This is huge. WikiLeaks have managed to secure over 91,000 war logs covering 2004-2010. They are written by various people ranging from soldiers on the ground to intelligence officers. They also have 15,000 more which contain very sensitive information. The source would only provide them if Wikileaks agreed to release them steadily over time which certain information redacted. The Guardian has worked with Wikileaks to organise all the information. All their articles (including an really good interactive map) are available here. They also have a video interview with the founder of Wikileaks (Julian Assange), who just so happens to be wanted by the CIA. Wikileaks (CSV download) Wikileaks Dedicated War Logs Site (going live soon) The Guardian Dedicated Site (Video: How to read the logs)
Most of its old information, deaths not being revelaled beacuse of the situation been going on for ages, not really that big news. All that will happen is the us will go after the leak and the sites hosting the information that they dont want out.
I honestly can't see how this information being 'leaked' is a good thing. It's just going to end with idiots reading tiny parts of some of the logs and getting entiring the wrong end of stick then turning it into some ridiculous political witch hunt.
regardless - free information is a good thing... shame there are not so many leaks from the 'other side'
If any leaked information has the potential to put service personnel's lives in danger, any more than they already are, then the owners of wikileaks should have the full weight of the law be cast upon them. If the information means nothing more than some high ranking officials and politicians having to answer some stiff questions then I am all for it. The trouble is though, that all leaked information has some strategic value to the enemy, even if this is slight it still has the potential to be dangerous.
The leaked information concerns past events, not ongoing operations. But too often has a concern for the safety of the public or of soldiers been used as a convenient excuse to hush up inconvenient truths. If we are honourable we have nothing to hide. Do we?
I haven't looked in detail at the leaked info, I've just skimmed a few bits. It would seem that there are a lot of reports on friendly fire and civilian casualties, and this is something I think should have always been in the public domain. It's obvious that the US government wouldn't want the leaked info to be going public, as it only serves to make an unpopular war even more so. I think that a lot of the info could help an opponent glean a better understanding of the US armed forces standard operating procedures. This would certainly have strategic value. Even though the logs are all from < 2009, the procedures would probably still be the same today. I'm not saying that information should be hidden because it would create an embarassment to the government, or armed forces if it was made public. I am saying if it has strategic value, then wikileaks should be prosecuted. I'm no military strategist, but I would bet a penny to a pound that the leaked info will certainly prove to be very interesting to the taliban.
Does that really surprise anyone? Also, on the subject of Julian Assange being wanted by the CIA I doubt they'd have difficulty finding and detaining him if they were actually interested. OT: Fighting a messy "war" with forces which, for the most part, have no field experience of fighting insurgency. It's not going to be a clean and pretty thing.
We (the British) were supposed to have that experience, with Northern Ireland. The US were supposed to have been looking at the Brits for answers initially, on how we could beat the Taliban. The trouble is that the provos could hardly be classed in the same league as the Taliban. They are willing to fight, fight hard and also fight dirty. I think we were arrogant going into Afghanistan and expecting a quick resolution to the fighting. Look at where that mentality got the Soviet Union. I think it's going to end in a pull out of ISAF, and things are just going to revert back to the way it was. Afghanistan has always been a hotbed of tribal fighting, and I doubt it will change before our forces leave.
I was thinking that as well. As much as I feel some of this information should be open to the public or those concerned, if anyone else tried to release sensitive information about a country's military operations then you know they would do everything they could to stop that information getting out into the public domain, whether it contained information about friendly fire/civilian deaths or not. I wonder if the people releasing this information actually stopped to wonder about the implications of what they were doing, that as well as people who just want to know the truth, there are also people who would have more sinister uses for this information. On the one hand, people will know the gory details about what actually happens in these wars (which, I'm sure, many of us already knew happened anyway, and have throughout history), but if it means more of our troops die as a result, what have they really achieved? Do they really think that by releasing this information it will stop these kinds of things happening?
Assange being wanted by the CIA for making democracy more transparent and accountable? sounds ominous.
That's not true. Even angels hide their PIN numbers, and if they went to war they'd keep their battle plans and procedures a secret. The issue is that a close look at these documents can give the enemy - and let's not forget, the Taliban are not exactly honourable in these situations - a greater understanding of who cooperates with whom, how missions are conducted, and what kind of fallout they produce. All of these things give them an advantage in the physical, psychological, and propaganda wars for 'hearts and minds'. That said, I'm all for their release - I was kinda hoping it would be after the end of combat operations, when courts martial are more feasible, rather than now, when people are going to plead that it's necessary to give them immunity if they are to do their jobs properly in ongoing operations.
There's nothing pleasant or honourable about any war, if we'd gone to war for the very best and most "just" reasons imaginable there would still be horrible things that happened. Now that is not to say that I don't understand the sentiment but exposing everything requires huge trust in everyone else.
Some of the incidents of "friendly fire" are troops directly firing on journalists with the intent to kill. Don't you think the public has a right to know what we put over there? The families a right to redress of wrongs? Don't get me wrong, I think that the troop presence in the area is completely justified, and I'll be glad to not spam this and discuss that elsewhere, but I'm horrified and disappointed by what I hear from our troops personally (I know many who serve, active and retired) as well as the accounts of places like WikiLeaks, Rolling Stone and the myriads of other small journalistic outfits who are tired of it all. The picture they paint is not the same one we're getting here at home. There is a militant faction that must be stopped, yes. But just how far do we wish to go? And how far before we become something more terrible than what we fight?
As I said, there should be some information that should be publicly available, such as data on blue on blue/ blue on white incidents. There should also be more transparency with regards to civilian injuries and deaths. I do draw the line on the wealth of operational information being made public. This is a dangerous game to be playing, and it's our troops who could face the ramifications of this, not us.
On ops information we are truly of one mind. I'd never be willing party to any information that can get my or anyone elses's people killed. At the same time, basically the world finding out that Pakistan is NOT our friend is an important piece of information, as well. It's a two-edged sword to be sure, but we have to decide to what degree will we accept the cut to find the truth. Right now, I'm worried about the troops. They're the ones in harm's way.
I think we should show exact locations of troops and then orders should be provided by comments on the Daily Mail web site.... actually scratch that... cut out the middle man... send commentors on the DM website to the warzone... they'd soon sort it out (or if they dont no great loss)
LMAO on a serious note, military secrets about an active warzone should never be disclosed, if there is anything dodgy, it should be investigated, by an independant body, that must comply with the official secrets act (or the countries equivelent act) and only after said warzone is no longer active should the results of an investigation be made public, if in the public interest.
Part of the problem is that if the military and administration do their best to misinform the public, we won't know to investigate the dodgy bits. Some media outlets insinuate that the leaked documents uncover the very dodgy things you believe should be investigated, but would have gone unknown had the information not come out. I don't think the leaked documents are exposing troop movements or giving away our secrets, but I'll have to keep reading to learn more. Much of the information is old news to many people. At least, the broad picture is old news; the documents at first glance just provide more detail to prove the case that the whole affair in the Middle East was a blend of revenge killing and a hostile takeover for resources, and had little, if anything, to do with 9/11® or The War on Terror®. Those excuses were just the magician saying, "Look at my empty hand over here!" while he palms the quarter in his other hand. If we're going to send people to fight and die in war, we should at least have the courtesy to tell them the truth about what they're volunteering to do. It's all well and good to issue rhetoric about our courageous soldiers voluntarily risking their lives for us, but I wonder how many would still make that choice if they were told that they were going to fight to secure corporate oil and mineral rights, rather than to battle for the truth, justice, and the American way.
