WikiLeaks Publishes Afghan War Secrets 966
A number of readers submitted word on the massive WikiLeaks release of Afghanistan war documents. "The data is provided in CSV and SQL formats, sorted by months, and also was rendered into KML mapping data." WikiLeaks provided the documents in advance to the New York Times, Der Spiegel, and the UK's Guardian — the latter also has up a video tutorial on how to read the logs. From the Times: "A six-year archive of classified military documents... offers an unvarnished, ground-level picture of the war in Afghanistan that is in many respects more grim than the official portrayal. The secret documents... are a daily diary of an American-led force often starved for resources and attention as it struggled against an insurgency that grew larger, better coordinated and more deadly each year. The New York Times, the British newspaper The Guardian, and the German magazine Der Spiegel were given access to the voluminous records several weeks ago on the condition that they not report on the material before Sunday. The documents — some 92,000 reports spanning parts of two administrations from January 2004 through December 2009 — illustrate in mosaic detail why, after the United States has spent almost $300 billion on the war in Afghanistan, the Taliban are stronger than at any time since 2001."
15,000 reports held back but will be release later (Score:5, Informative)
Last line of http://wardiary.wikileaks.org/ [wikileaks.org]:
"We have delayed the release of some 15,000 reports from total archive as part of a harm minimization process demanded by our source. After further review, these reports will be released, with occasional redactions, and eventually, in full, as the security situation in Afghanistan permits."
So this archive isnt complete, come back later for more...
Re:US abuse (Score:2, Informative)
Your ideas intrigue me, could you please direct me how to sign up for your newsletter?
Actually, you're spouting nothing but "New World Order bullshit" that has been around since before either of us were born. I've been here long enough to have seed it spewed on Clinton, Bush before him, and Reagan too. It's already started with Obama and of course you already mentioned W. I'm sure if Carter could have coughed in the white house without screwing something up, he would have been on the list too.
Perhaps you need to stop looking at who is supposed to be involved and focus on what and who is saying it. It's really all just recycles shit and your disdain for Bush and company simply enforces your interpretation of it.
So what *is* there? (Score:5, Informative)
As it often seems to be the case on /., the discussion centers around "talking points" conveniently fed by originator based on fairly clear /. views and agenda.
So, I went and began reading these reports. My impression is that these do have operational value, and are probably of some interest to military buffs (and certainly to enemy intelligence, though they probably knew most of that anyway). What I did not find in these reports is 1) any particularly unvarnished picture that differs markedly of what my impression of war in Afghanistan was until now based on otherwise available data 2) any real insight into why the war is going the way it is
I think, in fact, that both these points were answered many times in variety of other media and in other types of discourse.
My personal opinion is that other than sensationalist value, primarily due to the fact that classified information has been released, there isn't much here that will further any decent causes in our world. There is, however, a clear boon to stature of mr. Assange and his site and he is the one that benefits the most.
Since it is clear that he let his original source in US military down (essentially letting him be a fall guy who will probably be charged with various offenses), I think it is safe to say that mr. Assange is in it for himself and himself alone.
For my part, I will not patronize or support his venture. While in theory openness is good, it is only good if it is for the right reason. "Openness" for the sake of personal ulterior motives is just as bad if not worse than what it purports to fight.
Comment removed (Score:5, Informative)
Re:US abuse (Score:3, Informative)
Alexander didn't conquer Afghanistan. The British didn't. The Soviets didn't. Maybe the Romans would have done a more thorough job, but all the other failures weren't exactly poofters. Then again, Julius Caesar instigated the Gallic Wars and then went on to murder over a million Celts just so his troops could sharpen their swords for civil war, and to settle the old debt from when the Gauls sacked Rome 390 b.c. They were particularly hard-assed back then.
Re:US abuse (Score:5, Informative)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_military_operations [wikipedia.org]
Re:Conflicted (Score:5, Informative)
Frankly, given that the US government has a plan in place to discredit Wikileaks (which was, of course, leaked on Wikileaks), any article which takes an overtly negative tone of Wikileaks is immediately suspect. Anything that criticizes Wikileaks without at least mentioning that it is an organization of loosely connected volunteers should be taken with a grain of salt. There is a lot of misinformation about Wikileaks, and we really should not be perpetuating it.
Re:Oil... (Score:5, Informative)
There's lots and lots of rare (and less rare) metals, it's the saudi arabia of lithium [dailymail.co.uk]. According to wikipedia [wikipedia.org] = "[Lithium is used in] high strength-to-weight alloys used in aircraft, and lithium batteries. Lithium also has important links to nuclear physics." They discovered this right before the war by the way, but I'm sure that's all coincidental.
Re:One thing I don't understand... (Score:3, Informative)
Well, maybe put in prison. One person has been charged with Treason since 1952, and he's a fugitive. People are charged with espionage or sedition more often, but I am not at all clear that either of those apply to this case.
Re:US abuse (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Personally I don't like them (Score:5, Informative)
Would you want a criminal getting a hold of information relating to an active investigation against them?
In fact, sometimes we do, in countries where people are labeled "criminals" for being members of the wrong political groups or other abuses of human rights.
Wikileaks just wants to release any and everything
In fact, the Wikileaks volunteers do review the material that is submitted to them to ensure that it is not personal information about someone or other private information. They are not there to "release everything," they are there to release information that is of political or historical interest that some group of people is deliberately trying to keep secret from the public. You may disagree with that specific goal, but the least you could do is refrain from criticizing Wikileaks for things that they do not do.
Fine, but then the unaltered, uncommented video would be what to release.
They did release it, so what is your point? The commentary on the video is their own take on it, but do not present this as them trying to hide the truth from people -- anyone can download an unedited copy.
Re:US abuse (Score:3, Informative)
The Russians tried that and came back later to find dead Afgan teachers hanging from trees. I don't think the answer is going to be an easy one.
The Actual Quote (Score:1, Informative)
Those who would give up Essential Liberty, to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety
What you and so many other people miss in there is the key word "Temporary".
Think about it, because factoring that in often totally changes the applicability of the quote (that I have seen anyway).
Re:US abuse (Score:3, Informative)
After destroying tyrannical governments (ones that murdered their citizens openly and wantonly with disregard for any defensible "justice") -- the Americans said "form a government that allows all your citizens to openly participate" -- and then stick around trying to make sure a genocide doesn't break out between the squabbling factions.
You gloss over the part where they put their own puppet politicians in charge and murder the citizens openly and wantonly with disregard for any defensible "justice". If the US acted the way it says it acts, rather than in the murderous way in which it does act, it wouldn't be hated as much around the world (no, it's not your freedom people hate, it's your shrapnel).
Re:US abuse (Score:2, Informative)
The ammunition mentioned in this article was listed on the ship's manifest and has been known about since the ship sailed. This isn't a surprise and has been (as usual) been taken without the proper context and sensationalized by the Daily Mail (which specializes in doing this kind of article).
If non-small arms materiel had been found then it would have been interesting - various other cargo items do appear to potentially be war materiel but those have not yet been located.
Re:One wonders... (Score:4, Informative)
The problem is Pakistan. There's a safe haven of Islamic militants across the border. Even the Pakistani government doesn't know what to do with them. Even worse, approval ratings for the Taliban and Osama Bin Laden are in the 35-50 percent range in Pakistan - which is, no doubt, concentrated in the tribal north west. When we're the demonized "evil West trying to destroy Islam" and the Taliban is "one of them" - i.e. fanatical muslims who "just want to implement God's government on earth", even when it means throwing acid in women's faces for wearing the wrong clothing. When they're that mired in conspiracy and in-group loyalty, it can be difficult to win a war.
2007 Poll: "According to poll results, bin Laden has a 46 percent approval rating...al Qaeda has a 43 percent approval rate; the Taliban has a 38 percent approval rate; and local radical extremist groups had an approval rating between 37 percent to 49 percent." http://edition.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/09/11/poll.pakistanis/index.html [cnn.com]
Re:Not really (Score:3, Informative)
The Taliban offered to hand over bin Laden, the US turned them down. There was never a prospect of going in until we got bin Laden, they were in it for the long haul from the start. They wanted to transform Afghanistan into a proxy state as part of their grand strategy.
Not quite. http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2001/oct/14/afghanistan.terrorism5 [guardian.co.uk]
President Bush rejected an offer from the taliban to discuss handing bin Laden over to a third country while researching whether bin Laden was responsible for the 9/11 attacks, in return for the US to cease bombing Afghanistan.
An offer of discussion is not close to an offer to hand over.
It was the equivalent of a movie director offering to look at an actresses resume if she sleeps with him, not offering the part.
Re:US abuse (Score:3, Informative)
Actually, you're spouting nothing but "New World Order bullshit" that has been around since before either of us were born.
See, the scary part about "Project for the New American Century" is that it's both open and serious [newamericancentury.org] - and if you read what it boils down to, "New World Order" is not all that far from there.
Re:re Triple GDP (Score:4, Informative)
Guess where the insurgents come from...
I mean, do you seriously think that some Afghanis are genetically born to be insurgents, and, as soon as you kill that bunch off, the rest will cheer democracy and religious freedom in their country?
By the way, speaking of "new order of things" - do you know that the current constitution of Afghanistan, enacted by the western-backed government, specifies Islam as a state religion, and Shari'a as the supreme law of the land, trumping any other law and article in the constitution? Meaning that e.g. apostasy and blasphemy is punished by death in Afghanistan today - not by Taliban, but by "our guys".
Re:US abuse (Score:4, Informative)
Re:One wonders... (Score:5, Informative)
Part of the process of making a soldier consists of inbuing them with an exceptionally strong sense of group and belonging to the group: it's well know that in the thick of it men do not fight above all for their countries they fight above all for their mates.
Thus it's not surprising that an (ex-)member of a military outfit will belief that "(we) are the best".
I've seen the same thing in some ex-high-school colleagues of mine, years later when we had a reunion, after they had been in the Portuguese special forces.
Re:US abuse (Score:5, Informative)
Took the Romans two centuries to pacify the Iberian peninsula (present day Spain and Portugal). And that was without outside meddling (after they took it from the Carthaginians).
Re:US abuse (Score:3, Informative)
To the idiots defending the taliban
The thing is, none of the parents above defended taliban.
Re:US abuse (Score:5, Informative)
I realize that you were mocking the "kindness" statement and not arguing the necessity, but a quick review of the history might enlighten a few readers here about the US approach to war and its determination to minimize civilian casualties.
By 1945, WW2 was nearing its end and everyone knew it; the Japanese were all but beaten but were refusing to surrender unconditionally. Rather than lay down their arms, they adopted a strategy to prevent an invasion of the Japanese home island by dragging out the war as long as possible and making each succeeding engagement so bloody that, hopefully, the US public would be increasingly appalled by the death toll and pressure their leaders to just quit. That strategy came to a head at the Battle of Okinawa which lasted almost three *months* (1 April - 22 June 1945) and resulted in 100,000 and 72,000 Japanese and US military casualties respectively, and 100,000 Japanese civilian casualties--a full 25% of the island's population. There was no Japanese compunction about using civilians as human shields. The Okinawan government to this day claims that the Japanese military gave a mass suicide order to the civilian population and expedited more than a few. 90% of the island's buildings and infrastructure were destroyed.
Still undeterred by those high losses, the Japanese leadership were preparing the civilian population of the home island to escalate that style of warfare even further. The military began issuing hand grenades to civilian families with orders to throw them at US soldiers when they appeared in the streets. It would have made modern day Baghdad look like a playground spat. They had decided that they would rather sacrifice the entire civilian population than surrender. Accordingly, the projected casualty count for the Allies' Operation Downfall --
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Downfall
--were in the millions for the Allied forces and in the *tens of millions* for the Japanese civilian population. Faced with those numbers, Truman ordered the use of the atomic bomb. The shock of losing two entire cities in three days, with a total casualty count of 240,000 people, with no loss of Allied life finally convinced the Japanese military they were done. The math and the psychology finally became overwhelming. There would be no more bloody engagements, just one Japanese city after another vanishing in a flash of light until the military was eviscerated with no loss to the Allies, so the Japanese finally surrendered.
Terrible as it was, those numbers were still orders of magnitude smaller than the deaths that would have resulted had the Allies been forced to invade Japan. The only other alternative would have been a blockade, resulting in mass starvation of the civilian population.So by any objective measure, the Japanese refusal to surrender and determination to drag out the war in as bloody a fashion as possible justified the use of Fat Man and Little Boy. Truman made the right call. It was the most merciful option left.
The point is that the US does not kill civilians just for jollies. In fact, it bends over backwards to try to minimize civilian casualties, way past the point of endangering its own troops. The fact that the Obama Administration is considering creating a military award for "courageous restraint" is proof of that. Whether the wars should have been started in the first place is, of course, debatable; but if the US were so ruthless and brutal as some Slashdotters claim, it would have turned Afghanistan and Iraq into glass parking lots long before George Bush had wrapped up his second term.
Re:US abuse (Score:3, Informative)
Might want to google "Thirty Years' War", "Hundred Years' War" and "Crusades"...
rj
Re:US abuse (Score:5, Informative)
taking out many civilian targets then trying to hide it
What history book have you been reading? The history of war is one of marching all over civilians. What you are supposed to do is walk in and kill every man woman and child so there is no one left to oppose you. So there aren't any children left fatherless to build a grudge of hatred towards your nation. This idea of not killing civilians is a result of the televised news cycle. Hell during WWII the firebombing campaigns in Japan killed 100's of thousands of people, more than the two atomic bombs.
The reason the war is taking so long is because they are at least attempting to not kill civilians. They aren't doing a great job of it, but at least they are trying.