The Afghan War Diary release – was it the right thing to do?
Wales Business — By WalesHome on August 4, 2010 2:00 pm
British soldiers in the heat of battle in Afghanistan: has Wikileaks jeopardised the mission there?
Rob Williams: A vital and damning record of a bloody and unwinnable war
SPEAKING to New Europe magazine last month Julian Assange, the man behind Wikileaks, reminded journalists of something they all too often forget. He said: “The history of journalism is not a glorious history; it is a history of cover up punctuated by some fine journalists who actually get the truth out.”
In other words, for every Watergate there is a ‘45 minutes from attack’ claim, for every exposé there is a spiked article that, although in the public interest, never appears.
Since the publication of the Afghan War Diary by Wikileaks, The Guardian, Der Spiegel and the New York Times, Julian Assange has come under heavy fire.
Primarily, but not exclusively, condemnation has come from the US military-political complex. The condemnation has been routinely hypocritical and contradictory. The US establishment, in common with many commentators, have claimed that the files contain no new information. They have simultaneously stated that the reports threaten US national security. The blatant contradiction between these two positions – it is nothing new / it is a terrible threat – has steadily undermined both. It exposes an establishment that feels under threat and is unclear about how it should respond to this new sort of media organisation. Regardless of this, as Assange points out, the ‘threat to national security’ whine is extremely weak:
“You often hear…that something may be a threat to US national security. This must be shot down, whenever this statement is made. A threat to US national security? Is anyone serious? The security of the entire nation of the United States? It is ridiculous.”
Wikileaks has also been accused of putting Afghan civilians and coalition troops at risk by releasing the documents. Jacob Appelbaum, the man who is standing in for Julian Assange since he was warned not to visit the US, reacted furiously to the suggestion that Wikileaks volunteers may have blood on their hands:
“When you have been waging war for 10 years, who are you to say that? What are you thinking, writing these people’s names down? And what are you doing in concrete terms to protect these people?”
Clearly Assange made the judgement, based on the type of intelligence in these files, that it was in the interests of US troops and Afghan civilians to release this information. Perhaps he was making the assumption that he would save lives by weakening support for the war, and perhaps helping to bring about an earlier conclusion to it. Some reports already state support for the war has weakened.
As Jay Rosen points out, Wikileaks is an entirely new sort of media organisation. It is one that is, crucially, not bound by the laws of any country. Wikileaks, as is announced on their twitter page, is everywhere. Should they be shut down in any particular country their servers can be switched on elsewhere. They operate largely outside of media law. That Wiki has the power to publish, in full, documents that may be a risk to national interests is something that bothers some journalists. They argue that old media still needs to filter the content and ensure that it doesn’t present some sort of threat. They argue that journalistic standards should still be applied. Stephen Glover of The Independent argued this, as well as saying that Assange needs old media to filter and sort the leaked information. This isn’t the case. Assange has made clear that he used old media to simultaneously publish the information for greatest impact.
Wikileaks was going to publish regardless.
This returns us to that opening quote. That these documents were published on the Wikileaks site without the journalistic filter; without the interference of media ownership, editors, lawyers or the authorities, opened up the information in a way old media just couldn’t. It was brave and it was risky in the way all truly important journalism is. For that it should be applauded.
Who knows, Wikileaks might just be the thing to make journalism glorious again, and who knows, it may even keep some of the establishment honest. Isn’t that worth the risk?
Duncan Higgitt: This leak is a burst dam that threatens to drown more than just security
IT IS USUALLY never a good thing to go backwards. However, in watching the whole Afghan War Diary story unfold over the past week, I have found myself moving from siding with journalism, in which I worked for close to two decades, to sympathising with the concerns of the military, with whom I served before becoming a reporter.
Why? It’s an erosion of faith, really, and a growing concern at the way information – not news, we can come back to that – is being disseminated.
At first, like many people who have worked in news, this story seemed huge, and not only in the sheer scale of the document release.
And we discovered – well, what, really? That Nato uses search and destroy teams? Compared to the Soviets’ favourite tactic of incinerating entire Afghan villages with helicopter rockets, this is almost surgical. That we have special forces in the region? Really? Remember the Mazar-i-Sharif prisoners’ revolt of almost a decade ago? Who put that one down?
Julian Assange says he was prompted into making the document release because of the civilian dead. That number, confirmed through these reports, amounts to under 150 in eight years. Of course, that is 150 too many. But, given that it is only just over a half a century ago that being unable to account for a similar number during an air raid on a single British city in one night was commonplace, surely this is a march in the right direction?
War is not clean, and it can never submit to the conformities and expectations of the courtroom. But then civilian dead rarely if ever contribute to the end of a war, so where’s Assange’s real beef?
There are two major concerns with what he has done. The first is that he admits to having read just 4,000 of the 91,000-odd documents uploaded onto Wikileaks. For papers that are reported to contain extremely sensitive material, this demonstrates a lack of care that borders on recklessness.
Secondly, and related to the first worry, is the jeopardy that he has potentially placed possibly hundreds of Afghan civilians in. In some respects, this runs contrary to his concerns for war dead. Did he consider the danger that he could be visiting the same upon these people? And if not, why not? What will he say if more than 150 Afghan civilian workers are killed by the Taliban as a consequence of the documents release? Will this mean that his justification no longer remains?
But while we wait for any consequences to be played out in Afghanistan, we can wonder about what this development means for the media, Western democracy and freedom of speech.
Fundamentally, it underlines the media industry’s growing concern that freedom of speech online does not mean freedom from responsibility. The documents release only emphasises the journalist’s importance as a filter, to use the modern parlance. It’s worth noting that Assange gave the documents to three newspapers, not because this kind of simultaneous publishing is unprecedented, but because he recognised that he needed the content interpreted, its news value discerned.
However, in handing them to The Guardian, the New York Times and Der Spiegel, he almost certainly also robbed them a crucial component in quality journalism: reflection. The time to ask – what have we got here? What does it mean? Consequently, the contents didn’t become the story. The release did. The debate has centred around whether what Assange did was morally ethical and, no doubt expecting an easy time from a public fed up with this war, he has found himself on the back foot as those with sons, daughters, husbands, other family members and friends fighting in Afghanistan drew back in mild disgust and wondered whether the War Dossiers will put their loved ones in danger.
Assange also wrongly counted on receiving the natural sympathy given to those who stand against The Man. But we’re all a lot more media savvy these days. And we understand that just because you can say something, it doesn’t always mean you should.
Tweet This
Share on Facebook
Digg This
Bookmark
Stumble
44 Comments
duncan is it the fact that these documents were placed in the public doman at all that you object to? or is the manner in which they were leaked the issue that troubles you most? there are of course numerous precedents for episodes like this…..documents that prove that the military have lied about or concealed civilian deaths……
after the mai lai massacre was first brought to the attention of the world by journalist seymour hersh the us military….among them one colin powell…..attemped to justify the slaughter by claiming that most of those killed were ‘enemy combatants’…….in the leaked documents on wiileak there is one prominet incident in which many innocent civilans were killed by coalition forces……….and eerily the coalition made exactley the same false claim as colin powell had over mai lai to to justify the killings of these innocent civilians
similarly the leaking of the pentagon papers which covered the us role in vietnam revealed in the words of the new york times that the us govt had ‘systematically lied, not only to the public but also to Congress, about a subject of transcendent national interest and significance”…..
these are just two examples where exposing lies by the military or by govts has clearly been the right thing to do….as was the recent leak showing what is really going on in afganistan was the right thing to do…..and over the years there have been many other such episodes where brave courageous journalists have brought to public attention things which govts and military chiefs would rather the public did not know……… interestingly its always a standard response of those who have most to lose by such revelations ie governments, military chiefs..that these leaks will ‘endanger lives’………
sadly in afgahistan coalition troops are being killed on an almost daily basis…and the best way of bringing all the pointless tragic deaths – military and civilian – to an end is by getting out of afgahnistan!!! i believe that the recent documents leaked on wikileak have helped bring that day closer
What infuriates most is the mainstream media’s ingratiation with those whom they are supposed to cover.
In the days of Watergate, journalists would never think of NOT asking a tough question for fear it would hurt their ability to later collect a six-figure+ salary as a PR flak for the industry or support the very politician they are covering.
I have been stonewalled and flummoxed at every turn writing about the hall of mirrors known as the St. Davids centre in downtown Cardiff. Non-response and SPIN is the byword at every corner in every aspect of media.
Assange’s Wikileaks has grown because too many in government and business use their ‘position’ to deny access and disclosure. They know that too many reporters are lazy and will cower/take the easy way out in fear of losing ‘access.’ The Chinese Wall between editorial and publishing/advertising is made of paper.
If ‘we,’ reporters and journalists, did our job with a sense of conscience and hustle like Woodward and Bernstein 1972-74, there would be no need for Wikileaks. Until we do, there will be more circular debates like this and… more Wikileaks from frustrated whistle blowers unable to get answers/satisfaction in the MSM (mainstream media).
Leigh,
I have no objection to the leaking of documents. There are, on balance, more good reasons than bad for doing so. I myself have used leaked documents on a number of occasions as the basis for stories.
But my point was that anybody who has documents to leak must have some regard to any responsibilities that come with them. For me, it was always about protecting the source. Here, there are potentially tragic consequences for Afghan civilians. These people are not invaders’ stooges. They are people who are fed up with a 30-year war. Now their lives have been put at risk because Julian Assange couldn’t be bothered to read all the documents before releasing them.
I understand he probably had concerns of his own. For example, if they were being released after being read, the release would have been slower and there is a possibility that the material could have been injuncted. I appreciate that there is a long history of cover-up and that civilian deaths become harder to stomach, but I still believe that such a lack of care towards non-combatants (lest we forget) is not acceptable.
Whilst I agree Duncan, if any documents were seen to being kept back it would of kicked off another conspiracy theory. Though no doubt some already believe that something has already been kept back, it will be interesting to compare with the upcoming release of French gestapo wartime archives which have been held back for 75 years.
More power to the whistle blowers and the likes of Wikileaks.
The closer we get to a culture where the perpretators of crass acts, foul ups and dirty deeds are in doubt that what they get up to will certainly become public knowledge the better off societies and their people will be.
We have a system and clique of power in the world who use lies, money and secrecy to keep the vast majority of us in poverty and utter helplessness…
Wikileaks is a noble barrier to that.
All good points. Regardless of the kind of world you all think we live in, however, whistleblowing is in danger of trending, when each incident should be judged on its own merit and responsibly handled.
And if we decide that elected politicians’ perceived dirty deeds are to be held to account by invisible, unaccountable and often agenda-driven online activists, causing a timidity when it comes to decision making, an extension of ‘Government by Daily Mail headline’ that we witnessed during Labour’s years in power, surely we are only replacing one kind of tyranny with another? The mob as well as politicians can exercise tyranny.
Dunc,
But surely, there is a public interest test? Which would act as an invisible hand so to speak? Of course this would be broken by those who don’t care about public interest, but perhaps the public would excercise that critical analysis when dealing with such leaks?
I could go on the internet and watching beheadings of US soldiers in Iraq, it has been ‘leaked’, I choose not to.
If politicians were interested in having a populace that could spot when they were being manipulated, decieved or duped by the likes of the Daily Mail they would have introduced “How to spot when you’re being manipulated, deceived or duped” into school curriculums a century ago.
They haven’t as it suits them not to have a populace that’s skilled up on this matter even if it works against them some of the time. Even now their concern is about information getting out and being used to influence people rather than a acknowledgement that people need to be taught skills to gauge the worth of such information and spot any attempts to manipulate them with it.
Marcus – I’m sure you’re right, and don’t disagree with what you’re saying. However, my concern here is that the Taliban will sift the papers for targets – civilian targets and Assange should have considered the ‘collateral’ (what a horrible interpretation of the word) prior to publishing.
CapM – you appear to be creating a stereotype to conform to preformed beliefs. If what you say is true, how comes there are Assembly Members pushing harder than the media industry itself for greater plurality – and greater scrutiny of their activities – in the Welsh press and broadcasting?
There seems to be an acceptance that there is some kind of greater good here at stake, that somehow it’s alright for Afghan civilians’ lives to be put at risk so that we may fully understand what is being done in our name. So the poor Afghan will have known Western democracy but for a few months, and now he’s about to be killed by it. If I were a member of his family, I should think as poorly of Wikileaks as I would of Hellfire missiles.
And what a terrible conceit on our part – that somehow it’s worth the lives of people in poor countries just so we can find out what we already suspected or half-knew, anyway. There are no great secrets in these papers – just dates, times and numbers – details to what we already had been told. There are no war crimes, no Abu Ghraib, and certainly no My Lai. This is not the Pentagon Papers, no matter what people say. It hasn’t changed my mind about the war, about Afghanistan and its problems – has it changed anybody else’s?
So democracy has been exercised and we’re right back in the 1900s, leaking other countrymen and women’s blood on foreign soil as a consequence of our own domestic concerns. As I said above, if the answer to tyranny is tyranny of a different colour, it’s hardly an answer.
Duncan, if British forces are involved in or are part of a military force that is responsible for the killing of innocent civilians in Afghanistan, or Iraq, or anywhere else in the world for that matter, I want to know about it, and I think most people in the UK would, too. Further I would expect all such grave events to be reported by our media, as a number of such episodes have indeed been!
What the Wikileaks documents showed was that there were a number of incidents in which innocent civilians had been killed as a result of Coalition forces’ actions and that these incidents had not been reported by the media, or that the Coalition forces had lied about the numbers of civilian deaths involved.
Lets be clear here the incidents hushed up or lied about are in addition to the already countless occassions in which innocent Afghanis have died as a result of US and NATO forces actions. Indeed the number of civilians mistakenly killed by these forces has been so bad that it has prompted many public demonstrations in Afghanistan in protest at these deaths, leading to calls by some Afghanis for the Coalition forces to leave Afghanistan, and in fact proving to be a recruiting tool for the Taliban.
“No grave secrets in these papers….no My Lais”. Well. I would point you to one episode contained in these papers which reveals how US forces lied about the killing of 90 civilians – 60 of them children – at a wedding. At the time the US military blatantly lied and it was reported that only 30 ‘enemy combatants’ had been killed, and lo and behold US forces in Vietnam had said exactly the same thing when the news of the slaughter at My Lai began to break! The mass slaughter of innocent civilians is mass slaughter wherever it takes places, and of course it is a war crime!
The leaked documents also eveal that such disgraceful conduct and deception is sadly not the exclusive preserve of the US military as they list another terrible episode which showed that NATO lied about the numbers of civilians killed as a result of an airstrike – nato claimed only 30 civilians had died when in fact the total was nearly 200. There are many other such similar incidents listed in the leaked documents …too many to list here
If people wish to learn more about the sheer volume of civilian casualties that have resulted from the actions of US and NATO forces in afghanistan all they need do is visit the page on wiikipedia entitled ‘Civilian casualties of the War in Afghanistan (2001–present)’ …..it makes truly appalling and shameful reading.. It also clearly demonstrates that the charge that the leaking of these documents has put civilian lives at risk is frankly risible…as they are sadly and quite clearly already at risk ……from some of the actions of US and NATO forces…..
My point was not about the plurality of the media but how under skilled the population is at spotting when it’s being sold a dummy.
Preformed beliefs! Do you know of any goverment UK or other which has set out to develope their electorates’ ability to spot bullshit, bluster etc.? My belief as formed is based on the abysmal record of many governments on this matter.
I don’t think it’s valid to just suggest the negative consequences of a Wikileaks event there are also negative consequences of keeping things secret which can I’m sure be just as deadly.
And surely the ultimate conceit is not our desire to know what’s being done in our name but our being there in the first place.
The future is unknowable and will look different depending on your ideology. Will history judge Wikileaks as the positive, negative or irrelevant? It can’t be known today and will probably depend on who is writing the history.
The public interest test depends on your values and beliefs which come in a large part from your ideology. So Wikileaks is making judgements about what to publish based on their ideology about how one side of a conflict between two ideologies is conducting themselves. No wonder right and wrong is unclear, even more so as it is pushing at some of the rules of the reporting game.
I would be surprised if Wikileaks is still going in three months time in the form it is today because it is a threat to an ideology with serious reach. Technology and people are always fallible, so Wikileaks is not immortal. But the future is unknowable, so Wikileaks may bring about subtle change which keeps it safe. Futurology is just a lucky guess by an other name.
Assange and friends, like everyone else, is playing in a game he does not fully understand where the rules, goals, agents and parameters are ever changing, unknown or unclear. An assessment of the effectiveness of Assange’s public interest test depends on the alignment of his ideology with yours, rather than an absolute quantitative value of lives lost or potentially saved as a result of the release of the information.
Wikileaks has become a active third party in an ideology debate, which makes it an interesting and confusing target.
“An assessment of the effectiveness of Assange’s public interest test depends on the alignment of his ideology with yours, rather than an absolute quantitative value of lives lost or potentially saved as a result of the release of the information.”
Not in my book it doesn’t. It relies 100% on the consequences to Afghans.
“And surely the ultimate conceit is not our desire to know what’s being done in our name but our being there in the first place.”
Apart from the fact that that doesn’t even make sense (surely it would be ignorance?), what you are in effect saying is that the body count can keep on rising just so you can make abstract and unprovable points from the comfort of your armchair about Western governments. I would venture that not one document in the War Diary stands this argument up.
Leigh – if you didn’t know about the questions around the wedding party massacre, you should read the papers more. As I said above, it’s nothing we didn’t know. What we have now are dates, times, details. Doesn’t make it acceptable, but then it hardly clears Assange, either. Then you go and shoot your whole argument in the foot by telling us it was there on Wikipedia (which, of course, has always been right) all along.
And a war crime is a war crime, is it? What? Before it’s been to court? You mutter on about all this supposed breaking of basic Western tenets by Western governments and yet you are prepared to allow these soldiers to forego the right to a free trail, are you?
And lastly, if you think that it is only Nato atrocities that are drawing people to the Taliban rather than its successful transition into a native army of liberation, you need to read your Afghan history more.
In some respect, Clive is right. Both CapM and Leigh’s arguments are completely coloured by a point of view. This view, as they express it, doesn’t appear to have been arrived at via an objective sifting of events, but feels more like opinions that were hardened to unwavering during the Iraq War. Just because is Assange is against the war, it doesn’t make what he did right. Jesus, where are the shades of grey?
The conceit (our conceit) is that we are in another country supposedly showing the people there how they should be doing things. That’s what I’m saying.
I think your as well as my argument is coloured by a point of view. My point of view is pro the general principle of whistleblowing, it seems yours is focused on this particular release of information and it’s potential consequences.
What about equivalent information about and originating from the Taliban, From my pro whistle blowing standpoint I would support it being made public which of course includes to the Afghan public. In order to maintain consistency would you be arguing that it should remain hidden from the Afghan public and others.
You need to go back and read my comments. You’ll learn my point of view regarding whistleblowing. I’m not explaining it again.
Leaving aside a pretty weak attempt to put words in my mouth, you say that the Afghan public has a right to know. And how are they going to do that? With the broadband they all have? Oh, I forgot – that’s what we’re supposed to be doing over there – providing infrastructure.
We are not in another country showing them how to do things. We’re trying to bring a proper end to 30 years of warfare and provide some infrastructure. That’s the purpose of the mission.
Well said Mr Higgitt, 10.05, absolutely right.
i really cant believe how naive you are duncan…the reason behind the invasion of afghanistan was the bush administration’s desire to avenge 9//11……it being believed that is where bin laden……said to be the mastermind behind the attacks on the twin towers ……….was residing………..prior to this the bush administration had been quite happy to talk to and deal with the taliban over proposals for the US based company Unlocal to construct a gas pipeline from Turkmenistan through western Afghanistan and to Pakistan…….the murderous bush and rumsfeld couldnt give a damn about afghanistan’s iinfrastructure’ or anything else….
of course any military invvolved in any possible war crimes committed by US and NATO forces in afghanistan should have the right to a proper trial ……and im glad we agree that possible war crimes may have been committed and that those responsible shouild face trial at the hague…….indeed the posibility that war crimes had been committed was the main reason behind the leaking of these documents on wikileaks……
Duncan,
“Not in my book it doesn’t. It relies 100% on the consequences to Afghans”
One of my points is that we can’t know the whole picture of consequences for Afghans. 2nd, 3rd and further multi-order consequences means “what causes what” is always going to be obscured. How may Afghans will suffer a worse or better plight if the the West leave today, we don’t and can’t know in advance and it will depend on the ideology of the assessor.
Ideologies (or “my book”) are very bad with dealing with uncertainty and confusion. They are slow to change and react to new information and this gets even worse when ideologies compete. Parties, countries, business, charities et al go to rat **** when the ideology become all important and the laudable goals such as improved living standards, better infrastructure, etc become a sideline or an excuse to further the ideology or the projects started in its name.
A study of cognitive bias is of little help if you are an Afghan who has just been shot in the back of the head because someone in a room with the shutters closed in Iceland decided to publish a document with your name in. An ideology that the world is an uncertain place and the right action is always going to be a guess won’t get the ambitious into power.
Clive,
I have absolutely no idea where you got the idea that I’m attaching some sort of ideology to all of this. My argument is simple: Assange should have read all the documents, and he should have made an assessment of the obvious consequences to Afghans who work for the government and Nato out there.
The rest is all observations or rebuttals to points made in the subsequent discussion. And “my book” need not entail an ideology. In this case – the far more common use of the term – it referred to how events are interpreted through personal values.
If you want to talk ideology – or faith, even – what about the assumption expressed here that deception is hard-wired into Western democratic governments’ DNA, no matter what sort of changes of personnel (or ideologies) they experience? That’s the sort of unchallenged tripe that convinced Assange to publish, and to Hell with the consequences. Any consequences.
They thought they were helping in the 19th century as well by invading to build infrastructure both cultural and physical. Maybe Afghanis don’t want Mcdonalds in Kandahar.
Infrastructure is a byproduct of the occupation, even if it is a relatively positive one. The Soviet union built plenty of infraatructure in Afghanistan, Somalia and all the countries it interfered with. The Americans built alot of infrastructure in Vietnam. They still shouldn’t have been there.
“Maybe Afghanis don’t want Mcdonalds in Kandahar.”
Seems like a good point for me to bow out. I was never that hopeful that this would develop beyond a collection of asserted prejudices. Now we have reached accusations of naivete and anti-Americanism. Oh, were the world that simple.
duncan there is a huge difference between being anti george bush and his administration’s appalling and murderous foriegn policies and being anti- american! I got married to an american…..my principal political heroes ………robert f. kennedy and martyn luther king ……..were of course american. I am certainly not anti-american!
Not anti-American, but anti-America’s current foreign policy. There is a crucial difference.
The policy is to stabilise Afghanistan and return it to the international community, the strategy is to rebuild the infrastructure and introduce democratic institutions and a national army to support them. The tactics involve taking and holding Taliban positions, building schools and so forth. Whether the coalition and the Afghan government is achieving those aims isn’t a matter for discussion under a piece that examines the merits or otherwise of the release of confidential information.
Given that Afghanistan has remained in the top five poorest countries for the better part of two decades, I’m sure that even Halliburton, McDonald’s or any other despised US corporation sees much merit in investing so heavily (when security costs are taken into account) in such a market. Partisan, if you can evidentially link McDonald’s with US foreign policy, please let me know.
Prior to the fall of the Taliban in late 2001, its leadership had been extensively courted by US, Argentinian and French oil companies looking to link fields in Asia Minor with sea ports in Pakistan via pipelines through the country, but that is of course an impossibility now. For further details on this episode, let me recommend Ahmed Rashid’s excellent pre-9/11 book, The Taliban: the Story of Afghan Warlords.
Partisan, I suspect what you don’t like is people being accidentally killed and the whole matter hushed up. Me neither. But I don’t think the answer to that is to imperil innocents further.
And Leigh – we’ve had a different US president since 2008. Please don’t insult the intelligence of this site’s readers by arguing that Bushists and NeoCons still hold some insidious grip over the White House.
@Duncan – Surely the argument (supported by the report that I linked to in the article) that the publication of these documents has weakened support for the war; and therefore may help to shape a policy that brings about earlier withdrawal, thus saving a considerable number of lives, stands up doesn’t it?
Your position is more subtle than the debate you’ve been drawn into – you were arguing, as I saw it, that Wikileaks hadn’t spent enough time analysing the documents, and ensuring that publication posed no risk.
You’re not against the publication of these details, but seem to want a guarantee that said publication wouldn’t endanger anyone. Trouble is – the publication of documents like this would always pose that sort of risk (hence the reason they were classified in the first place I assume). Does it mean we should never publish information like this, or do the ends justify the means?
Ultimately the question of whether we should be in Afghanistan or not is central to people’s position on this.
It’s central to Wikileaks’ decision to publish the documents, because they have an anti-war agenda. And it’s central to the government position, because they want to ensure a certain level of security in the country before quitting (for whatever reason).
My support of the Wikileaks decision is based on my belief that wars like this are dependent on a measure of public support that can only be maintained by NOT telling people the truth about them. That support is eroded by the publication of documents that show war crimes being perpetrated and the all out chaos of war. However, if I believed the war was a good thing I would feel very differently.
The US government have very quickly climbed up on their high-horse about Wikileaks putting lives at risk, but the truth is that what they are doing in Afghanistan is reliant, again, on the idea that the ends justify the means. I think this is equally applicable to the actions of Wikileaks.
Comitting a crime to prevent a greater one, that’s always been a justification hasn’t it?
Duncan, the McDonalds point was a flippant metaphor and i’m surprised you didn’t read it as such.
I don’t really care about wikileaks. They’ve covered up so much in the past, Vietnam, the Gulf of Tonking incident, Iraq’s WMDs, the Contras, the Colombian drugs trade. I feel that this debate should remember that alot of people do not believe the mission in Afghanistan is noble at all and that will shape peoples reactions to the wikileaks saga. I do not believe democracy in Afghanistan is anything other than the current policy zeitgeist that is required to justify imperialism, and it is thus unsurprising to me that democracy in Afghanistan is actually fraudulent. Karzai’s government is also actually an Islamic Republic where all other religions are restricted if not banned outright- I’m not sure that is properly taken into account when people suggest we are building democratic institutions there. But there we go, nothing will change.
Dunc,
“And Leigh – we’ve had a different US president since 2008. Please don’t insult the intelligence of this site’s readers by arguing that Bushists and NeoCons still hold some insidious grip over the White House.”
Come on mate, the imperial grand strategy? You don’t think who the people of America elect makes a blind bit of difference to the over arching narrative of American foreign policy? The USA should never be trusted in these matters, because not a decade goes by without them overthrowing a democratically elected government, without killing civilians or without inconsistently trying to spread democracy in some places, but dealing with dictators in others.
The neo con project was far wider than bush, far wider than politics. It is about America remaining the only superpower. For all America’s brilliance in so many places, they still plunder and kill people in that pursuit.
“Your position is more subtle than the debate you’ve been drawn into – you were arguing, as I saw it, that Wikileaks hadn’t spent enough time analysing the documents, and ensuring that publication posed no risk.”
Absolutely, Rob. My views on the war – which I deliberately haven’t given here – have nothing to do with my views on the Wikileaks publication. I also have given no indication of how I view the conduct of the war, the policy, the strategy and anything else anyone cares to mention.
You make some very strong points about why it should have been released, and I guess there will always be arguments when someone puts forward the-end-justifies-the-means. In this case, I have serious doubts.
Marcus – you and I agree on many things, but this isn’t one of them. I find it simply too hard to believe that the theme you suggest can be maintained over almost 70 years of post-war US government. Many, many vested interests make a president. Last time around, it was the Texan petrochemical industry. This time around, it was thousands of working class people from cities in the North. You would need a cast of millions, perhaps, to keep it going like the Roman Empire.
And what about all the good things the US has used its power and influence for? The UK only got Marshall money on the proviso it gave up its empire, for example.
“And what about all the good things the US has used its power and influence for? The UK only got Marshall money on the proviso it gave up its empire, for example.”
Which is why my criticism of America is always qualified. We can disagree on this issue, because I fully accept it is complex and subject to a good deal of interconnected issues being formented.
It is a fact though, that America has been directly or indirectly involved in the over throw of scores of democratically elected Governments. Whether we see that as defending it’s interest or acting as a global bully is of course open to debate. A debate which has proved very interesting on here.
I don’t think watching Zeitgeist Addendum this evening helps my views mind! lolz.
duncan im afraid it is you that insults the intellgence of ths site’s readers by claiming the US invasion and occupation of afghanistan was aimed at ‘rebuilding its infrastructure and introduce democratic institutions’ . Well 8 years after the US invasion Abdullah Abdullah the main opposition candidate boycotted the presidential elections because he had no faith in Karzai’s government to hold free and fair elections.Next thing we know duncan you’ll be claiming that iraq had WMDs!!!
Thankfully the neo cons and the bushists are not at present in the whitehouse but companies like haliburton and blackwater security alas certainly do have an ‘insidious grip’ on us foreign policy!!
A document that is designated restricted/confidential/secret etc. , by UK or other National forces, is not available for general distribution without the approval of the originator. The documents have legal protection.
The documents published by Wikileaks have been published without such approval. Whether a moral or ethical issue might be argued as to why particular information contained in a particular document, or series of documents, should be made available in the public interest, a crime has been committed by the person or persons who “stole” the documents originally, a second “crime” was the subsequent distribution.
Julian Assange should be prosecuted, as should the original thief, without the rule of law we would live in anarchy.
Leigh, you appear to be conflating stated intentions with outcomes. It may be a question of semantics to you, but the reason we’re “in” Afghanistan can be wholly different from what is being achieved out there. As I said above (and I’ll say again, as you clearly didn’t hear me – or chose not to hear me – last time around), nowhere have I passed any judgement on our prosecution of the war, or whether we should be there in the first place. Instead, because I have the temerity to pick apart and expect you and others to quantify your support for Assange, you would rather widen the argument to the entire war, as if what you say can’t be wrong because – y’know – this war’s a bad thing, and crudely attempt to paint me as some kind of hawks’ apologist.
Nobody with an interest in democracy should feel comfortable with the recurrence with which companies like Halliburton and Xe (as Blackwater is now called) win big overseas contracts, but I suspect that the tide is turning. As contracts are run down, they are not being renewed. Halliburton’s involvement in Afghanistan has become close to negligible, while Karzai is getting ready to get rid of private security firms:
http://www.presstv.ir/detail.aspx?id=137803§ionid=351020403
Dunc
I think your earlier instinct to bow out was probably the correct one. In Leigh, Partisan (and, to a lesser extent, Marcus) you are corresponding with individuals who are so eager to demonstrate just how much they oppose the war that they clearly either cannot or will not engage with the narrower ethical objection you have raised about the disclosure of these documents.
So, for the purposes of this discussion, can we now take as read that the named above believe that a) the war was/is wrong and b) US foreign policy is basically, if not exclusively, malign? Perhaps we could even deploy a single code word when you absolutely feel you must digress into a lengthy and repetitive condemnation of said war/foreign policy? I suggest simply typing the word “Bush” will suffice.*
With that in mind, I’m very keen to hear rebuttals to Dunc’s actual argument (as opposed to, you know, the one you want him to have made). So far, with the exception of Rob, the only sound we’ve had is the whoosh of placards being waved.
* Please also note, this is not a cue to indulge in standard rhetorical response about how I don’t want to hear about all the evils perpetrated on the world by the US or about how the facts of US malevolence bear repetition.
Adam,
I have never accused Duncan of anything, indeed I respected his view throughout. But I made the point clearly that the truth must win out against Government secrecy – whether than is One Wales, Pontypool Community Council, Bush, Obama, Chavez or Cameron. I did it on my own blog before these articles.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xhZk8ronces have a listen mate.
And dare I say, I always saw Afghanistan in a different light to Iraq, albeit I think we should now bow out of there. I better not say too much about my own families experiences in the country, because it was called shroud waving.
adam higgit writes ” Please also note, this is not a cue to indulge in standard rhetorical response about how I don’t want to hear about all the evils perpetrated on the world by the US or about how the facts of US malevolence bear repetition.”…
well with respect adam its not up to you to frame the terms of this discussion!!! Your namesake duncan has given his reasons why he believes wikileaks were wrong to leak the aforementioned documents on the internet….and those of us who disagree with him have countered that view….offering reasons why we think the leaking of the documents was correct…..i do not intend to repeat here what i have written previously…..my arguments in support of the leaking of the documents are listed earlier in this thread.
But it goes without saying that you cannot discuss this issue in isolation and without seeing it in a wider context ie the motives and effects of recent US foreign policy on countries such as afghanistan.
“But it goes without saying that you cannot discuss this issue in isolation and without seeing it in a wider context ie the motives and effects of recent US foreign policy on countries such as afghanistan.”
Agreed. I would take a different view to this leaking if we was fighting the Nazi’s in world war 2. The folly of continuing the Afghan war will always loom large in these debates, regardless of how many apologists such as Adam try to paint it is as irrelevant.
Marcus
“regardless of how many apologists such as Adam try to paint it is as irrelevant.”
Like I say, simply type the word “Bush” when you feel the need to indulge in yet more boring tirades about how much you hate the Americans.
Leigh
“my arguments in support of the leaking of the documents are listed earlier in this thread.”
Yes, but the trouble is they amount to an assertion that since the war is wrong anything that can be done to undermine it should be done. They pay no heed at all to the case Duncan has set out.
adam the leaked documents reveal US and NATO forces in afghanistan may be guilty of possible war crimes against the afghan population…..that is sufficient justification for their leaking and that is the basis of my argument in support of their leaking!!! To argue against this evidence being made public is effectively to argue that this evidence should be suppressed…..
The idea that Marcus “hates the Americans” because he opposes the war would be offensive if it wasn’t so clearly open to ridicule. It’s a sad day for debate when you’re accused of anti-Americanism if you question their foreign policy. I think that attitude is disappointing for Wales Home particulary because many Americans also oppose what their government is doing. As Howard Zinn said “dissent is the highest form of patriotism”.
The first casualty of war is the truth! Thank God for the internet. Keep the leaks coming! Hopefully one day Britain will drop the pathetic charade that we are a world player and stop occupying countries and killing innocent civilians!
Luke
How curious that you take issue with this, but not the description of me as an apologist.
Should Julian Assange assume responsibility for deaths that might result from his release of these leaks, since he only seems to have read 2000 of the documents and does not know what the others might contain?
Today in “The Times”, page 9 column 1, it is reported the following organisations …
1. Campaign for Innocent Victims in Conflict
2. Open Society Institute
3. Afghanistan Independent Human Rights Commission
4. International crisis Group
and last but by no means least
5. Amnesty.
… condemned WikiLeaks for its refusal to redact the hundreds of Afghan names from the published files.
A Taleban spokesman said last week that its English speakers were working through the documents searching for informants’ names, vowing to punish individuals when found.