Wikileaks and Iraq: Take 2, What's in a Number?

[S John]

You keep saying this but all available evidence so far contradicts that, no?

No, it doesn't. A lot of the documents are reports from combat units detailing 'significant activities'. What jumps out at you and me are the tragedies of war. Like, say, when a warning shot ricochets and kills a kid. I am not concerned about that sort of information getting out. It deserves to get out. But I'll bet that information did get out when the incident occurred. I think mostly what people are worried about are the things surrounding the event. Not the thing that would cause you or I to pay attention.

There are now half a million documents out there each offering their own little piece of information about how Americans conduct combat operations, how they react when x, y, or z happens, geographic areas of US interest, where certain buildings are, routes taken, how/why they were chosen, what kind of things US combat patrols look for, etc, etc, etc. All of that is secondary information to us when the story is a tragic one. It is the kind of thing that might be included in the raw reports of soldiers in the field, but would likely be filtered out by journalists. There is a word for information like that - intelligence. Its the kind of stuff you generally try to keep away from people who sit around all day and try and think of new ways to kill you. Its information that would be helpful if you're looking for ways to gain an edge when fighting Americans.

I'm certainly not saying that this stuff is going to cost us the war, or that Assange should be hauled in for murder. But I am saying that you can bet your bottom dollar that the documents contain information that the enemy will find useful, and that I don't appreciate that.

ETA: clarity.

[awesome possum]

There will be no indictments. You know that.

Truth. To believe anyone who actually had a hand in creating the messes will ever be indicted over Iraq or Afghanistan is wishful thinking at best, delusion at worst.

Doesn't change the fact that in 10 short years the United States has devolved into one of the world's greatest villains.

[lokisnow]

There are now half a million documents out there each offering their own little piece of information about how Americans conduct combat operations, how they react when x, y, or z happens, geographic areas of US interest, where certain buildings are, routes taken, how/why they were chosen, what kind of things US combat patrols look for, etc, etc, etc. All of that is secondary information to us when the story is a tragic one. It is the kind of thing that might be included in the raw reports of soldiers in the field, but would likely be filtered out by journalists. There is a word for information like that - intelligence. Its the kind of stuff you generally try to keep away from people who sit around all day and try and think of new ways to kill you. Its information that would be helpful if you're looking for ways to gain an edge when fighting Americans.

A very good point, and one I hadn't considered. You're saying that these document leaks are equivalent to having access to a football team's playbook and game plan. You can derive a lot of how a team plays from research and intelligence, but getting the actual operational methodology makes it easier to game the system against your opponent. You will know how they think and how they will react before they do, you don't have to guess anymore.

[All-for-Joffrey]

To all those saying there was nothing substantial or new regarding these leaks: I had no idea about Maliki and the torturing of Iraqi Civilians (and US complacency in the matter) until this came out. Maybe I just missed something but I follow new stories regarding the Middle East daily. Was this something that was already out in the open?

[Eyelesbarrow]

To all those saying there was nothing substantial or new regarding these leaks: I had no idea about Maliki and the torturing of Iraqi Civilians (and US complacency in the matter) until this came out. Maybe I just missed something but I follow new stories regarding the Middle East daily. Was this something that was already out in the open?

Somehow I'm not surprised by the torture allegations. War torn country with bitter tribal history and inefficient institutions are perfect conditions for these fuck ups. I agree that there is nothing earth shattering with the documents, if one is looking for an Abu Ghraib-like story. But that is beside the point. The main thing is that these information made such allegations official and out in the open.

[Tormund Ukrainesbane]

For the most part I think the line "nothing in these documents was really new" is a line that is designed to distract. "Nothing here to see people, don't waste your time here."

It may be true that the people that know the most about what's going on in Iraq maybe did know all of this already, but if the media really focused on it, we would see a lot more reactions like yours.

If that makes it sound like I'm a Wikileaks superfan, I'm really not. I'm kinda torn. I do understand the point that a couple people have made that stuff gets classified for a reason. But I am also a believer that war is Hell and lots of unintended crap happens when you go to war.

The line that secret info would fall into the hands of America's Enemies ® was pulled out the last time. Guess what?

The online leak of thousands of secret military documents from the war in Afghanistan by the website WikiLeaks did not disclose any sensitive intelligence sources or methods, the Department of Defense concluded. . . .

The assessment, revealed in a letter from Secretary of Defense Robert Gates to the Chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, Sen. Carl Levin (D-Michigan), comes after a thorough Pentagon review of the more than 70,000 documents posted to the controversial whistle-blower site in July. . . .

The defense secretary said that the published documents do contain names of some cooperating Afghans, who could face reprisal by Taliban.

But a senior NATO official in Kabul told CNN that there has not been a single case of Afghans needing protection or to be moved because of the leak.

[Tormund Ukrainesbane]

CNN via Glenn Greenwald. See my link on page 1.

[Shryke]

The defense secretary said that the published documents do contain names of some cooperating Afghans, who could face reprisal by Taliban.

But a senior NATO official in Kabul told CNN that there has not been a single case of Afghans needing protection or to be moved because of the leak.

So yes they do compromise people's security, it just hasn't resulted in anything bad yet.

I don't think this is the stirring endorsement you think it is.

From the actual article:

Secretary of Defense Robert Gates said there is still concern Afghans named in the published documents could be retaliated against by the Taliban, though a NATO official said there has been no indication that this has happened.

"We assess this risk as likely to cause significant harm or damage to national security interests of the United States and are examining mitigation options," Gates wrote in the letter. "We are working closely with our allies to determine what risks our mission partners may face as a result of the disclosure."

And this is not, btw, from the documents they did hold back because they wanted to redact sensitive names.

[S John]

A very good point, and one I hadn't considered. You're saying that these document leaks are equivalent to having access to a football team's playbook and game plan. You can derive a lot of how a team plays from research and intelligence, but getting the actual operational methodology makes it easier to game the system against your opponent. You will know how they think and how they will react before they do, you don't have to guess anymore.

Yes, exactly. I don't care about the information regarding Iraqi civilian deaths or possible human rights violations getting out. I think that is a good thing. Its the compilation of the small operational tidbits that I'd rather not have been put out there. No one document might be earth shattering, but I think you could glean a lot of info from raw documents like this. I have to disagree with our friend Tormund that 'classified' is just 'pussy bullshit.' Things like.. code names for major routes or airspace, flight schedules, etc. If someone who wishes you harm knows those things, its that much easier for them to figure out where you'll be and when you'll be there. I'm just very much in the camp of 'lets not make it easier for them.' Once our people are out of there, then fine. But with 50,000 still on the ground I certainly wouldn't appreciate it if I were sitting on a base somewhere and some jackass let slip where we eat all our meals, or the name of the village where our informants live, or the possible routes we'd take to get there. IMO that sort of thing does not deserve to be leaked as it does absolutely nothing for anyone with good intentions.

So yes they do compromise people's security, it just hasn't resulted in anything bad yet.

I don't think this is the stirring endorsement you think it is.

Not only that, but the article cites 'a senior NATO official in Kabul.' Well, fuck me, since we're all about naming names, how about we find out who this source is so we can determine whether or not that person knows what the hell they are talking about. For all we know they interviewed the head cook at the NATO dining facility.

Afghanistan is roughly the size of Texas and, for the most part, extremely remote. I sincerely doubt that one anonymous NATO official in one part of the country is qualified to make sweeping statements of this nature. Maybe no refuges have come banging on the gates of the UN compound in Kabul... but that says nothing of the quiet movements made in remote regions of Afghanistan. It also assumes that every informant seeking refuge is dealt with through official NATO channels and that the anonymous NATO source is made aware in every case. I doubt it.

We've been in Afghanistan for 10 years and there are still untold numbers of caves, mountain passes, possibly even some small villages that we don't even know about. Thats after 10 years of trying to find these types of things. So to me, one anonymous person saying they've kept tabs on thousands of informants all across the country and they're all doing just peachy? Lol... yea, right.

[Lord O' Bones]

SJohn has the right of it. Wikileaks is harmful if it's relevant in any way.

[Ckrisz]

Also, why should any Afghan come forward to give information on the Taliban now? We've just proven in the most public way possible that we cannot protect their name or identity from being released onto the internet. Not to mention any potential espionage source in the future. I can't understand how one couldn't see the chilling effect this could have.

[Tormund Ukrainesbane]

Somehow this keeps getting missed...

The online leak of thousands of secret military documents from the war in Afghanistan by the website WikiLeaks did not disclose any sensitive intelligence sources or methods, the Department of Defense concluded. . . .

The assessment, revealed in a letter from Secretary of Defense Robert Gates to the Chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, Sen. Carl Levin (D-Michigan), comes after a thorough Pentagon review of the more than 70,000 documents posted to the controversial whistle-blower site in July. . .

[kungtotte]

I honestly think Wikileaks is going in the wrong direction with all the documents released about Afghanistan and Iraq. Take the infamous Apache-video for example. What did it accomplish? Exactly nothing. People were already outraged over the collateral damage in Iraq, it didn't sway anybody's opinion about the war or the US presence there, and it was a matter that was already dealt with by the US. All it did was give people the impression that Wikileaks was about showing gory videos.

The real strength of Wikileaks is to act as a distributor of sensitive information that people can't distribute on their own for fear of repercussions. It should be a place where whistleblowers can post their stories anonymously, where people in oppressive countries like China or North Korea can give an unfettered account of what is actually going on, and where military personnel can blow the lid off of real, actual atrocities that are being swept under the rug (e.g. Abu-Ghraib).

[Mack Kilimaro]

I honestly think Wikileaks is going in the wrong direction with all the documents released about Afghanistan and Iraq. Take the infamous Apache-video for example. What did it accomplish? Exactly nothing. People were already outraged over the collateral damage in Iraq, it didn't sway anybody's opinion about the war or the US presence there, and it was a matter that was already dealt with by the US. All it did was give people the impression that Wikileaks was about showing gory videos.

I feel like you are probably giving people too much credit to say that there is outrage over the collateral damage in Iraq. There is a small segment of the population that has been against everything to do with the Iraq invasion from the beginning, but that segment is very small. On the scale of protests a lot of people protested in a lot of places, but not that many compared to all people. The American presence in Iraq is nearly forgotten. Its costs and effects have never been deeply examined, and except for really partisan Democrats (which includes me), the people who are ultimately responsible for all of this - "Dubya" Bush, plus Cheney and all of his neo-con cronies - have generally escaped blame.

What you're talking about with Wikileaks is a ton of irrefutable evidence for the history books that the entire endeavor was a colossal failure, and that anyone who really stopped to think about it should have seen that it was a terrible idea that was executed poorly by arrogant buffoons. The value in this is not so much for the present day as for 10 years from now, or 20 or 30 years from now, when it's a distant memory, and it's important that people who either forgot, or weren't even alive, realize just how bad this whole thing was, and maybe, just maybe, there will never be another situation comparable to this Iraq invasion and occupation.

[Tormund Ukrainesbane]

What you're talking about with Wikileaks is a ton of irrefutable evidence for the history books that the entire endeavor was a colossal failure, and that anyone who really stopped to think about it should have seen that it was a terrible idea that was executed poorly by arrogant buffoons. The value in this is not so much for the present day as for 10 years from now, or 20 or 30 years from now, when it's a distant memory, and it's important that people who either forgot, or weren't even alive, realize just how bad this whole thing was, and maybe, just maybe, there will never be another situation comparable to this Iraq invasion and occupation.

This is an awesome post.

Along those lines...Thanks to press freedom - you know better!

[kungtotte]

There is a small segment of the population that has been against everything to do with the Iraq invasion from the beginning, but that segment is very small.

The number of people who are outraged and/or against the war is the same now after the video has been released. The video didn't change anyone's opinion, nor did it drag up something that the US tried to sweep under the rug (the people involved were cleared in the subsequent investigation), so why release it?

[Arthmail]

I'm a little blown away by all of this. I think at least a quarter of any sensitive material is made sensitive just to protect officials currently in power, if not more. Shit is released decades after it happens showing massive government corruption and incompetence, but because it comes out so much later there always seems little point in trying to persecute the offenders.

Wikileaks provides an oppurtunity to hold people accountable now. Wether we do so or not is our own damned fault, but to say because we do not act immediately or because people do not care as much as they should that we should not know at all is stupid.

Too often administrations of any country are more concerned with protecting themselves and their parties, rather than protecting their citizens. There needs to be some accountability, not stern words spoken in disgust 25 years later or whatever the limit on such documents is.

Besides, these are some staggering fucking numbers. People should know.

[Tormund Ukrainesbane]

The number of people who are outraged and/or against the war is the same now after the video has been released. The video didn't change anyone's opinion, nor did it drag up something that the US tried to sweep under the rug (the people involved were cleared in the subsequent investigation), so why release it?

You probably aren't going to change anyone's minds about anything. Why report the news at all? Hell, why make anything other than reality dating shows? You aren't going to change anyone's mind.

[kungtotte]

You probably aren't going to change anyone's minds about anything. Why report the news at all? Hell, why make anything other than reality dating shows? You aren't going to change anyone's mind.

My point is, Wikileaks should be more about the Abu-Ghraib stuff and less about the Apache-attack stuff.

One has tremendous news value, the other is only a shade more legitimate than war porn.

[The Progressive]

Somehow this keeps getting missed...

I had you figured out all wrong, Tormund ......... didn't realize that you would be the kind of people who takes face-saving declarations from senior military officials as gospel.