Afghanistan: Why Wikileaks Should Not Be Plugged (Dissected News)

Dissected News analyses the issue of Afghanistan, Wikileaks, and information on the US conduct of the war:

Julian Assange, founder of Wikileaks, is VERY good at making headlines.  The last two leaks have justified those headlines, however, with the publication of classified information from inside the U.S. military efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan.  (Read an Iraq War veteran’s analysis of the leaked video showing the killing of two reporters in Iraq.)

In the newest wave of leaks, more than 90,000 classified documents pertaining to the war in Afghanistan have been posted. The findings are sprawling: Pakistani intelligence (Inter-Services Intelligence, or ISI) is supporting the Taliban, Afghanistan has become a new front for the battle between India and Pakistan, Iran is supporting militants on its border, the Karzai government is corrupt, the U.S. military has killed too many civilians, and the militants now have access to some heat-seeking missiles… in short, the war is a mess.

Afghanistan: After the Wikileaks “Petraeus to Stop Corruption” (Partlow)
Afghanistan: What Did Wikileaks Reveal? What I Wrote in Kabul in 2005 (Shahryar)

As my colleague Josh Shahryar points out, not much of this is new information.

We’ve known, for instance, that the ISI supported the Taliban in the leadup to the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks. We’ve also known that the Indian-Pakastani conflict in the region was complicating the effort in Afghanistan. The problem is that large portions of traditional media sources have largely ignored these developments, and thus the American public is surprised by them.  As a result, no one has been holding the U.S. government accountable for actually fixing any of these problems.

For various reasons, now that this information is coming from leaked United States intelligence, this story is finally being paid attention to. Josh suggests it’s the sexy factor, and he’s probably right.

And this is why we need people like Julian Assange.

Not that Wikileaks doesn’t have its detractors. Many people, including Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), have condemned him for endangering national security, as well as the life and well being of people on the ground in places like Afghanistan. Assange, a zealot for the freedom of information and the American first amendment, has himself admitted that Wikileaks may wind up with “blood on our hands,” but he is convinced that the campaign for transparency will be worth the price. I’m not arguing that this point of view isn’t extreme, Assange is as radical as they come, and I’m certainly not arguing that the ones who are leaking this material haven’t broken the law (at least) and possibly their oaths of office and allegiance.

But with a situation as complicated and covered up as the developments in a place like Afghanistan, how are the common citizens of the world supposed to know what’s going on if the mainstream media doesn’t spend the resources to cover these stories, and the only ones with access to this information are under a sworn oath to keep the information secret?

Much has been made about a Washington Post report that over 800,000 people have “top secret” clearance in the U.S. intelligence circle.  Part of the problem is that there is this massive-yet-insulated community of people making our policy. If so many of our linguists (a limited and precious commodity that our educational system is failing to produce), analysts, and experts are included in this group, then a massive part of the expertise of this country is inside of the veil of secrecy. In other words, the few people who do have expertise on this part of the world have their voices shut off to anyone not inside the administration.

Read rest of article....

Comments

[Dissected News]

Thanks for the feedback.

That's true Catherine, and it was a good show. Also, there are news agencies that consistently do a great job. 60 minutes, if memory serves me correct, has done several episodes on the Taliban and the Pakastani ISI.

The problem isn't so much that individual reporters or news shows are doing their jobs. The problem is how well the collective media and the loudest voices in the public debate discuss dissenting points of view. Watch CNN or MSNBC or FOX for a few hours and let me know if you learn anything. If you're paying attention (and most EA readers fall into that camp) and you're watching during peak hours, I bet that you won't.

[Bijan77]

James and Catherine -

I think another issue to consider is consistency. While this may be the topic of the day now, tomorrow headlines or most viewed article on the website could be the next celebrity who is being sent to jail. American media focuses energy on sensationalist stories....speaking from a general sense. Yes hat tip to Larry King, Nick Roberts and a few others who do report on these issues...but again...there is a lack of consistency. I would also argue there is a general lack of apathy amoung the general public. Many may be upset now about the leak itself or what is in the reports, but will they be next week?

Regards,

[Catherine]

James,
Oh I'm fully aware of the multiple and long-standing inherent shortcomings of the mainstream American news media, and agree with you on the absolute lack of substance - let alone analysis - to be found on the channels you mention (and quite a few others). I just wanted to express my surprise and delight at a noteworthy exception. Thank God we now have a laptop for travelling. I always used to dread family visits back in the US because it was like going into exile from the "real world out there" :-).