NuTech's point was neither off topic, nor an assumption about your concerns. He was making a valid point that while everyone has been worrying about how this leak may hurt soldiers (which I think is a stretch), nobody seems to be considering the hurt civilians lives that these leaked documents testify of. Don't take everything so personally. Iraqi and Afghan civilians aren't allowed to, apparently. Perhaps the worst that can be leveled at Wikileaks is that they are as transparent as the US and UK government who embarked on two wars of doubtful legality based on the advice of intelligence which was never clearly defined, given by 'experts' who shall remain nameless. If the experts were listened to at all. Blix and Dr. Kelly seemed to think they were not. So, glass houses, mmmokay? I don't think NuTech is saying that at all, nor do I think he is muddying the waters. If anything, he is putting his finger on a very pertinent point: should the public know any of this leaked information? And why (or why not)? Basically: is strategic advantage and the safety of our soldiers more important than how honestly and ethically we are seen to fight this war? Before you answer, consider a recent psychological study on the dynamics of perceived justice and revenge by Metin Basoglu (New Scientist link). He and his colleagues carried out a study of 1358 Bosnian Muslims, Bosnian Serbs, Croats and Serbs in countries of the former Yugoslavia, who had experienced a wide range of war events, including combat, torture, forced displacement, refugee status and bombardment. They examined the cognitive and emotional effects of these events, and the processes that drive people from peaceful coexistence in a multi-ethnic society into an orgy of killing, torture and other atrocities (Journal of the American Medical Association, vol 294, p 580). The Taliban may be the bad guys, but that does not automatically make us the good guys. We are the good guys by our behaviour. The bad guys can cheat and lie and disregard and hurt civilians; the good guys can't. Being the good guys means that you don't have the same choices as the bad guys. It is not a level playing field.
Why is it Nexxo, that when I express my personal opinion, I get accused of taking things too personally. I wasn't implying that Nutech was aiming his comments directly at me, but I did feel that I had to state my own personal opinion just to avoid potential confusion. If I was taking it as a personal attack I would have just told him to **** off. Why waste words? As you said Nexxo, this is a belief debate, if I remember correctly. I don't believe Wikileaks have the expertise and knowledge available to judge strategic data, and you do. We will not agree on this. I disagree, and he did even go as far to say it was a longshot, but he did state a few times that the leak could do some good. As for choosing between strategic advantage and the safety of our soldiers, then that's a no brainer for me. As Nutech said, we are the people who sent them there, we have the blood on our hands too, so I want to ensure nothing compromises our troops safety. Maybe unpopular choice, but that's my choice all the same. I have never once said that no fault lies with our troops, and I have never once blamed the taliban for all the wrongs in Afghanistan, what I have said is that they are guilty of much worse than the British forces out there, but the bleeding hearts seem to forget this when coming out with the usual crap. Also, we have measures in place out in Afghanistan that aim to limit the potential for civilian casualties. Soldiers can face criminal charges if they disobey them. They also face public scrutiny if accidents etc. happen. Every soldier out there knows exactly what could happen to them, what measures exactly are the taliban taking?
Because you seemed to take offence: I could be wrong. My bad if I am. There is ample evidence that the US and UK government did not have the knowledge to judge theirs. So it's kind of a pot-kettle situation. That is not what I was asking. I was asking: is strategic advantage and the safety of our soldiers more important than how honestly and ethically we are seen to fight this war? No, perhaps the bleeding hearts just accept that the Taliban are the bad guys and remember that we are supposed to be the good guys. We have measures, but apparently they are not that effective. Perhaps the best measure was not to invade (and yes, we had a choice). So please read again:
Nexxo, I do not disagree with, and am aware of the effects of conflict on the civilian populace. Especially when the civilian populace is being controlled by an invasion force. I would not try to dispute the feelings that the civilians must feel when loved ones are lost. What I am saying is this: Whether we like it or not, we are there and we cannot simply pull out now. To do so would create an even more dangerous situation, with the potential for all out civil war in Afghanistan. I never agreed with the invasion, and I consider it to be an illegal use of military power. But as I said we are there now. It's no use arguing over the rights or wrongs of a situation that we are already in. Our armed forces do take every reasonable precaution to ensure that civilians are not hurt. But there are problems that cause civilian casualties, such as bad intel, human error etc. This is no excuse, purely because nothing can excuse the civilian casualties. I wouldn't even dare to try. But to try and make out that our troops are over there going "rambo" en masse is wholly wrong. Yes there have been limited events where it has been shown that troops have acted wrongly (sometimes even criminally), and innocents have died. The trouble is, as long as we expect humans to be the ones to do the fighting, then we will always witness events like this. Excuse no, fact yes. Now the leaking of any intelligence while the theatre of war is still active is just wrong, and this was the original theme of this topic. I have taken the time to explain my reasons for saying it's wrong. I stand by them, and until someone can tell me who has vetted the leaked info, and what qualifications they have that allow them to make an informed decision, then I will continue to say it's wrong.
that's kind of naive though to think like that though nexxo.. we can't let these guys sit up in a mosque taking pot shots with rifles at our soldiers and say.. oh we can't go there it's gorilla warfare.. think the guys on the ground had to adapt.. I mean I think it's sad myself but what can you do other than adapt to the conditions.. I don't think anyone wants to see civilians die- but that's war it's horrible by it's nature.. I mean what war can you think of where civilians haven't been caught in the crossfire we should have had bin laden a long time ago.. maybe he's the poster boy washington wanted to validate the wars.. adu ghraib was a good example of a breakdown in command and wasn't a part of the norm (despite the propaganda on it) wikileaks imo has a very specific goal to derail any good that's been done.. heck we've poured our blood, sweat, money into these stupid wars- the guys running this war on the other side are all dancing around mission accomplished.. do you really think it's a good idea to try and stir the pot some more? sometimes smart people are so smart they're stupid- he's just another doofus imo doesn't see the big picture
No I didn't and yes you are. The difference is that the government wasn't broadcasting their data to the world. So if they didn't fully know, then at least there could be no potential harm. Can Wikileaks say the same? Show me one single war in any period of human history where honesty and ethics have played a sounding force? War vs honesty and ethics is like trying to compare Hitler with Mother Teresa! So what exactly are you saying? That our forces are acting no better than the taliban? No need, I read it correctly the first time. If you don't like my reply, then ho hum.
We are in this situation through behaviour that was irresponsible and not held to account (in fact, unable to be held to account) because there was no clear presentation of facts and reasons. As such we are in two long-term wars the legal basis of which is in dispute, without clear objectives or rebuilding plans, the end and cost of which is not in sight and which have put the world more at risk of terrorist activity rather than less. The way to proceed, it is now argued, is to continue witholding information and continue not giving full account of our actions because it may strategically disadvantage us and put soldiers at increased risk. This, incidentally is while things go on like military aircraft nattering and remote drones sending video to HQ unencrypted --because who could have thunk that a few sandal-wearing fundies with second-hand AK-47's would have heard of laptops and mobile communication technology? But meanwhile all this information does leak out --if not through the military's own arrogant carelessness or Wikileaks then via Al-Jazeera or even Reuters because war reporters find it kind of hard to ignore crying parents with dead children and bombed village wedding parties. It's mediapathic, see? And the beat goes on. We are locked in a downward spiral that we are simply never going to come out of looking anything else but bad. The Taliban has already won because although nobody is in doubt that they are *******s, they are drawing us into their game of terror like a good hustler suckers a dumb hick with more money than sense, making us look like just another set of *******s (and the best thing is: we started it!). And like it or not, when it comes to picking sides, poor Muslim farmers feel a lot more affinity with Muslim sandal-wearing fundies than with a bunch of Western pig-eating foreigners invading their country. The Taliban are a local pain, but we are the invaders. We started this war. We may not have a clear objective, but the Taliban do. They are already achieving it. Their objective, like that of any terrorist is not to win but to keep playing the game. After all, that's how a terrorist makes his living, so to speak. As long as they have a cause to fight, they are happy. They don't want this war to stop, ever, and they are not afraid to die. And for every civilian we kill accidentally, they recruit at least two of his family members to their cause so they are not about to run out of troops. But we are facing a mounting cost in money and lives at a time of economical crisis and a waning public enthusiasm and a reduction in people signing up to the armed forces. Now tell me again, are we winning yet?
Actually they did --but very selectively. You may remember Powell's Powerpoint ("...and this fuzzy blob we are sure is a mobile nerve gas factory...") and Blair's "45 minute to launch WMD" speech. What they did not broadcast that Blix couldn't find any of these factories while actually in Iraq, that all the information about Saddam's missiles came from a conversation a cab driver claimed to have overheard (and that he had been discredited as a source by M.I.) and that the 45 minute claim referred to battlefield ammunitions only, which interestingly, by definition are not WMD. And thus we went to war. Hey, were was the harm in witholding some information, eh? That's a nice platitude, and I'm sure that any Iraqi or Afghan civilian would find it a interesting philosophical point of debate. Al Qaeda and the Taliban meanwhile are saying to them: "See? I told you those Westerners were evil and dishonest...". I am saying that just because we are not as bad as them, doesn't make us good. Whether a civilian was shot by the Taliban or accidentally killed by us doesn't make a difference to how dead they are and how upset and angry their family feels.
yeah that's so true.. can't have peace if minds aren't changed.. it's a stupid war that should have been over in the last administration.. they open up 2 wars on 2 fronts also if leaked information is so easy to get it makes you wonder too.. I just don't like wikileaks thinking they're doing anyone a favor.. the good thing about all this is maybe it will get someone to look at information security.. facking bush and his nation building- people might not like obama right now but least he's pulling out of iraq this month who knows how long that would have went on with mccain in office
Again Nexxo, I will say that I don't agree with the wars in both Afghanistan and Iraq, so you are preaching to someone who is already a convert I also didn't agree with the excuses we heard after it was revealed that we had been lied to by our respective governments. I also didn't agree with the fact that those who made the decisions to send our troops over there got off with nothing more than a golden handshake, and a pat on the back from the good ole boys. So this is something we do seem to agree on, even though you haven't realised it yet, depsite me saying it quite a few times now. The point we will never agree on is that of the leak, and we are going round in circles, because we both have our own views on the matter. I will not concede my thoughts, and I don't expect you to either. As for the civilian deaths and injuries, again I have never stated that one side or the other is solely to blame, but I am not that shortsighted that I can't see that the taliban will use every opportunity they can to inflict harm on civilians, or put the civilians in harms way. That is a matter I took up with Nutech.
I know that. I am just saying that the witholding of information from careful scrutiny got us into this mess, and that it will not get better by a continued witholding of information. Being concerned for our troops is fine but that should never mean colluding with the politicians and their arguments for going to war ("It's because they's bad and we's good, see?), or for secrecy ("It's because of security, y'know"). There may appear to be a thin line between the two, but that's only when looked at it from the photogenic side that politicians like to present. The best way to support our troops is to question most rigorously, every time, the reasons for sending them into battle and what they into when they're there.
Just remembered this (I believe it's loosely related...) Nexxo, would love to hear you comments on this
Philip Zimbardo, along with Stanley Millgram is one of my science heroes. The point is that everyone is capable of evil. They just have to be put in a position of power without accountability. Accountability is usually social: the approval ("let's go bash some despised out-group") or absolution ("we were only following orders...") by others vs disapproval ("that's wrong man!") or being held to account ("with great power comes great responsibility") by others. This approval/disapproval eventually becomes internalised into a set of self-regulating values (think guilt, shame etc.). Think Kohlberg's stages of moral reasoning, level 3 and 4. Really psychologically mature people develop a strong set of internal values that regulate their behaviour even if nobody is watching or they have no external accountability, but only a minority seem to make it this far. Think Kohlberg's stages of moral reasoning, level 5 and 6. The thing is: if you send soldiers off to a far-off place where: they are out of sight of their own community normal societal structures and social regulation do not apply they are exposed and habituated to stressful violence and brutality with only their peers in pretty much the same situation for moral/social checks and balances with superiors and orders to abdicate personal responsibility to indoctrinated with a lot of dehumanising propaganda about the out-group members they are fighting then you have a recipe for Bad S*** Happening. This is why it is always important for the public to know exactly what our troops are doing in far-off places, and for them to know that we know. It is what keeps them real and keeps them in check, and stops them from abusing and also, from being abused.
So what you're effectively saying is that the next season of Big Brother should just be deployed soldiers with cameras mounted to their helmets? I knew there had to be something not-quite-right about you Nexxo...
Very good point. I have said all along that the government should be forced to be more open on civilian injuries etc etc. But Wikileaks released material that they clearly did not give full consideration to. This shows in the fact that they could release over 5 years worth (91,000 individual reports) or documents in such a short time span. After all, the latest documents were dated as late as Dec. 2009. It would be impossible to give the attention required to that many documents in such a short space of time. Each individual report should be verified, assessed and rated for safety threats. Even if Wikileaks had several military strategists, who were up to date with the latest intelligence and full military picture in the theatre, then it would have taken much, much longer than what it has to assess the info. It's also disturbing that Wikileaks will not name the people who are assessing the data, nor will they detail the professional and academic qualifications that would ensure no damaging data be released. This tells me that the data has been released, without any true understanding of whether there was potential for harm or not. There simply is NO evidence to counter this, other than some very vague claims that they have thousands of volunteers who help out. As I said earlier, I am all for openness and honesty, especially with righting the wrongs happening in Afghanistan. But I will vigorously challenge anyone who tries to convince me that due process has been given by Wikileaks on the leaked data before it was released. If we want honesty and truth, then we should be trying to achieve this within our political system, not relying on some hippy idealist to do the job for us, because one day the hippy idealist is going to have blood on his hands, and then what?
Sorry to bring this thread even more off-topic, but that (awesome) TED talk reminded me of the French game show/social experiment which aimed to illustrate how easy it is to get 'good people' to do bad things. Fascinating stuff.
stuartpb, if the motivations for the war on both sides are idealogically corrupt, with the troops caught in the middle (and both apparently equally capable of attrocities), then why support only british troops? Cultural proximity?
I don't have sympathies only for British troops, I know I have made reference only to British troops, but that's more a habit in my writing than not wanting to support any other nation's forces within the coalition. For reference, there are other NATO forces out there too, as part of ISAF. If you are referring to my fundraising efforts, on my website (not sure, but I have the link in my sig), I support SSAFA because they helped my family after we lost my Dad. EDIT; I have just re-read your post, and think I may have misunderstood you? Are you asking me why I am not showing support for the taliban or other coalition forces?
Well I am going to answer the question again before I go to bed, in the context I think you are asking. I support the coalition forces and not the taliban, because I would be willing to put my life in the hands of any British soldier. I certainly could not say the same of the taliban. I also support the British forces because I come from a military family, and appreciate the dedication and sacrifices each and every soldier gives. If I was an Afghan and came from a taliban fighting family then obviously my position would be reversed. I support the coalition forces because even though there have been attrocities committed by the coalition forces, these are carried out by a tiny minority of bad apples within the organisation. The same cannot be said of the taliban, as they commit attrocities on an organisational (and daily) scale, and are willing to let civilian blood spill en masse as long as it furthers their cause. From suicide bombings, IED's, executions, extortion and intimidation, the taliban are doing it daily. They do not have the civilian population's interests at heart, and they show this when they strap bombs to children, or kill whole families for daring to talk to the ISAF forces, even if the conversation was innocent. Then there is the fact that the taliban were responsible for attrocities long before the US and UK set the country in it's sights. Who of us here can't remember seeing the swimming pools converted to execution stadiums, or the women being stoned to death, the mutilations, and everything else the taliban used to control the Afghan population, long before we got involved? I can remember seeing the videos, and it shocked me then as much as it does now. Then there is the fact that I am British, so I am loyal to my countrymen, the same as many Afghans are to their countrymen. I am honest about this, and whether anyone thinks this is right or wrong I don't really care. Hope that answers your question a little? Oh and btw, I am ashamed and embarassed every time a story hits the news about a UK soldier or group of soldiers who abused their authority over there. I think anyone who does should not be given the opportunity of hiding behind their rank, status, privilege or any other rock they may try. They should have the book thrown at them, each and every time.
You have to admit that sending Big Brother contestants to the battlefield would make for more interesting entertainment. But consider how new media technology changed the public's feelings about Vietnam. Pictures of little naked girls with burns running away in terror from a burning village (yeah, that photo) are hard to ignore. Then it took 24 hours to get the photo to the news desk --which was incredibly fast in those days. Now a smartphone could take the same image and have it on the Internet a few minutes later. Stuartpb makes valid complaints about the uncontrolled way in which information was leaked but he --and the coalition-- better get used to it. Everyone can afford a basic smartphone these days (it is only the latest models which cost a bomb) and one day soon bombed villagers will be posting their own pictures on the net for the world to see. We will be able to talk to the bereaved parents personally. Forget Big Brother; Little Brother will be watching us. And he's got eyes everywhere. Not convinced? During the NATO bombing of Nis in Serbia, I was talking to a Serb student. We were both on (virtual) Mars in AWorlds as the bombs were falling on his city, he in his flat hearing the explosions, I in my flat in the UK hearing local drunk chavs having their usual loud arguments. This strange experience changed my views on Good Guy vs Bad Guy wars a bit. That was 1999. Social technology has moved on since then. I don't think anyone expects you to support the Taliban. I'm all for considering the other guy's point of view but we all know that they are ****ed-up *******s. However what about the Iraqi and Afghan civilians? After all, isn't it at least in part for their greater good (supposedly) that we are doing all this? We hear the sympathetic platitudes every time an allied soldier dies; we also hear the crows of victory when a Taliban soldier dies. The death of civilians passes quietly and without relflection or sadness. Oh, and btw you really have to get off that idea of "a few bad apples". I suggest you see the TED talk by Zimbardo that VipersGratitude posted. We all have the potential to be bad apples. Barbarians, aren't we all?
