Wikileaks: Public Enemy #1 or Harbinger of a New Era of Radical Transparency?
Wikileaks is at it again having released over 92,000 classified documents related to the war in Afghanistan last night, an action that has drawn criticism from all the expected places. US National Security Advisor James Jones had characterized the leaks, which are dated between 2004 – 2009, as irresponsible, and has suggested that the leaks will not have an effect on US strategy, or lack thereof, in the region. Jones stated further, “The United States strongly condemns the disclosure of classified information by individuals and organizations which could put the lives of Americans and our partners at risk, and threaten our national security,” and he further complained that Wikileaks “made no effort to contact” the administration about the documents. Why Wikileaks would contact the administration, which considers Wikileaks founder Julian Assange to be a “person of interest”, regarding the documents remains somehow elusive. Wikileaks released the reports weeks in advance to several news organizations on the condition that they not report on the topic until 25 July 2010; these organizations are the Guardian, der Spiegel, and the New York Times.
Apparently the documents suggest that Pakistani security forces have been giving aid to the Taliban in opposition to their stated policy, and the interests of the United States. One piece of information uncovered by the leaks is that the Taliban have heat-seeking rockets that they use against American aircraft, a fact which up until now has remained unreported. According to the Guardian, “Taliban attacks have soared and NATO commanders fear neighboring Pakistan and Iran are fueling the insurgency,” a situation which, if true, would seem to be in their own interests considering the record of American behavior in the region. In fact, the propaganda and utter lack of context presented in the American media regarding the Iranian question would be laughable if it weren’t so dangerous. This country, which I have no love for, has not committed an aggressive act since the 1979 Iranian revolution, a period of time during which the United states has attacked Lebanon, Iraq, Somalia, Iraq, Serbia, Afghanistan, and again, Iraq. And those are just the attacks we know about. All of this from the same group of bloodthirsty Neocon savages that instigated the war against Iraq under false pretenses. In fact:
A former CIA director says military action against Iran now seems more likely because no matter what the U.S. does diplomatically, Tehran keeps pushing ahead with its suspected nuclear program.
Michael Hayden, a CIA chief under President George W. Bush, says that during his tenure a strike was “way down the list” of options. But he tells CNN’s “State of the Union” that such action now “seems inexorable.”
He predicts Iran will build its program to the point where it’s just below having an actual weapon. Hayden says that would be as destabilizing to the region as the real thing.
Never do they analyze what kind of destabilizing effects US interference in the region has, or the effect a nuclear Israel has for that matter. Maybe the Iranians look in the direction of Afghanistan, but through it and see Pakistan, a nuclear country that is heavily subsidized with US taxpayer money, a favor, which according to the leaked documents, gets paid back with heat-seeking rockets.
Another administration official commented that, “[I]t’s worth noting that WikiLeaks is not an objective news outlet but rather an organization that opposes U.S. policy in Afghanistan.” This would seem to suggest that there is such a thing as an objective source. In 19th century America, journalists did not even pretend they were fair and balanced; they had agendas and everybody knew it, and thought it was obvious. Moreover, this statement from the administration official does nothing to convince one that the documents in question are false or inaccurate.
All this is happening at what seems like it might be a turning point in the war considering the recent increase in violence; even the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff has stated that he thinks the war will get worse before it gets better. According to Breitbart.com:
The general described a fierce battle two weeks ago in Kunar province, in which 200 US troops and about 400 Afghan forces moved against insurgent positions.
In Kabul, Mullen repeated his view that the war effort — the US and NATO have almost 150,000 troops in Afghanistan — was at a make-or-break stage.
Describing his talks with the new commander in Afghanistan, General David Petraeus, Mullen said the two agreed that the strategy was clear and that now it was a matter of carrying out the war plan.
But he acknowledged that the international force was under pressure to deliver quickly, amid growing impatience on both sides of the Atlantic with a conflict widely seen as a costly stalemate.
“We don’t have a lot of time,” Mullen told staff members at the US embassy inKabul.
“The clocks are working against us.”
As pointed out by Justin Raimondo of Antiwar.com, we must not forget that at least a portion of this has been made possible by Bradley Manning, the young intelligence officer who released the helicopter video called Collateral Murder, and who is in custody and most likely being tortured for what the powers that be consider torture, and what normal people consider heroic. It is conceivable that Wikileaks has more up its sleeve, namely the 250,000 diplomatic messages that Mr. Manning foolishly bragged about on the internet. Wikileaks seems to be realigning the journalistic paradigm toward a dispersed model with no national allegiance; one that will not choose not to publish only because of the national interest. This could prove disruptive for those that control the levers of power.
Much more needs to be covered on this topic, and undoubtedly much more analysis will be done in the following days. For now I will wrap up by providing some random related links and information.
This neat tool allows you to interactively see where the IED attacks on soldiers and civilians were, on what date, and how severe the damage was in terms of casualties.
Here is an interview with Wikileaks founder and administrator Julian Assange explaining in his own words why he has released the documents and what he hopes to accomplish through this action:
A further interview conducted by der Spiegel can be found here.
Read here for one of the more interesting analyses of Wikileaks I have read so far.
