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

[The Iceman of the North]

Uh, you realise Wikileaks themselves could be the journalists in question right? Or if they'd just shipped them off to a good journalist too. (those still do exist btw)

But they didn't. They didn't look at what they had or what it might say. They just dumped it all willy-nilly.

Eh, not quite. The documents were available to several news organisations for months before this release.

The first reports in Norwegian media from this set of documents came in the beginning of this month,

[Arthmail]

You guys are on crack if you think these give away combat procedures that might harm troops. The fighting is not static, and everyone is adapting to everyone else's tactics, so by the time of the release of these documents they were months old.

So get over that argument.

[Lord O' Bones]

You guys are on crack if you think these give away combat procedures that might harm troops. The fighting is not static, and everyone is adapting to everyone else's tactics, so by the time of the release of these documents they were months old.

And another one misses the point.

So get over that argument.

You know, having had semi-annual training (at minimum) about this very thing for the last 17 years, I just can't let it go. That and it's the fucking truth.

[Ckrisz]

ETA: Also, I seriously doubt that much of the Taliban or the remains of the baathist insurgency in Iraq (the only groups we are fighting using military tactics, AFAIK) have the internet to capitalize on anything they found in 400k documents. Or, I must not be buying into the vision of a global Islamic terrorist network that has lightning fast technology and an underground mountain fortress.

I think you seriously underestimate the technological savvy of both groups. The Iraqi insurgency led the way in internet propaganda (see: beheading and IED videos, various insurgent websites), but the neo-Taliban is just as good.

If you google around enough, you can quite easily find Taliban videos of IED explosions and beheadings of "spies", especially from the tribal areas. Most of these sites are not in English.

[Ckrisz]

So what makes you think that the people who can put shit on youtube can successfully translate 400,000 documents and effectively deducesome kind of mysterious operational secrets from them?

What a joke. Especially in light of Gates' comment that the previous drop was minimally damaging to opsec.

Successfully translate? The Taliban have plenty of people who speak and write English. As for deducing operational "secrets" from a bunch of SIGACTs - it's not as simple as that. They have just gained an enormous archive of how American units perceived their actions in the field (both Taliban and American actions). As a trove of strategic intelligence, it would be remarkably valuable. I would love to see an equivalent archive of Taliban after-action reports - the value of such a record should be obvious.

[Lord O' Bones]

So what makes you think that the people who can put shit on youtube can successfully translate 400,000 documents and effectively deducesome kind of mysterious operational secrets from them?

What a joke. Especially in light of Gates' comment that the previous drop was minimally damaging to opsec.

Without getting into in depth on the internet and being part of the problem, minimally damaging is still damaging. In this age of identity theft of average joes, I would think the extension to national defense would be easily digestible.

And since when did you start believing everything Gates says?

[Lord O' Bones]

If this is that damaging, why did Gates' dismiss the damage that the Pentagon screamed bloody murder about when the July documents dropped? Obviously it's not that obvious.

Because he'd look like a huge dipshit otherwise? Not saying it's the case, but food for thought.

[MinDonner]

If this is that damaging, why did Gates' dismiss the damage that the Pentagon screamed bloody murder about when the July documents dropped? Obviously it's not that obvious.

The alternative would be, what? A scream of "OMG the Taliban have all our secrets!", thereby ensuring that they actually bother to read and translate all the documents? A public declaration of "nothing to see here, move along" is the obvious sensible reaction, whatever the documents actually contain; who knows what he's saying/doing about it in private.

[Lord O' Bones]

The problem, obviously, is the US press. If they did their job, we wouldn't need leaks to show that American soldiers were handing people over to the INA for torture. The press had no Pentagon Papers this time, so it took someone else to drop the documents.

Not going to argue with that.

This is lame, and not really an effective argument. Who said I believed what he said this time or everything he says in the first place? Linking to that was for the benefit of those who think being ignorant is a good thing.

You keep bringing it up as if you believe it. As if it was some sort of evidence. Not damage control.

The Pentagon is giving mixed signals, and that's important to point out.

Fair enough.

I don't know what you mean here.

See: damage control

ETA: There also seems to be a huge and incorrect assumption that Afghanistan or Iraq are gleaning the most out of this sort of thing. Wrong. China, Russia, India, Pakistan, Israel, even France or Great Britain are loving this.

[Lord O' Bones]

It's a backtrack from "blood on their hands" to, "the damage is limited".

Exactly. PR, public and private. And one thing about this sort of thing is that statement can't even be honestly made one way or the other for years.

Also, limited damage is still damage. For the nth time.

[Shryke]

It's a backtrack from "blood on their hands" to, "the damage is limited".

Except it's not. The comments always say both. "blah blah blah, terribly dangerous but blah blah blah damage is limited right now".

It's really kinda funny seeing the same people who think the military can't be trusted taking everything they say at face value when it agrees with what they want to be true.

[Tormund Ukrainesbane]

In July there were 88 coalition casualties in Afghanistan. This month and last month there have been less than 60. It would seem that the Taliban has become less effective since the documents were released.

[Altherion]

ETA: There also seems to be a huge and incorrect assumption that Afghanistan or Iraq are gleaning the most out of this sort of thing. Wrong. China, Russia, India, Pakistan, Israel, even France or Great Britain are loving this.

Their turn will come:

Assange and another WikiLeaks spokesperson, Kristinn Hrafnsson, who talked to the daily Kommersant Tuesday, refused to provide details. "Russians are going to find out a lot of interesting facts about their country," Ms. Hrafnsson told Kommersant, adding that WikiLeaks would soon be targeting "despotic regimes in China, Russia, and Central Asia" in a series of fresh document dumps.

[History of Westeros]

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 neverbeen 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.

Thank you, for fucks sake. The short sightedness in this thread makes me want to smash my own face. Wikileaks has done much to prevent wars from being started under false pretenses in the future.

Any effort that prevents war is to be applauded even if it has serious negative side effects. Commenting on Julian Assange as a person or whether or not he is a media whore is pretty irrelevant with much bigger issues on the table.

[History of Westeros]

You guys are on crack if you think these give away combat procedures that might harm troops. The fighting is not static, and everyone is adapting to everyone else's tactics, so by the time of the release of these documents they were months old.

So get over that argument.

Damn right. If that argument held any water we would likely have heard about the damage by now. I mean really, they want to discredit Wikileaks and make JA look bad, yet they can't come up with a shred of evidence that this info has harmed a US soldier.

[Shryke]

Shryke,

This is ad hominem.

No it's not. Why don't you go look up the definition of your big purty words before using them.

I'm pointing out the (rather hilarious) double-standard here where the military can't be trusted, except for these statements here, those are totally to be trusted.

If you've already established that the military isn't telling the truth and is hiding stuff, then the statements you are holding up as evidence are also suspect.

Thank you, for fucks sake. The short sightedness in this thread makes me want to smash my own face. Wikileaks has done much to prevent wars from being started under false pretenses in the future.

Any effort that prevents war is to be applauded even if it has serious negative side effects. Commenting on Julian Assange as a person or whether or not he is a media whore is pretty irrelevant with much bigger issues on the table.

How does this leak "prevent war"?

[Lord O' Bones]

I think the benefits outweigh the damage. Again, I point to the Iraqi civilians who will benefit from knowing why their pregnant wife was gunned down at a checkpoint, etc.

I guess it depends on the damage/benefit down the line. But that's a fair stance to hold.

ETA: Also, it's always interesting to consider who leaked the documents. If they were military, why did they feel it was a good idea to leak them? Were they doing a utilitarian calculation?

In most cases, military are individual people too. Including various moralities, motivations, and just being stupid sometimes.

Damn right. If that argument held any water we would likely have heard about the damage by now. I mean really, they want to discredit Wikileaks and make JA look bad, yet they can't come up with a shred of evidence that this info has harmed a US soldier.

The constant couching of this as something that can only affect an Army Ranger in Kandahar next week is so fucking aggravating.

Well, high horse away, human rights hero. I'm sure it's much better to help someone that wants to manipulate us into a bloody nose somewhere, somewhen, knowing our reaction is likely to be far more bloody is a wonderful thing. Or even allowing an ally manipulate us into being the fist they don't want to be.

[MinDonner]

This drop shows that the government is not to be trusted. Why?

- They cover up what many consider murder

- They are supporting a government that operated death squads

- They might not torture "anymore" (just wait till shit from Bagram drops), but they sure as hell will throw you to the INA when they feel like it

So, if the government/military isn't to be trusted, we won't go to war again under false pretenses. See what I mean?

Uh... not seeing how the logic works in your last statement. Who is it that decides whether or not to go to war if not the government? Do they not trust each other now? Does that matter? Who is not trusting who?

Unless you are referring to the electorate, who will rise up in outrage at this wholly new reason to mistrust the government (that they previously believed implicitly) and vote in a third party who doesn't lie about war stuff... oh, wait.

[Lord O' Bones]

I actually think that this might be true.

This drop shows that the government is not to be trusted. Why?

- They cover up what many consider murder

- They are supporting a government that operated death squads

- They might not torture "anymore" (just wait till shit from Bagram drops), but they sure as hell will throw you to the INA when they feel like it

But what thinking person didn't know that already by now?

So, if the government/military isn't to be trusted, we won't go to war again under false pretenses. See what I mean?

I hope you're right, but I despair that this will be the reason.

I think examining those motivations is a really important thing to do. Why did Manning want to drop these documents? What did he see that he thought should be public?

Believe me, someone is examining it.

[Shryke]

I actually think that this might be true.

This drop shows that the government is not to be trusted. Why?

- They cover up what many consider murder

- They are supporting a government that operated death squads

- They might not torture "anymore" (just wait till shit from Bagram drops), but they sure as hell will throw you to the INA when they feel like it

So, if the government/military isn't to be trusted, we won't go to war again under false pretenses. See what I mean?

Unless you want to argue that Iraq was justified.

:lol: This and so much worse was all easily provable even before the Iraq war. It didn't have any effect. It's never really had any effect.

Iraq was provably false pretenses RIGHT FROM THE START. And it still had massive public support.

This leak doesn't "prevent war" in any way. What it does (or what leaks should be doing) is highlighting crimes and such that haven't come to light.