return to the Office of the President and our troops get removed so that the good Muslims can resume their fratricide without USA in the way.
One thing I want to say clearly is that Muslims will be friends with Civilization WHEN they allow churches of other faiths to proselytize in Arab Countries. Until such time, any clear headed person should view you, your religion, and your countires as enemies to FREEDOM.
Won’t happen, that’s why I said “should.”
29, Bobbo,
That’s how you present it.
Who says we don’t already have one? You also don’t have a news blackout if those forces are doing black ops. But yes, those sort of things are hidden costs.
You’re an idealist if you think diplomacy will always bring progress. Liberals think that you can diplomatically end all quarrels.
Realistically, that doesn’t happen. There are those in this world who see diplomacy as a sign of weakness. Chamberlain was an idealistic fool when he tried to appease Hitler.
You asked a question pertaining to the definition of something obvious. Go use the dictionary instead of playing polemics.
I did say:
“The military benefits in that they can advance certain agendas by utilizing the media as tools as well as relying on liberal intellectuals who have convinced themselves the military is only good at screwing things up.”
I was recommending people be SKEPTICAL when encountering potentially INTENTIONAL LEAKS disguised as UNINTENTIONAL LEAKS. You’re obsessing over polemics.
Because you’re not much for skepticism, I can see why you take things at face value as a leak is a leak. Be that as it may, I made it pretty clear that there is a potentially LARGER picture that people can / will be oblivious to and that’s why I suggested some skepticism.
Plans within plans. Sorry if I can’t be more specific, but all I can say is (having worked around that community when I was in the military) is things are not so obvious as you’d like for them to be.
Nope. I’m afraid not. You’re just naïve in thinking that all leaks should seem to be taken at face value.
You prefer a broader context / canvas? LOL. Sure. That was my whole point in your being overly fixated on potentially leaked information of an intentional nature.
Take things with a grain of salt and you’re less likely to jump to conclusions. Wikileaks could be nothing more than an unknowing participant in this thinking they’ve hit pay dirt.
Sure they are. You just don’t like things taken to the most black and white explanation. What do you think the military trains in doing? Don’t be so naïve.
Of course you can call some efforts as “peace keeping”, but to maintain peace the military maintains a presence of on-demand lethal force that can kill or destroy.
Anything you choose to create as a “purpose” will be so because of the potential of death and destruction that the military provides and trains for. That is the ROOT purpose for a military.
So you say. We’re maintaining a presence there for other reasons as well. If you don’t like it, speak to Chairman Obama.
Like I said, you come across as a liberal elitist. Don’t be shy, embrace what you are. 🙂
That’s your perspective. IMHO patriotism is the love of the land you were born in; not the idiots who run it. This is where Heinlein’s work is also relevant.
Heinlein in the work I quoted also felt that the only people he felt should serve in government were those who demonstrated that they were self-sacrificing (in that they were not hedonists).
In his political novella, one way people could demonstrate their altruism for the greater good was military service. When you have a country run by hedonists, they push legislation to maintain their power by buying votes rather than do what is right for the country / society.
29, Bobbo,
That’s how you present it.
Who says we don’t already have one? You also don’t have a news blackout if those forces are doing black ops. But yes, those sort of things are hidden costs.
You’re an idealist if you think diplomacy will always bring progress. Liberals think that you can diplomatically end all quarrels.
Realistically, that doesn’t happen. There are those in this world who see diplomacy as a sign of weakness. Chamberlain was an idealistic fool when he tried to appease Hitler.
You asked a question pertaining to the definition of something obvious. Go use the dictionary instead of playing polemics.
I did say:
“The military benefits in that they can advance certain agendas by utilizing the media as tools as well as relying on liberal intellectuals who have convinced themselves the military is only good at screwing things up.”
I was recommending people be SKEPTICAL when encountering potentially INTENTIONAL LEAKS disguised as UNINTENTIONAL LEAKS. You’re obsessing over polemics.
Because you’re not much for skepticism, I can see why you take things at face value as a leak is a leak. Be that as it may, I made it pretty clear that there is a potentially LARGER picture that people can / will be oblivious to and that’s why I suggested some skepticism.
Plans within plans. Sorry if I can’t be more specific, but all I can say is (having worked around that community when I was in the military) is things are not so obvious as you’d like for them to be.
Nope. I’m afraid not. You’re just naïve in thinking that all leaks should seem to be taken at face value.
You prefer a broader context / canvas? LOL. Sure. That was my whole point in your being overly fixated on potentially leaked information of an intentional nature.
Take things with a grain of salt and you’re less likely to jump to conclusions. Wikileaks could be nothing more than an unknowing participant in this thinking they’ve hit pay dirt.
Sure they are. You just don’t like things taken to the most black and white explanation. What do you think the military trains in doing? Don’t be so naïve.
Of course you can call some efforts as “peace keeping”, but to maintain peace the military maintains a presence of on-demand lethal force that can kill or destroy.
Anything you choose to create as a “purpose” will be so because of the potential of death and destruction that the military provides and trains for. That is the ROOT purpose for a military.
So you say. We’re maintaining a presence there for other reasons as well. If you don’t like it, speak to Chairman Obama.
Like I said, you come across as a liberal elitist. Don’t be shy, embrace what you are. 🙂
That’s your perspective. IMHO patriotism is the love of the land you were born in; not the idiots who run it. This is where Heinlein’s work is also relevant.
Heinlein in the work I quoted also felt that the only people he felt should serve in government were those who demonstrated that they were self-sacrificing (in that they were not hedonists).
In his political novella, one way people could demonstrate their altruism for the greater good was military service. When you have a country run by hedonists, they push legislation to maintain their power by buying votes rather than do what is right for the country / society.
Yup! Treat yourself to a cookie.
Empires? We are a hegemonic power, but we are not an empire. Stop with the political theater.
Watch from 1:35 to 3:04 on “American Imperialism”. Stossel (a Libertarian) explains what distinguishes the American military from any other country’s military: http://tinyurl.com/2b84hgo
That’s because you think that political wars are the same thing as a war. Don’t be naïve. The reason why things have been stretched out for so long as I have stated in post #21:
“IMHO, the biggest thing that has hindered progress in Afghan and Iraq has been the ROEs, Lawyers, and political party members looking for a quick boost in their poll ratings (depending on which region of the country they’re in).”
And yes, Heinlein is relevant. And no, all wars are not political (if this is how you’re going to respond).
LOL. So you say.
Don’t sell yourself short. You did after all find my misuse of the word “atypical”. Your habitual use of polemics (i.e. atypical, benefit, purpose, etc.) underscores that your attention span to details (at least the ones you cherry pick) is alive and well. 🙂
And the first 3 issues are:
1====29, Bobbo,
That’s a fair reading in a vacuum but if you treated my comment as worthy of your attention you would not confine it so.
That’s how you present it. /// You have high points in your analysis, but this demonstrates the low. You refuse to take an argument in good faith and actually counter it or embrace it. Instead you dismiss it. And as I said: if you would give the comment more attention, you would not confine it so.
2=== Or you develop a mercenary force and impose a news blackout and hide the cost of it off budget.
Who says we don’t already have one? //// THAT was my clear reference.
You also don’t have a news blackout if those forces are doing black ops. /// Isn’t that WRONG by definition? Black ops = news black out?
But yes, those sort of things are hidden costs. /// Actually they are hidden (better) if they aren’t even known to exist, but thanks for at least admitting to the obvious every once in a while.
3===Yes, thats exactly what you did. Doesn’t matter what you privately think when you post something so unambiguous. Course, Heinlein, who also had more complex thoughts than a mere few dozen words could ever express outside of poetry ((is a Haiku coming next?)) really only talked about VIOLENCE and gave more than a military context. Wish he could join our little confab here since he’s had time to think about it.
You’re an idealist if you think diplomacy will always bring progress. //// Never said, hinted, or implied that. Once again, as you too often do, you make BS up. Can’t deal with what is actually said so you dismiss it, repeat it back, or substitute a red herring or straw man. In a long thread, its easy to lapse into that, but constant repetition of it reveals an approach that is not beneficial TO YOURSELF.
Liberals think that you can diplomatically end all quarrels. /// No liberal thinks that. Got a link to anyone at all that has ever said that except for Neo-Cons making up BS. Find a direct quote==or recognize your faulty reasoning/constant idiot bias.
Realistically, that doesn’t happen. There are those in this world who see diplomacy as a sign of weakness. /// There are all kinds of idiots in the world. There are also those who see their conventional armies as superior to our new precision/invisible/remote weapons. They are called: losers.
Chamberlain was an idealistic fool when he tried to appease Hitler. /// Thats the common rap I agree. And so Chamberlin was “wrong” so anyone who tries diplomacy first is revealing weakness? Like Kennedy should have gone ahead and fired on Cuba? That kind of strength?
Ha, Ha.
But since you gave me a bonus cookie point, I use it to note my observation of your criticism of my arguments being polemic.
Defined: A controversial argument, especially one refuting or attacking a specific opinion or doctrine.
Yes, I wish you would be more polemic in your approach. Note: I am not being polemic when I suggest your actual complaint is probably about “rhetoric” which while more accurate would also be WRONG. Kinda like saying empire is wrong but hegemony is correct. THATS a rhetorical argument.
Ha, Ha.===yes, we think with words and every once in a while we flower with ideas.
56, Bobbo,
So when W was in office, the Democrats said it was patriotic to dissent.
Hopefully you’ll have the same opinion of Obama’s past and future “Truth Squads”.