Afgananam: Twin Wars different fathers

[MA-Caver]

The pentagon is awfully upset about a leak on the internet about the war in Afghanistan. Just like Vietnam there were many things that the general public didn't know about it... mainly to prevent any undermining of the war effort and (most importantly) the funding.

5 Biggest Revelations of Wikileaks Documents

Max Fisher Max Fisher – Mon Jul 26, 5:39 am ET

WASHINGTON, DC – Six years' worth of secret U.S. documents relating to the war in Afghanistan have been released by Wikileaks, an Iceland-based website that collects and distributes such information. Some news organizations were given the tens of thousands of documents several weeks early so that they could sift through the files and prepare their coverage. The revelations are sure to spark wide debate about the U.S. role in Afghanistan and the nature of the ongoing war. Here are what currently appear to be the five biggest things we've learned so far.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/atlantic/5biggestrevelationsofwikileaksdocuments4453

Pakistani Intelligence Possibly Aiding Taliban
Somehow this doesn't surprise me at all.
Pakistan receives more than $1 billion a year from Washington for its help combating the militants... If this isn't a means to keep the war going I don't know what is.

Drones Less Effective Than Claimed
Somehow this doesn't surprise me at all either. It's still a relatively new technology. But they are not always reliable. According to official reports, 38 Predator and Reaper drones have crashed while on combat missions in both Afghanistan and Iraq. ... each [COLOR=#366388 ! important][COLOR=#366388 ! important]drone [COLOR=#366388 ! important]crash[/color][/color][/color] necessitates elaborate -- and dangerous -- salvage operations." So why are we still doing it? Wasteful efforts make for a wasteful war.

30 Years Later, Taliban Still Have Stingers
Well of COURSE they do. They're not stupid. They're not going to give back a fine good weapon that they could use against somebody else. It'd be like trading a bow and arrow for a rock. They're not going to go back to being totally defenseless. Sheesh. What does it matter (to them) who they're using it against either? Outsiders coming in and making life extraordinarily dangerous... heck yeah, use what you got by keeping what the last guy gave to you... even if he turns out to be the next outsider.

U.S. and Afghan Officials Covering Up Civilian Deaths
Two words... Mai Lai

Bin Laden Match-Making for Insurgents
One word ... Incentive.

Now this of course means nothing if it all isn't true.

 

[CoryKS]

How are any of these "revelations"? Some of these have been talking points since 9/11. Yes, we know that the Taliban have 30-year-old Stingers. We know that Pakistani intelligence is aiding the Taliban. I'm eager to see the follow-up report that makes the shocking claim that the Afghan government might be playing both sides against each other. :erg:

 

[MBuzzy]

The big deal about this isn't the information itself, it is that SECRET info was leaked at all. A lot of secret info is really no secret. Heck, I used to do research on the unclassified internet because I could find more and more accurate info than on the secret internet.....Once you've had a chance to look at some truly classified stuff, you're often left wondering "so why is this classified?" and for the most part, it is because if you combine it with the right OTHER information, it will be dangerous.

The fact that secret info leaked at all is VERY bad.

 

[Big Don]

The big deal about this isn't the information itself, it is that SECRET info was leaked at all.

The fact that secret info leaked at all is VERY bad.

Taking bets on if the leakers will be indicted, much less tried for treason?
n. the crime of betraying one's country, defined in Article III, section 3 of the U.S. Constitution: "Treason against the United States shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort." Treason requires overt acts and includes the giving of government security secrets to other countries, even if friendly, when the information could harm American security

 

[MBuzzy]

Depends on the severity of the information....I've seen a secret document get leaked that detailed the movements (when/where) for a few months worth of deployments. That person just got kicked out - dishonorably, but nothing more.

Something that truly endagers national security instead of causing inconvenience (all of the info that I was talking about were future dates, so they just shuffled things around) the punishment would be much more severe.

 

[MA-Caver]

Taking bets on if the leakers will be indicted, much less tried for treason?

Good luck on that... these guys aren't even American...

been released by Wikileaks, an Iceland-based website that collects and distributes such information. http://www.theatlanticwire.com/opinions/view/opinion/The-Focus-Falls-on-WikiLeaks-3130/

Question is why is it hard to accept information from sources OUTSIDE the U.S. ? Why is it considered that the U.S. media is the most truthful?

 

[K-man]

The pentagon is awfully upset about a leak on the internet about the war in Afghanistan. Just like Vietnam there were many things that the general public didn't know about it... mainly to prevent any undermining of the war effort and (most importantly) the funding.

So they should be. Back in the 60s we had selective conscription for Vietnam. I supported that war and was prepared to go, if called up. The information that was suppressed at the time but came to light in subsequent years makes me glad I didn't go to Vietnam and I believe we shouldn't have been there at all. 58,000 US servicemen lost there lives in that conflict and over 400 Australians. Turns out we we just propping up an incredibly corrupt government that didn't deserve to be in office. But it was a great place to test new weapons and the arms suppliers were making a fortune.
George Bush sen knew of the problems that would arise if Hussein was toppled but George W just went in anyway. Why? Now we have a great mess there in the power vacuum created. But there is oil!
There are so many questions regarding Afghanistan that I wonder if we should be there either. If the US military is suppressing information that suggests the situation is unwinnable due to any number of reasons, including the compromised Pakistan Intelligence Service, then let us know and let us get our boys out before any more are killed. I may be a cynic, but we are taken for fools time after time. I don't know what to believe any more.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Big Don
Taking bets on if the leakers will be indicted, much less tried for treason?

Good luck on that... these guys aren't even American...

Quote:
been released by Wikileaks, an Iceland-based website that collects and distributes such information. http://www.theatlanticwire.com/opini...ikiLeaks-3130/

I believe the leakers are most likely American. Who else would have access to that sort of documentation? The Wikileaks organisation is headed by an Australian. He is just publishing the leaked information.

 

[MA-Caver]

If the US military is suppressing information that suggests the situation is unwinnable due to any number of reasons, including the compromised Pakistan Intelligence Service, then let us know and let us get our boys out before any more are killed. I may be a cynic, but we are taken for fools time after time. I don't know what to believe any more.

A video/documentary I saw once showed that the Vietnam was was not SUPPOSED to be winnable... just sustained. The Gulf of Tonkin incident was supposedly a complete fabrication to justify to congress to allow our troops to go in and fight a war that was none of our business anyway. Fighting communist oppression on a thin spit of land of a country that probably 80% of Americans never heard of at the time? The French fought there for a long time and didn't win... what made us think that we could?
Now Afghanistan ... a war that not even the (then) mighty Soviet Union could win... not to mention god knows how many others down through the centuries.
Gee, I always thought we were over there to find Terrorist cells before they can plot another attack on US soil. We were over there because we wanted to find Osama Bin Laden and his cronies and bring them to justice.
We've certainly changed our mission statement since 2001 that's for sure.
Almost 9 years folks... 9 years.
And with these leaks any hope that we had of portraying ourselves as the good guys can just go right out the window... particularly with the killing of civilian populations... non-combatants, non Taliban, non-terrorist types.

 

[K-man]

Now Afghanistan ... a war that not even the (then) mighty Soviet Union could win... not to mention god knows how many others down through the centuries.
Gee, I always thought we were over there to find Terrorist cells before they can plot another attack on US soil. We were over there because we wanted to find Osama Bin Laden and his cronies and bring them to justice.

The terrorists are now holed up in western Pakistan. Others are in Somalia, Yemen and Iran. Only the Taliban left in Afghanistan and I doubt you can ever get total control there. As for the terrorists, it's the old story of the Hydra. You knock down one terrorist and two more spring up. Where the hell is Hercules when you need him?

 

[MA-Caver]

The terrorists are now holed up in western Pakistan. Others are in Somalia, Yemen and Iran. Only the Taliban left in Afghanistan and I doubt you can ever get total control there. As for the terrorists, it's the old story of the Hydra. You knock down one terrorist and two more spring up. Where the hell is Hercules when you need him?

Perhaps the answer to Terrorism might lie in the past...

The details of the struggle are explicit in Apollodorus (2.5.2): realising that he could not defeat the Hydra in this way, Heracles called on his nephew Iolaus for help. His nephew then came upon the idea (possibly inspired by Athena) of using a burning firebrand to scorch the neck stumps after each decapitation. Heracles cut off each head and Iolaus cauterized the open stumps. Its one immortal head Heracles placed under a great rock on the sacred way between Lerna and Elaius (Kerenyi 1959:144), and dipped his arrows in the Hydra's poisonous blood, and so his second task was complete. The alternative to this is that after cutting off one head he dipped his sword in it and used its venom to burn each head so it couldn't grow back. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lernaean_Hydra

So the real question is... where is Iolaus when we need him. Hercules we've got... it's called the Pentagon.
Seems to me that fighting terrorism WITH terrorism might be the way to go...using it's own blood (methodology?) against it? Basically burning the stump of the head (killing any would be replacements -- when they make themselves known).

Either way it's another topic for a rawther interesting discussion no? Topic here is of course governmental/military cover-up on an un-winnable war.

 

[MA-Caver]

Another article of the leak...
http://swampland.blogs.time.com/2010/07/25/what-the-wikileak-means-for-the-afghanistan-war/

 

[K-man]

History is always the judge. Check out what Hans Blix has told the Iraq inquiry.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2010/jul/27/hans-blix-iraq-war-inquiry
Shades of Vietnam. George W wanted to show the world how tough he was? A bit like statistics. Give the same information to 10 different people, get 10 different answers then pick the answer that best suits your ambitions. Who said "history always repeats itself"? None other than Karl Marx I think. George Bernard Shaw added appropriately .. "If history repeats itself, and the unexpected always happens, how incapable must Man be of learning from experience?"

 

[Big Don]

Gee, whenever a liberal says something completely offensive, we are scolded that we need to take their words, "In context" why, then, when wikileaks dumps NINETY THOUSAND pages of ILLEGALLY obtained classified documents the left is silent on need for any context?

 

[RandomPhantom700]

Gee, whenever a liberal says something completely offensive, we are scolded that we need to take their words, "In context" why, then, when wikileaks dumps NINETY THOUSAND pages of ILLEGALLY obtained classified documents the left is silent on need for any context?

Wait, what? :uhyeah:

 

[Big Don]

Wait, what? :uhyeah:

Yeah, because no antiwar activist would ever pick and choose what to release, we don't need context.

 

[RandomPhantom700]

Yeah, because no antiwar activist would ever pick and choose what to release, we don't need context.

Let me put my question in sufficiently small words for you. How is what you said ("Gee, whenever a liberal...need for any context?") at all related to the discussion? Where's anyone brought up political bias or context in discussing the implications of the wikileak documents on the war in Afghanistan?

And while this is a minor point, the information was illegally DISCLOSED, not illegally obtained. The wrongdoing was on the part of whatever military officer(s) gave the information to the Wikileak agency.

 

[Big Don]

Let me put my question in sufficiently small words for you. How is what you said ("Gee, whenever a liberal...need for any context?") at all related to the discussion? Where's anyone brought up political bias or context in discussing the implications of the wikileak documents on the war in Afghanistan?

And while this is a minor point, the information was illegally DISCLOSED, not illegally obtained. The wrongdoing was on the part of whatever military officer(s) gave the information to the Wikileak agency.

1. Because classified documents have context too, don't they?
2. Illegally obtained and illegally disclosed. Knowingly receiving stolen property is a crime in itself.

 

[K-man]

... the information was illegally DISCLOSED, not illegally obtained. The wrongdoing was on the part of whatever military officer(s) gave the information to the Wikileak agency.

This is true. However, there is perhaps a shade of grey. If there is something that a significant number of people (or even the majority of people) would consider wrong, is it justifiable to release that information? Was 'Deep Throat' justified in exposing Nixon? The German people are often criticised for ignoring the concentration camps and the outright persecution of the Jews, Gypsies, Poles and mentally or physically handicapped. In the Nuremberg trials, the Nuremberg defence was, ''I was just following orders". It was rejected as a valid defence. We rely on our politicians and military to do the right thing. When they don't, who's job is it to notify the public?
Not that I'm taking sides here. Just posing the question. You can't always hide behind the excuse of; "in the ínterests of national security".

 

[5-0 Kenpo]

1. Because classified documents have context too, don't they?
2. Illegally obtained and illegally disclosed. Knowingly receiving stolen property is a crime in itself.

Aren't you making the assumption that those types of laws apply in Iceland, or on an international basis?

Besides, who would have the court of jurisdiction?

 

[Big Don]

Aren't you making the assumption that those types of laws apply in Iceland, or on an international basis?

Besides, who would have the court of jurisdiction?

I'm 100% sure whoever disclosed them had been made fully aware that disclosing classified materials was illegal and carried severe penalties, and I hope he/she/they pay full freight for their crimes. That person(s) should be easily convicted as an accessory to the disclosure.