Wikileaks.org -- Tens of thousands of Afghan war docs leaked

[To Be Quite Honest]

Originally Posted by burn_this_city

Wrong war actually.

Ha ha ha... Oops. Typed in war Vets and got that hit on the top.

It's the middle east. It is the same war only in different location, and it does not make it any less important.

If the same administration started an illegal war in Iraq would this war now be illegal as well?

Here is a point they try to make:

1. The military is broken.
   We are abusing the small population of armed service members with multiple deployments while using inadequate vehicles and equipment. Less than one half of a percent of the American population is serving in the active armed forces, which is the least amount in the last century. Only 25% of the troops in Iraq are there for their first tour, while 50% are there on their second tour, and the remaining 25% are there three times or more. We continue to involuntarily extend soldiers with Stop-Loss, recall them repeatedly for additional service using the Individual Ready Reserve, and send soldiers with diagnosed medical problems into combat.

This is still happening as well no?

[Flash Walken]

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2010/...socialcomments

"The loss of four Canadian soldiers on September 3rd, 2006, was the result of insurgent activity in the Panjwaii district of Afghanistan," the defence minister's spokesman Jay Paxton said in an email Monday evening.


"The only friendly fire incident from the time period in question occurred on September 4th, 2006, when Private Mark Anthony Graham was killed in the same district."


The friendly fire allegation occurred in a report that was among more than 91,000 documents released Sunday revealing new details about the war in Afghanistan and describing numerous accounts of brutality, corruption, extortion and kidnapping by members of the Afghan police force.
According to an incident report filed by the U.S. military unit, 205TH RCAG (Regional Corps Advisory Group), four Canadian soldiers were killed and seven others and an interpreter were wounded on Sept. 3, 2006, when a jet dropped a bomb on a building they occupied during the second day of Operation MEDUSA.

[Flames Draft Watcher]

There's some threads where I wish we had the downrate/uprate a post options instead of just the "Thanks" button. Peter12's posts in this thread would have been downrated by me.

The security risks if there are many or any, aren't necessarily apparent. I can understand anybody with military experience to side with the military view of things.

What I can't understand is those who want ignorance of reality. Transparency of information, accurate reporting, etc are needed to help prevent and expose corruption, atrocity, war-crimes, etc.

Clearly some people don't want to think for themselves and must believe the motives of government to be blameless. But I think a lot of us are wondering why we are in Afghanistan, why we were ever in Afghanistan, what the long-term plan is, what the costs have been, what the results have been, etc. Whose interest is it serving to be in Afghanistan? Why Afghanistan and not some of the other troubled countries in the world?

Why wouldn't you want to know how many civilians have been killed? How many troops have been killed by friendly fire? How many journalistic reports have been slanted?

What kind of person wants that vital information repressed? Our tax money is going towards the operation no? Shouldn't the government be accountable for their military action? Shouldn't they have to justify and explain it? Isn't it in the best interest of most Canadians for information about this war to be released?

If soldiers are murdering civilians on the taxpayers dime and not enough is done to investigate it, prevent it, etc the world most definitely needs to know about it. And I have zero respect for the sheep who want such information repressed.

[Flames Draft Watcher]

Originally Posted by peter12

This makes me sick. The people who released these documents, contributed to our public atmosphere of cowardice, and put the lives of ISAF troops in danger should be imprisoned.

The business of the state abroad is not the business of citizens, even in a democracy. A state acts to protect its interests and defend the regime's idea of a common good. To execute the will of a state one must be prepared to accept some human cost. Civilians die in war, it is the sad and inevitable consequence of violence.

As republican nations abroad, we are acting in the name of republican values, we are not pillagers, rapists or thieves.

Your post makes me sick.

[peter12]

Originally Posted by Flames Draft Watcher

There's some threads where I wish we had the downrate/uprate a post options instead of just the "Thanks" button. Peter12's posts in this thread would have been downrated by me.

The security risks if there are many or any, aren't necessarily apparent. I can understand anybody with military experience to side with the military view of things.

What I can't understand is those who want ignorance of reality. Transparency of information, accurate reporting, etc are needed to help prevent and expose corruption, atrocity, war-crimes, etc.

Clearly some people don't want to think for themselves and must believe the motives of government to be blameless. But I think a lot of us are wondering why we are in Afghanistan, why we were ever in Afghanistan, what the long-term plan is, what the costs have been, what the results have been, etc. Whose interest is it serving to be in Afghanistan? Why Afghanistan and not some of the other troubled countries in the world?

Why wouldn't you want to know how many civilians have been killed? How many troops have been killed by friendly fire? How many journalistic reports have been slanted?

What kind of person wants that vital information repressed? Our tax money is going towards the operation no? Shouldn't the government be accountable for their military action? Shouldn't they have to justify and explain it? Isn't it in the best interest of most Canadians for information about this war to be released?

If soldiers are murdering civilians on the taxpayers dime and not enough is done to investigate it, prevent it, etc the world most definitely needs to know about it. And I have zero respect for the sheep who want such information repressed.

The last thing that I would consider myself is a sheep. I'm better read and more educated on these matters than most people on this board. I have no trouble saying that.

My point was and still is that in order to answer these questions you do not need to examine 91,000 leaked government documents. Who could ever cipher all of that information and come out with a reasonable and balanced view on the war? No one is going to do that. They are going to go through and pick out the most sensational examples from the documents and use that as a screed against the War.

We can make decisions on foreign policy based upon what we already know about war and conflict in general. Are Canada's interests being met in Afghanistan? But more so, what are those interests? What do we, as a constitutional monarchy (or a country who espouses some form of classical republicanism) have to lose or gain by engaging in a foreign expedition in a country whose inhabitants probably don't like or understand us or our motives?

These are all important questions and the release of these documents does nothing to answer them from either a philosophical or practical perspective. What they do is give those with an axe to grind, mostly ignorant people (like mikey and others) against a war that they were biased to oppose in the first place!

I know soldiers that have fought in Afghanistan. My cousin just got back from a tour with the Danish Army in Helmand province. Trust me on this that he is a man of fine courage and virtue and would never intentionally harm a civilian or non-combatant. Yet, it's war and accidents do happen. Most of these friendly fire or civilian deaths were caused by miscommunication at the tactical or sub-tactical level by NCO or junior officers put into a situation where you never who your enemy is or where he will strike.

I have yet to see any evidence that coalition forces at the strategic or tactical level PURPOSELY target civilians or civilian infrastructure with full knowledge of the consequences.

[peter12]

Originally Posted by Flames Draft Watcher

Your post makes me sick.

Do you think that you, as a civilian, with no knowledge of the military, has any business dictating foreign policy or defense strategy?

Most people nowadays don't have the context to understand or contribute to extreme situations anymore. It's people like you who are the sheep.

The release of these documents through an anonymous and decentralized website fails to meet even the most shallow definition of dissidence or free-thinking. It's a cowardly act. One that serves as a propaganda victory for our enemies and that will certainly put our soldiers at risk through anger-fueled retaliatory attacks.

[Flames Draft Watcher]

Originally Posted by peter12

My point was and still is that in order to answer these questions you do not need to examine 91,000 leaked government documents. Who could ever cipher all of that information and come out with a reasonable and balanced view on the war? No one is going to do that. They are going to go through and pick out the most sensational examples from the documents and use that as a screed against the War.

We can make decisions on foreign policy based upon what we already know about war and conflict in general. Are Canada's interests being met in Afghanistan? But more so, what are those interests? What do we, as a constitutional monarchy (or a country who espouses some form of classical republicanism) have to lose or gain by engaging in a foreign expedition in a country whose inhabitants probably don't like or understand us or our motives?

These are all important questions and the release of these documents does nothing to answer them from either a philosophical or practical perspective. What they do is give those with an axe to grind, mostly ignorant people (like mikey and others) against a war that they were biased to oppose in the first place!

It may do nothing to answer them, but it does raise the profile. How many times a year does the average person think about the war in Afghanistan? Compare that to the cost, impact and deaths involved. Perhaps it deserves to be a higher profile issue, perhaps it deserves fair coverage?

If you are arguing against these leaked documents it seems based on that same logic you should be against journalists being allowed to travel with troops. Basically if seems as if you are arguing against transparency, against information, against truth. It seems as if you don't want any unbiased coverage of it at all.

Does this not also balance out of own biased coverage? When do we hear about the war? Typically only when a Canadian is killed. A soldier signs up and knows he may risk his life in that occupation. Who's speaking for all the dead Afghanis? For all the ones that aren't soldiers, that were minding their own business when they got shot up because their bus driver didn't slow down fast enough or move far enough out of the way? You want their voices silenced?

Sure we can debate the war philosophically without these leaks, but we don't. But leaks like this make it possible. It brings the debate back into the public sphere. It makes it important again. It makes people wonder what is really going on, why we went there, is raises questions.

I guess you don't want the questions raised and a lot of people do.

[Azure]

So because the media has gotten tired of covering the war these leaks are a good thing because it'll make people more aware of what is going on over there?

You do realize that we have the Freedom of Information Act here in Canada that gives us the right to retrieve information from government files, and its managed by the Information Commissioner, Suzanne Legault. This is the proper procedure to obtain this kind of information if we feel we need to have access to it.

Now, if it is a serious problem to get information through this method, then maybe we ought to be asking our government to change that.

Leaking documents is treason, and I don't care what the situation is.

[Locke]

Being well read, and understanding the implications of that material are not mutually inclusive.

[Flames Draft Watcher]

Originally Posted by peter12

Do you think that you, as a civilian, with no knowledge of the military, has any business dictating foreign policy or defense strategy?

Most people nowadays don't have the context to understand or contribute to extreme situations anymore. It's people like you who are the sheep.

The foreign policy of our country most definitely should be the business of every civilian.

I am not dictating foreign policy, you should be able to tell that from my posts. Defense strategy? Last time I checked Afghanistan has not attacked Canada.

Who decides our foreign policy? Civilians with no special knowledge of the military. We call them politicians. Sure they have advisors who are more informed than we are. That does not make them right and it doesn't make them infallible.

You are giving government a free pass to do whatever it wants to do and encouraging everybody to stay out of its business. Your claim that no one but specialists can question foreign policy is a very dangerous concept. I'm surprised you can't see that.

[peter12]

Originally Posted by Flames Draft Watcher

It may do nothing to answer them, but it does raise the profile. How many times a year does the average person think about the war in Afghanistan? Compare that to the cost, impact and deaths involved. Perhaps it deserves to be a higher profile issue, perhaps it deserves fair coverage?

If you are arguing against these leaked documents it seems based on that same logic you should be against journalists being allowed to travel with troops. Basically if seems as if you are arguing against transparency, against information, against truth.

Does this not also balance out of own biased coverage? When do we hear about the war? Typically only when a Canadian is killed. A soldier signs up and knows he may risk his life in that occupation. Who's speaking for all the dead Afghani's? For all the ones that aren't soldiers, that were minding their own business when they got shot up because their bus driver didn't slow down fast enough or move far enough out of the way? You want their voices silenced?

Sure we can debate the war philosophically without these leaks, but we don't. But leaks like this make it possible. It brings the debate back into the public sphere. It makes it important again. It makes people wonder what is really going on, why we went there, is raises questions.

I guess you don't want the questions raised and a lot of people do.

Embedded journalists are first of all, trusted by the soldiers they are covering in action. They have to put a name to what they write and stand by their own words. Something that the cowardly parties responsible for the leaking of these documents will never have to do.

Second, embedded journalists are still governed by rules. For example. they are not allowed to cover or even see special forces units who are doing most of the dirty work.

What is transparency? What is truth? We can't answer these questions if we don't have the philosophical or moral training to judge and qualify them appropriately. Frankly, most people nowadays live in the darkness of ignorance and even with the so-called transparency provided by these documents, they are not capable of making fit decisions for themselves on an issue like Afghanistan.

The state must also operate abroad under some umbrella of secrecy from its citizens. Especially now, where vigilance is viewed more as fear-mongering and courage is viewed as bullying.

War has never been a straight-forward moral process like building a hospital. It involves horrifying aspects of the human psyche (as well as some of the more glorious ones) and perpetuates (but also solves) injustice.

We can argue these premises without the documents. Regardless of the leaks, we know that civilian deaths are occurring (although the documents indicate that even those numbers are rather paltry given the length and scale of the conflict) and we can still ask ourselves basic moral questions like "is innocent death acceptable in the face of accomplishing a greater good?"

Very few people in this thread have shown to me that they are capable of answering that question outside of basic confirmation bias. Yourself included.

What I am decrying is the lack of resolve and courage displayed by so many Canadian citizens in the face of, what seems to me, a moral conflict worthy of our participation, resolve, and hopefully, eventual victory.

During the Second World War, the Canadian Bomber Command firebombed German cities participating in the deaths of 10s of 1000s of German civilians. In retrospect, it appears that it may have not been an essential duty to execute the end of the war. We feel the appropriate shame for our actions, but we also know that, at least, they were done in the name of a higher cause. Defeating the Nazis.


What about the Taliban? Everything I know and have heard is that the Taliban is a vicious and disgusting enemy that scapegoats women and religious minorities in order to maintain its own power. They use cowardly tactics, such as suicide bombing, to kill our soldiers without any hesitation of killing other Afghans.

Why all the relativism now?

[peter12]

Originally Posted by Locke

Being well read, and understanding the implications of that material are not mutually inclusive.

A relationship you obviously don't understand.

[peter12]

Originally Posted by Flames Draft Watcher

The foreign policy of our country most definitely should be the business of every civilian.

I am not dictating foreign policy, you should be able to tell that from my posts. Defense strategy? Last time I checked Afghanistan has not attacked Canada.

Who decides our foreign policy? Civilians with no special knowledge of the military. We call them politicians. Sure they have advisors who are more informed than we are. That does not make them right and it doesn't make them infallible.

You are giving government a free pass to do whatever it wants to do and encouraging everybody to stay out of its business. Your claim that no one but specialists can question foreign policy is a very dangerous concept. I'm surprised you can't see that.

Afghanistan didn't attack Canada, but forces under their sovereignty and support did attack a NATO ally, thus giving us all the just cause for invasion.

Civilians control the military as the extension of their political ends, but they do so with the instruction and guidance of professionals. As well, these civilians are often highly educated and briefed with all the information they need to know.

I'm not saying that only specialists can question foreign policy. I am saying that only people with a defined moral sense and education can engage effectively in politics. The rest is just a mob.

[afc wimbledon]

'My country right or wrong' eh Peter!

And just cause for an invasion isn't just cause for an occupation, which is precisely why we need the 'mob' controling things, because that mob has to pay the price for your technocrats decisions, with their taxes and their kids lives. Not to mention that historically your 'inteligent elite' that ought to tell us all what to do has generally been a bunch of industry hacks who are just trying to sell munitions.

And while were at it if supporting Osama was the justification for invading and holding Afghanisan then why arn't we occuping Saudi Arabia, they have done more to sponser the Taliban and Al Queda that anyone else, the terrorists that hit on 9/11 were not afghans they were Saudis.

You can swallow the party line if you like but as a Brit I can see badly run imperialism in all of this and if our 'betters' wish to create an empire they should ask us first.

Anyway I am sure you have some forelock tugging to get on with.

[peter12]

Originally Posted by afc wimbledon

'My country right or wrong' eh Peter!

Sure thing, little fella!

Actually, for all of its flaws, I am capable of understanding what my country is and the greatness that it represents.

[mykalberta]

Originally Posted by Flames Draft Watcher

...
Clearly some people don't want to think for themselves and must believe the motives of government to be blameless. But I think a lot of us are wondering why we are in Afghanistan, why we were ever in Afghanistan, what the long-term plan is, what the costs have been, what the results have been, etc. Whose interest is it serving to be in Afghanistan? Why Afghanistan and not some of the other troubled countries in the world?
...

Really, you dont know why the US is in Afghanistan? Were you born after 9-11 when we realized that anything and everything could be destroyed by people who are determined enough to destroy them.

Afghanistan was providing direct aid to those responsible for what happened that day. Since that date there have been 0 incidents of foreign terrorism on US soil. some may claim alot of different bs reasons why that is - I am of the firm belief that you do not fight terrorism with police, fire, and ems. You fight them with the people who you pay, train, and equip to fight - in the US that is the United States Army/Navy/Air Force and the CIA.

I have no problem with a special forces unit there solely for the purpose of hunting down targets of interest and killing them, the simple fact is that if someone is unlikely to provide you with useable intel under interrogation then why bother taking them as a prisoner when you can just eliminate them - I wish there were more units like that. The word civilized war is an oxymoron - we would have lost World War 2 had it been scrutinized the way this war has been.

And so long as there isnt preventable negligence commited against our own troops, I have no problem with the Army not reporting every little detail to civilians who are too busy eating tofu playing Modern Warfare 2 to know the first thing about real war.

[Flames Draft Watcher]

Originally Posted by Azure

Leaking documents is treason, and I don't care what the situation is.

Okay. So what if some leaked documents end up making the world a better place by causing outrage, which leads to positive change? I'm not talking in the Afghan war in particular but more generally, more hypothetically.

You would still be against it because leaking documents = treason to you and therefore it is never justified I'm guessing?

There are some in the world who believe the government actually acts in the best interests of its citizens most of the time. I would call those people extremely naive. I think a more justified approach to authority is to treat it with suspicion. First and foremost a government will try to stay in power. In this our election systems compromise our government to a large degree. In order to stay in power compromises are made, interest groups are pandered to, big business is catered to, foreign policy compromises may be made due to pressure, etc. What is good for the people of Canada becomes a secondary issue.

If one agrees with that view of government then wikileaks and the information act are a great blessing. The information act however moves quite slowly, too slow to impact current regimes typically. This can often work simply to indict the previous regime. The Liberal corruption made the Conservatives temporarily look like angels since it had been a while since the Conservatives had been in power and thus since their own corruption scandals could have been exposed. If it moves too slowly then it can become merely a political tool to attack the previous regime. Promises of a new gov't with no corruption and greater transparency are met by the same old.

Wikileaks has the potential to really make a difference in the world IMO. The secrets of authorities when exposed can create real change in the way things happen. I still really struggle to come to terms with the viewpoint of people like Azure and Peter12. If you aren't one of the people protecting secrets, why are you so scared that more might come out? I see it as being overwhelmingly positive.

[peter12]

Originally Posted by afc wimbledon

'My country right or wrong' eh Peter!

And just cause for an invasion isn't just cause for an occupation, which is precisely why we need the 'mob' controling things, because that mob has to pay the price for your technocrats decisions, with their taxes and their kids lives. Not to mention that historically your 'inteligent elite' that ought to tell us all what to do has generally been a bunch of industry hacks who are just trying to sell munitions.

And while were at it if supporting Osama was the justification for invading and holding Afghanisan then why arn't we occuping Saudi Arabia, they have done more to sponser the Taliban and Al Queda that anyone else, the terrorists that hit on 9/11 were not afghans they were Saudis.

You can swallow the party line if you like but as a Brit I can see badly run imperialism in all of this and if our 'betters' wish to create an empire they should ask us first.

Anyway I am sure you have some forelock tugging to get on with.

I like that it took you so long to edit in that last bit.

We should have struck at factions of the Saudis, but concern for global energy security got in the way. This is not insignificant, even if it is unjust.

The fact that you are English certainly does not give you an insider's perspective on the workings of Imperialism. For goodness sake, in my experience, the average Brit is a moron with the intellectual capacity of a cow. Isn't Britain like the new failed society? Highest teen pregnancy, huge problem with public drunkenness and drug use?

You accuse me of "patsy-ism" all you like and I stand by my previous point that these issues are impossible to discuss with the current low-level of most citizen's moral sense and education. I blame the schools, but I also blame people who are too ignorant to see this for themselves.

[afc wimbledon]

Originally Posted by peter12

I like that it took you so long to edit in that last bit.

We should have struck at factions of the Saudis, but concern for global energy security got in the way. This is not insignificant, even if it is unjust.

The fact that you are English certainly does not give you an insider's perspective on the workings of Imperialism. For goodness sake, in my experience, the average Brit is a moron with the intellectual capacity of a cow. Isn't Britain like the new failed society? Highest teen pregnancy, huge problem with public drunkenness and drug use?

You accuse me of "patsy-ism" all you like and I stand by my previous point that these issues are impossible to discuss with the current low-level of most citizen's moral sense and education. I blame the schools, but I also blame people who are too ignorant to see this for themselves.

And yet your solution is more ignorance!

[Flames Draft Watcher]

Originally Posted by mykalberta

Really, you dont know why the US is in Afghanistan? Were you born after 9-11 when we realized that anything and everything could be destroyed by people who are determined enough to destroy them.

Sure the US has more obvious interests than anybody else there, at least when they first went in.

Why are the other countries there? Cause we're such good buddies with the US that we'll help when they ask? Cause we independently believe as strongly in the Afghanistan mission?

Seems like a lot of people who claim to understand the reasons are simply buying into what the stated reasons were. The stated reasons and the true reasons need not necessarily coincide.

As for destroying, it seems as if the US has been one of the biggest destroyers in the world in the past 50 years. They are trying to weed out terrorism? The US is one of the biggest terrorists in action. You think Vietnam helped the world? Have you done any research of the US's involvement in central america? The US through covert and non-covert OPS has killed far more people than died in the World Trade Centre. The US's promotion of dictators in certain countries has flat out created some of the terrorists they now claim to hunt, not to mention discouraging civil liberties in those countries.