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

[peter12]

Originally Posted by afc wimbledon

And yet your solution is more ignorance!

No, you don't understand my solution. My solution is to say that your right as a citizen to protest the government or support the government or becoming involved politically is NOT inherent or natural, it is gained through virtue and experience.

This is not status quo, this is not apologies for the elites, it's a plea for self-education.

[Flames Fan, Ph.D.]

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. ...

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.

I'd have to disagree somewhat. These documents provide the citizens relevant information to determine if the intentions of their nation, as they understand it, are being effectively channeled and executed.

For example, you may have believed that the motive for Canadian troops to be present in Afghanistan was to show the locals that our country can be a force for good in helping them defeat the Taliban. These documents provide those concerned with a point in time to affirm or reject their stance.

That the majority of citizens will read none of these documents is not a valid position to argue against their release*.

* If I remember correctly you're doing graduate studies. Like me, you're inevitably caught up in dozens or even hundreds of books and journal articles that the vast majority of people will never even read in order to form an opinion. But that doesn't invalidate their utility.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by Flames Draft Watcher

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.

And what if, hypothetically, documents that are released end of putting a lot of our boys over there in danger?

There is a reason certain stuff is classified. And there is a reason there is a certain way to obtain government information.

[Azure]

And since the obvious motivation behind FDWs stance is his belief that the US is a terrorist nation, I'm just going to back out of this one.

I do agree though that there needs to be more transparency. But as Canadians in a US started war we often don't have that choice. I doubt even our government had access to all this information.

[peter12]

Originally Posted by Flames Fan, Ph.D.

I'd have to disagree somewhat. These documents provide the citizens relevant information to determine if the intentions of their nation, as they understand it, are being effectively channeled and executed.

For example, you may have believed that the motive for Canadian troops to be present in Afghanistan was to show the locals that our country can be a force for good in helping them defeat the Taliban. These documents provide those concerned with a point in time to affirm or reject their stance.

That the majority of citizens will read none of these documents is not a valid position to argue against their release*.

* If I remember correctly you're doing graduate studies. Like me, you're inevitably caught up in dozens or even hundreds of books and journal articles that the vast majority of people will never even read in order to form an opinion. But that doesn't invalidate their utility.

The relationship between Taliban, the ISAF, local Afghan forces and civilians is complicated. We may be there to assist Afghan forces and civilians in their fight against the Taliban, but Taliban tactics inevitably cause friction between ourselves and the local populace.

For example, I recall a story in Christine Blatchford's "Fifteen Days" which recounted Canadian protocol regarding convoy security. Basically, any cars were not allowed to enter a 100 m radius around the convoy because in the past, Taliban had used cars as suicide projectiles to damage convoys and kill/maim ISAF soldiers.

A Canadian soldier was manning the gun turret on his LAV III when he saw a car pull from a crowded marketplace and accelerate towards the convoy, he fired a warning shot across its path but it didn't deter the car. He fired the LAV's 25mm gun into the car, the Taliban driver self-detonated the car bomb, missing the convoy but killing and wounding scores of Afghan civilians.

On paper, this might look like the coalition was responsible for destroying Afghan property and killing innocent civilians. But the truth is much more complicated.

In regards to academic elitism, I agree. I am not an elitist, but I do hold an education that most people will never acquire. I am, ultimately, a democrat, but also distrustful of most people. Coming through graduate studies (where school finally gets difficult and competitive) you look back at past educational experiences, especially when compared to what you read about in the past, and realize what a scant intellectual upbringing most people have, outside of the maths and hard sciences.

We are raising citizens with no capacity to understand even the most basic premises of statesmanship and statecraft.

[afc wimbledon]

just to be clear mykalberta, the country that was responsible for Al Quada 9/11 and the growth of islamic militant fundamentalism was and is Saudi Arabia, the country that sponsers the Taliban was and is Pakistan, we have not chosen to move against either.

You mention that there have been no attacks since we invaded Iraq/Afghanistan so the stratagy is working, of course this view fails to take into account that the money and strengh the US has expended in its foriegn expeditions have in part caused the US to teeter on the edge of bankruptcy, when historians look back at 9/11 it will be likely seen as the end of US hegomony and the start of chinas rule.

Countries are ultimatly defended by a sound finacial structure which the US isn't anymore.

[peter12]

Originally Posted by Azure

And since the obvious motivation behind FDWs stance is his belief that the US is a terrorist nation, I'm just going to back out of this one.

I do agree though that there needs to be more transparency. But as Canadians in a US started war we often don't have that choice. I doubt even our government had access to all this information.

George Grant once said that the USA, USSR, and Nazi Germany only differed by the degrees to which they were willing to extinguish human life.

That's a complicated statement and requires a greater understand of technocracy and its effect on human politics than I am willing to delve into here.

But the fact remains, the USA does do some terrible things. The thing is, even though I want Canada to do better and be an example to the world, I don't think that involves engaging in petulant anti-Americanism which is the sure sign nowadays of someone who hasn't passed through the stage of considering Michael Moore to be a reasonable public intellectual.

[Flames Draft Watcher]

Originally Posted by Azure

And what if, hypothetically, documents that are released end of putting a lot of our boys over there in danger?

There is a reason certain stuff is classified. And there is a reason there is a certain way to obtain government information.

And there is a reason why their source asked some of the information stay classified, there is a reason why they complied, and there is a reason why they vet all their own info before releasing it.

Wikileaks is not out there to intentionally endanger soldiers.

What I find supremely funny about this is that people are outraged that documents that show soldiers have killed civilians without due cause, but they aren't outraged about the civilians being killed but instead that the document MAY endanger some lives of soldiers in the future.

So the posters who believe this show an inconsistent valuation of human life. For them the only life that is valued is clearly the Canadian soldier. Afghani lives are obviously not valued as highly and that much is blatantly obvious from your logic.

Earlier in this thread Peter12 says the following, "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."

So his values are clearly on display for all to see. He doesn't mind civilians dying if it is the execution of the will of Canada. However he is very much against the releasing of truth if it has a chance of increasing the risk of Canadian soldiers dying?

So civilian deaths are justified because some politicians in Canada thought going into Afghanistan was good idea. But truth isn't valuable enough to potentially increase the risk of soldiers dying?

Talk about some wacky "values"

[afc wimbledon]

Originally Posted by peter12

No, you don't understand my solution. My solution is to say that your right as a citizen to protest the government or support the government or becoming involved politically is NOT inherent or natural, it is gained through virtue and experience.

This is not status quo, this is not apologies for the elites, it's a plea for self-education.

I don't know why you don't just throw property ownership in there and have done with it.

What would we call this sensible educated ruling class, patricians?

[Flames Draft Watcher]

Whats the over/under on Peter12 posting without patting himself on the back for his academic achievements? holy cow do you have any idea how you sound?

[Flames Fan, Ph.D.]

Originally Posted by Azure

And there is a reason there is a certain way to obtain government information.

At least as it applies to the USA, I think your impression of FOIA retrievals is a bit idealized.

Here are a couple of examples:

http://nsarchive.wordpress.com/2009/...analysts-view/

[Flash Walken]

"Well I don't trust the government. Except when I trust the government to tell me everything I need to know."

[valo403]

Originally Posted by Flames Draft Watcher

And there is a reason why their source asked some of the information stay classified, there is a reason why they complied, and there is a reason why they vet all their own info before releasing it.

Wikileaks is not out there to intentionally endanger soldiers.

What I find supremely funny about this is that people are outraged that documents that show soldiers have killed civilians without due cause, but they aren't outraged about the civilians being killed but instead that the document MAY endanger some lives of soldiers in the future.

So the posters who believe this show an inconsistent valuation of human life. For them the only life that is valued is clearly the Canadian soldier. Afghani lives are obviously not valued as highly and that much is blatantly obvious from your logic.

Earlier in this thread Peter12 says the following, "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."

So his values are clearly on display for all to see. He doesn't mind civilians dying if it is the execution of the will of Canada. However he is very much against the releasing of truth if it has a chance of increasing the risk of Canadian soldiers dying?

So civilian deaths are justified because some politicians in Canada thought going into Afghanistan was good idea. But truth isn't valuable enough to potentially increase the risk of soldiers dying?

Talk about some wacky "values"

This assumes that the release of these documents has the ability to decrease civilian deaths, but that's not necesarilly true. The release of documents could very well increase the risk of harm to both soldiers and civilians. Now I haven't parsed these documents to see if that's the case, but your whole theory here is premised on an assumption that could very well be completely false.

[Flames Fan, Ph.D.]

Originally Posted by peter12

For example, I recall a story in Christine Blatchford's "Fifteen Days" which recounted Canadian protocol regarding convoy security. Basically, any cars were not allowed to enter a 100 m radius around the convoy because in the past, Taliban had used cars as suicide projectiles to damage convoys and kill/maim ISAF soldiers.

A Canadian soldier was manning the gun turret on his LAV III when he saw a car pull from a crowded marketplace and accelerate towards the convoy, he fired a warning shot across its path but it didn't deter the car. He fired the LAV's 25mm gun into the car, the Taliban driver self-detonated the car bomb, missing the convoy but killing and wounding scores of Afghan civilians.

On paper, this might look like the coalition was responsible for destroying Afghan property and killing innocent civilians. But the truth is much more complicated.

I agree. And from that example, people such as myself think that the responsibility put on that soldier is enormous to the extent where he's given an impossible mission. How can anyone even reasonably sit there stationary on a turret watching cars with civilians drive around while he tries to figure out which one is harboring the "terrorist." It follows that *if* we're going to put an almost insurmountable burden on our soldiers, then the cause for which they are there has to be extremely clear. Furthermore, the desired outcome has to be well articulated and of the utmost importance.

For myself, I'm unclear on the exact cause, and given the actions that the "strategy" is asking of these soldiers, it's not clear to me that the most reasonable outcome is worth the risk. These documents simply help me to form a thought process, to the best of my ability*.


* Inherent in this is that I do *not* think the release of these old items puts the current soldiers in any more risk than they're currently in.

[Flames Draft Watcher]

Originally Posted by valo403

This assumes that the release of these documents has the ability to decrease civilian deaths, but that's not necesarilly true. The release of documents could very well increase the risk of harm to both soldiers and civilians. Now I haven't parsed these documents to see if that's the case, but your whole theory here is premised on an assumption that could very well be completely false.

Sure. But the other theory that this will definitely endanger our soldiers is also an assumption, and also something that could be completely false.

I guess I just value truth and human life as some of my highest values. The arguments so far that the truth will only be harmful have been thin.

[peter12]

Originally Posted by Flames Fan, Ph.D.

I agree. And from that example, people such as myself think that the responsibility put on that soldier is enormous to the extent where he's given an impossible mission. How can anyone even reasonably sit there stationary on a turret watching cars with civilians drive around while he tries to figure out which one is harboring the "terrorist." It follows that *if* we're going to put an almost insurmountable burden on our soldiers, then the cause for which they are there has to be extremely clear. Furthermore, the desired outcome has to be well articulated and of the utmost importance.

For myself, I'm unclear on the exact cause, and given the actions that the "strategy" is asking of these soldiers, it's not clear to me that the most reasonable outcome is worth the risk. These documents simply help me to form a thought process, to the best of my ability*.


* Inherent in this is that I do *not* think the release of these old items puts the current soldiers in any more risk than they're currently in.

I can think of one justifiable cause for worry. That it will inform the Taliban of proper tactical procedure in certain situations.

For example, my cousin told me that the Taliban discovered that wounded children receive priority care from ISAF soldiers. Often my cousin's platoon would encounter Taliban, fight them off, and then move into a nearby village to meet with local elders etc... Upon retreating, the Taliban would pass through the village and shoot to wound several children forcing the ISAF to call in medevac helicopters to bring them to ISAF hospitals. The Taliban would then shoot at the helicopters.

In a sense, we agree. We are in a new war, a terrifying war with an enemy with few bounds on his morality and the absolute desire to beat us.

[Flames Draft Watcher]

Originally Posted by Flames Fan, Ph.D.

I agree. And from that example, people such as myself think that the responsibility put on that soldier is enormous to the extent where he's given an impossible mission. How can anyone even reasonably sit there stationary on a turret watching cars with civilians drive around while he tries to figure out which one is harboring the "terrorist." It follows that *if* we're going to put an almost insurmountable burden on our soldiers, then the cause for which they are there has to be extremely clear. Furthermore, the desired outcome has to be well articulated and of the utmost importance.

Exactly.

I'm not blaming soldiers for shooting civilians when their own lives are at risk and they don't know who is the enemy.

Instead I blame the government for sending the soldiers over there when our interest in the matter is unclear.

That soldiers AND civilians are being killed means this issue is important, it should be discussed/debated why we are in Afghanistan, when we will be getting out, has it made a difference, what has been the cost, etc.

I'd rather we talked about it critically than just blindly support the troops. If a war isn't justified then why should any inquiry into it be turned into a support the troops mantra?

If journalists haven't found the real story, or aren't willing to tell it, or are being muzzled then something like wikileaks is the only way the public will ever seen the true story in a promptly manner, when the issue still matters and when things can still be done about it.

[peter12]

Originally Posted by afc wimbledon

I don't know why you don't just throw property ownership in there and have done with it.

What would we call this sensible educated ruling class, patricians?

Yes, absolutely. Property ownership is essential to stability and good governance. We just don't live in that age anymore, unfortunately.

I prefer the term aristocracy. Although, I think that I agree with Montesquieu that this position should be earned and not inherited.

We can always balance the aristocrats with a properly elected democratic house.

The problem then is the the distribution of powers and the ability of the aristocratic class to veto any attempts by the democratic house to abscond or threaten their property.

[peter12]

Originally Posted by Flames Draft Watcher

Exactly.

I'm not blaming soldiers for shooting civilians when their own lives are at risk and they don't know who is the enemy.

Instead I blame the government for sending the soldiers over there when our interest in the matter is unclear.

That soldiers AND civilians are being killed means this issue is important, it should be discussed/debated why we are in Afghanistan, when we will be getting out, has it made a difference, what has been the cost, etc.

I'd rather we talked about it critically than just blindly support the troops. If a war isn't justified then why should any inquiry into it be turned into a support the troops mantra?

If journalists haven't found the real story, or aren't willing to tell it, or are being muzzled then something like wikileaks is the only way the public will ever seen the true story in a promptly manner, when the issue still matters and when things can still be done about it.

I think our interests in Afghanistan are very clear. Just because you pretend that they aren't clear, doesn't mean that we don't have noble ends.

Essentially, you are a demagogue, using poorly articulated and weak ideas in a moralist rhetorical fashion to whip up popular support for your position.

[Flames Draft Watcher]

Originally Posted by peter12

In a sense, we agree. We are in a new war, a terrifying war with an enemy with few bounds on his morality and the absolute desire to beat us.

I don't presume to know this but I wonder to what extent the Taliban absolutely desires to see Canada smoking and in ruins. How much of it is the Taliban hates Canada and how much of it is them attacking invaders? I mean you can go invade a country under numerous pretexts but should we be surprised that the invaders are attacked?

Your quips about republican values, enemies, etc do little to answer these questions and simply engage in meaningless rhetoric. Does the Taliban hate every country in NATO equally? Are they planning and attacking numerous countries?

Plenty of questions you don't seem interested in