WikiLeaks/NYT/Guardian/Spiegel: The War Logs

[RobinFinderson]

WikiLeaks has done it again, leaking some 10,000 classified military war reports that collectively depict a tougher situation in Afghanistan than has been publicly reported. The NYT as well as two other international papers received the reports several weeks ago, for vetting and to prepare reports on their contents. In a note to its readers, the NYT writes:

The New York Times, The Guardian newspaper in London, and the German magazine Der Spiegel were given access to the material several weeks ago. These reports are used by desk officers in the Pentagon and troops in the field when they make operational plans and prepare briefings on the situation in the war zone. Most of the reports are routine, even mundane, but many add insights, texture and context to a war that has been waged for nearly nine years.

Over all these documents amount to a real-time history of the war reported from one important vantage point — that of the soldiers and officers actually doing the fighting and reconstruction.

[I.J. Reilly]

I read through this last night on the NYTimes website and I thought about putting something up on here about it, then I thought to myself, "Self, why don't you just wait and let RobinFinderson put up the thread."

Thank you for not letting me down, RobinFinderson!

[Uncle Ted]

So is lack of national security part of President Obama's plan for keeping his promise of open government?

[happyone]

I think somebody is going to become real aquainted with topography of Levenworth, Kanas, as well as the various sizes of rocks in the vicinity

[RobinFinderson]

In the other WikiLeaks thread someone asked me whether or not he government, or corporations should be able to have ANY secrets. I responded that they naturally have the right to try and secret info. I would add to that that I think that the government should be able to protect some kinds of information, specifically clandestine information that protects the lives of our soldiers, special forces and spies, with the full weight of the law. The great problem that I see with most of the info being reported by the NYT, is that it doesn't fit this category of information. Indeed much of it, like the use of small heat-guided missiles by the Taliban, was widely known by both our military AND the enemy. It appears that the goal of much of the 'classified' status here was not to keep info out of the hands of the enemy, but rather to keep it out of the hands of the American public. Rather than protecting the lives of our people these documents seem to protect the popularity/viability of the war itself. To me, this is absolutely antithetical to our democratic ideals. If the case for the war cannot be made without obscuring the truth, then we shouldn't be fighting it.

[Sleeping in EQ]

In the other WikiLeaks thread someone asked me whether or not he government, or corporations should be able to have ANY secrets. I responded that they naturally have the right to try and secret info. I would add to that that I think that the government should be able to protect some kinds of information, specifically clandestine information that protects the lives of our soldiers, special forces and spies, with the full weight of the law. The great problem that I see with most of the info being reported by the NYT, is that it doesn't fit this category of information. Indeed much of it, like the use of small heat-guided missiles by the Taliban, was widely known by both our military AND the enemy. It appears that the goal of much of the 'classified' status here was not to keep info out of the hands of the enemy, but rather to keep it out of the hands of the American public. Rather than protecting the lives of our people these documents seem to protect the popularity/viability of the war itself. To me, this is absolutely antithetical to our democratic ideals. If the case for the war cannot be made without obscuring the truth, then we shouldn't be fighting it.

This fits with my experiences working in the National Archive System.

[WashingtonCoug]

In the other WikiLeaks thread someone asked me whether or not he government, or corporations should be able to have ANY secrets. I responded that they naturally have the right to try and secret info. I would add to that that I think that the government should be able to protect some kinds of information, specifically clandestine information that protects the lives of our soldiers, special forces and spies, with the full weight of the law. The great problem that I see with most of the info being reported by the NYT, is that it doesn't fit this category of information. Indeed much of it, like the use of small heat-guided missiles by the Taliban, was widely known by both our military AND the enemy. It appears that the goal of much of the 'classified' status here was not to keep info out of the hands of the enemy, but rather to keep it out of the hands of the American public. Rather than protecting the lives of our people these documents seem to protect the popularity/viability of the war itself. To me, this is absolutely antithetical to our democratic ideals. If the case for the war cannot be made without obscuring the truth, then we shouldn't be fighting it.

I never thought there was a need to need explain why we're in Afghanistan. I figure most people remember what happened on 9/11.

[creekster]

In the other WikiLeaks thread someone asked me whether or not he government, or corporations should be able to have ANY secrets. I responded that they naturally have the right to try and secret info. I would add to that that I think that the government should be able to protect some kinds of information, specifically clandestine information that protects the lives of our soldiers, special forces and spies, with the full weight of the law. The great problem that I see with most of the info being reported by the NYT, is that it doesn't fit this category of information. Indeed much of it, like the use of small heat-guided missiles by the Taliban, was widely known by both our military AND the enemy. It appears that the goal of much of the 'classified' status here was not to keep info out of the hands of the enemy, but rather to keep it out of the hands of the American public. Rather than protecting the lives of our people these documents seem to protect the popularity/viability of the war itself. To me, this is absolutely antithetical to our democratic ideals. If the case for the war cannot be made without obscuring the truth, then we shouldn't be fighting it.

This strikes me as rather naive. The leaks cast aspersions on the Pakistan intelligence service and make it likely that cooperation with that agency will decrease. Thus we will get less intelligence or we will have more of our intelligence leaked to the Taliban or both. Obviously it is true that everyone looking at Afghanistan doubts the independence and loyalty of the Pakistan intelligence service, but by airing official US military communiques taking this position the Pakistanis have almost no choice but to react negatively at both a policy level and at an individual level. It seems clear beyond cavil, in my mind, that this will result in an increase of threats to Americans in the field. Thus, the classification is justified.

Eventually, when the war is over and when the persons involved have changed out, these items should be released so we can know what the official assessment was and compare it to the public announcements. In the mean time, however, we need to rely on the oversight provided by congress and the president hope our trust is not misplaced. Not ideal, I agree, but I don't see a rational alternative. Making the military evaluation process in an active theater of war a public process is NOT a rational alternative.

[RobinFinderson]

This strikes me as rather naive. The leaks cast aspersions on the Pakistan intelligence service and make it likely that cooperation with that agency will decrease. Thus we will get less intelligence or we will have more of our intelligence leaked to the Taliban or both. Obviously it is true that everyone looking at Afghanistan doubts the independence and loyalty of the Pakistan intelligence service, but by airing official US military communiques taking this position the Pakistanis have almost no choice but to react negatively at both a policy level and at an individual level. It seems clear beyond cavil, in my mind, that this will result in an increase of threats to Americans in the field. Thus, the classification is justified.

Eventually, when the war is over and when the persons involved have changed out, these items should be released so we can know what the official assessment was and compare it to the public announcements. In the mean time, however, we need to rely on the oversight provided by congress and the president hope our trust is not misplaced. Not ideal, I agree, but I don't see a rational alternative. Making the military evaluation process in an active theater of war a public process is NOT a rational alternative.

I wouldn't call it 'naive.' After all, there are countries that seriously maintain an official policy of neutrality regarding all wars. To believe that a country ought to shift its classification process toward being more informative for the taxpayers who are funding the thing is a reflection of values, not naivete. Anyhow, as WikiLeaks is making clear, maybe we are entering an age when maintaining secrets on this scale is no longer even possible. Maybe the naive position is to build a strategy around the hope that classified information of this sort can be kept under wraps. As far as 'casting aspersions' go, I doubt that foreign nations are going to act against their own best interests just because Uncle Sam said something questionable about them in the Speak Easy.

[The_Tick]

I wouldn't call it 'naive.' After all, there are countries that seriously maintain an official policy of neutrality regarding all wars. To believe that a country ought to shift its classification process toward being more informative for the taxpayers who are funding the thing is a reflection of values, not naivete. Anyhow, as WikiLeaks is making clear, maybe we are entering an age when maintaining secrets on this scale is no longer even possible. Maybe the naive position is to build a strategy around the hope that classified information of this sort can be kept under wraps. As far as 'casting aspersions' go, I doubt that foreign nations are going to act against their own best interests just because Uncle Sam said something questionable about them in the Speak Easy.

Leaking this shit is going to get more soldiers killed.

Now...we aren't going to pull out of Afghanistan. So...if we are going to be there, do you or don't you want the soldiers to have the advantage?

[creekster]

I wouldn't call it 'naive.' After all, there are countries that seriously maintain an official policy of neutrality regarding all wars. To believe that a country ought to shift its classification process toward being more informative for the taxpayers who are funding the thing is a reflection of values, not naivete. Anyhow, as WikiLeaks is making clear, maybe we are entering an age when maintaining secrets on this scale is no longer even possible. Maybe the naive position is to build a strategy around the hope that classified information of this sort can be kept under wraps. As far as 'casting aspersions' go, I doubt that foreign nations are going to act against their own best interests just because Uncle Sam said something questionable about them in the Speak Easy.

I have no doubt you will disagree, but I think your entire response here reeks of naivete. Your words speak for themselves. I don't think I need to respond further.

[New Mexican Disaster]

I have no doubt you will disagree, but I think your entire response here reeks of naivete. Your words speak for themselves. I don't think I need to respond further.

You think that expecting operations to remain classified in this day and age taking into account the modern press and dispersal of technology is not naive?

I don't like what wikileaks did and I don't think it tells us all that much we did not know, but there are so many people with access to this information that it really would be almost impossible to keep it under wraps.

[creekster]

You think that expecting operations to remain classified in this day and age taking into account the modern press and dispersal of technology is not naive?

I don't like what wikileaks did and I don't think it tells us all that much we did not know, but there are so many people with access to this information that it really would be almost impossible to keep it under wraps.

Really? How often has this happened before? Where are the daily ops reports from desert storm? Where are the other 'leaks' of daily ops reports? It is a rather meaningless argument, in my mind, to suggest that because something is difficult it shouldn't be attempted. Moreover, the likely source of this material, Bradley Manning, has been very critical of the security used. IOW, it would not be hard to keep it secret, or at least to make it more likely to stay secret, if the security was improved and implemetned reasonably.

It is, however, naive to compare our relationship with Pakistan to countries who declare (and presumably adopt) neutrality. It is also naive to assume that because taxpayers pay for something they should be given immediate unfettered access to it, at least to the extent you would like to have a functional foreign policy or, for that matter, a functional government. It is naive to assume that foreign governments, and in particular Pakistan, will not be forced to play different cards following this sort of leak than they would before this leak. It is extremely naive to assume that a country such as Pakistan has one set of national interests which will apply monolithic-ally to all of its agents, and that release of such criticism will have no negative effect on troops in the field.

So, yes, I do think Robin's arguments here are very naive, and I find your position, which appears to suggest that because it is difficult to keep secrets we should forget about it, to be only marginally less so, in terms of trying to run an effective military operation in the field. Bear in mind, this is not just information, which is unlikely to be kept secret; these are the operational reports, official military statements and assessments, of daily acitivites in the field. These have not been vetted and it is impossible to even know what risks this leak has created for the soldiers.

Maybe I am a grouchy old poop, but that's how I see it.

[myboynoah]

Really? How often has this happened before? Where are the daily ops reports from desert storm? Where are the other 'leaks' of daily ops reports? It is a rather meaningless argument, in my mind, to suggest that because something is difficult it shouldn't be attempted. Moreover, the likely source of this material, Bradley Manning, has been very critical of the security used. IOW, it would not be hard to keep it secret, or at least to make it more likely to stay secret, if the security was improved and implemetned reasonably.

It is, however, naive to compare our relationship with Pakistan to countries who declare (and presumably adopt) neutrality. It is also naive to assume that because taxpayers pay for something they should be given immediate unfettered access to it, at least to the extent you would like to have a functional foreign policy or, for that matter, a functional government. It is naive to assume that foreign governments, and in particular Pakistan, will not be forced to play different cards following this sort of leak than they would before this leak. It is extremely naive to assume that a country such as Pakistan has one set of national interests which will apply monolithic-ally to all of its agents, and that release of such criticism will have no negative effect on troops in the field.

So, yes, I do think Robin's arguments here are very naive, and I find your position, which appears to suggest that because it is difficult to keep secrets we should forget about it, to be only marginally less so, in terms of trying to run an effective military operation in the field. Bear in mind, this is not just information, which is unlikely to be kept secret; these are the operational reports, official military statements and assessments, of daily acitivites in the field. These have not been vetted and it is impossible to even know what risks this leak has created for the soldiers.

Maybe I am a grouchy old poop, but that's how I see it.

Those are good points.

This newly released information doesn't stand out there on its own. Those that would do us harm will meld it with information they have gathered from other sources to better understand how we operate and pinpoint our vulnerabilities. What may seem innocuous to us may be the crown jewels to our enemies. And by our enemies, I'm not just talking about the Taliban.

[creekster]

Those are good points.

This newly released information doesn't stand out there on its own. Those that would do us harm will meld it with information they have gathered from other sources to better understand how we operate and pinpoint our vulnerabilities. What may seem innocuous to us may be the crown jewels to our enemies. And by our enemies, I'm not just talking about the Taliban.

I am not surprised that the release is being downplayed by the pentagon in the press. I would imagine that privately they are scrambling to assess the damage. I haven't looked at them, but you can bet the Taliban is going through each of them to assess what we know and when and how we learn it. Such information is of great worth in the real world, as opposed to the make believe world this discussion takes place in.