That is the underlying reason for the Need To Know. “We” only tell “our” people what the must know in order to do their job. A private or sergeant needs to know certain things. He does not need to know all the other things, such as the overall battle plan or the location and movements of all the divisions and brigades. If he doesn’t know those things, he can not give it away either under duress or even simple carelessness - during a bull session with his buddies (that someone else might be eavesdropping on).
Firstly: Yup, they should have predicted it. Don’t get me wrong: I would not have predicted it, but I am no expert. I am asserting, however, that a regional expert would have known the penalties for abusing the Koran in Afghanistan, Pakistan, etc. Furthermore, anybody who studied the Koran in the Mid East would have known that you are suppose to cleanse your mind before handling that holy book. Heck, it’s even thought unacceptable to stack other books on top of the Holy Koran.
Q: So what should have Newsweek done?
A: Written a piece evaluating abuses and the damage it does in the hearts and mind campaign. The big story (from my American POV) is that the interrogation was conducted by amateurs. As I alluded to above, close consultation with experts in military intelligence, Israeli intelligence, or a top big-city interrogator would have given us a vastly different approach. Instead, we got phony tough guy tactics.
My understanding is that in most not all cases softer methods are more effective than torture lite, never mind torture dark. But again, this is a GD issue. [sub](And actually, I’ll be away for the next several days.)[/sub]
I think they would have been well advised to omit it all together, or only some passing reference to unspecified allegations. As has been pointed out, this was not “news” in the sense of Newsweek breaking a story, but referencing and underlining a story that was already out there. Probably didn’t think it was that big a deal.
For my own two sense, the notion that a couple lines in Newsweak sparked huge outrage in a nation largely illiterate in its own languages (never mind English) is a bit hard to take. I still detect the faint odor of rodent, underscored by the massive exploitation by the Tighty Righties in thier endless campaign to paint themselves as the beleagured victims of the Liberal Tedia.
Maybe someone can clear that up for me. Who exactly said that the riots were specifically about the Newsweek piece, and why are we compelled to take their word for it?
Seems the Red Cross was raising concerns about US guards/interrogators’ treatment of the Koran back in 2002. They say guidelines were instituted in 2003 to stop such behavior, and there hasn’t been a problem there since.
So there was a problem here, though the specifics are less than clear, but apparently they’ve since fixed it.
But (as I said earlier) I still can’t see why Newsweek should have known their article was going to set off riots. Their article contained allegations that had surfaced several times in the preceding 2+ years; the only thing new was the sourcing, and it’s hard to believe that people rioted in Afghanistan because the article was attributed to a U.S. official, rather than a Gitmo detainee.
RTF: Their article contained allegations that had surfaced several times in the preceding 2+ years; the only thing new was the sourcing, and it’s hard to believe that people rioted in Afghanistan because the article was attributed to a U.S. official, rather than a Gitmo detainee.
Well, the commander of Combined Forces Command-Afghanistan apparently disagrees that the Newsweek article was responsible for the riots:
And it’s not only former detainees who reported Qur’an desecration. A New York Times article reported that a former Guantanamo interrogator had confirmed that Qur’an abuse in 2002 had provoked a detainee hunger strike followed by an apology from a senior officer:
That sounds like a fairly weighty allegation to me, and AFAIK it was never denied or criticized by the Administration. What did Newsweek say that was so much more provocative? I really can’t see it.
There’s a fairly decent article in, um, Newsweek about this:
Newsweek also discusses how Karzai opponents were looking for a cause to coalesce around, and were henceforth obliged.
I guess the next (gruesome) question might relate to how often protests in Afghanistan, etc. become deadly riots. Rather not follow up on that one though.
One of the great things about cures for the common cold is that after about a week they always work. Every single time. Howbouthat, eh?
Not only that, but under Clinton we were safe from foreign terrorism on our soil for a full eight years, which by Evil One’s reasoning makes Clinton twice as good as Bush at fighting terrorism!
That’s the problem with these attempts to deduce simple causality in very complex situations with lots of contributing factors: they can be employed equally well to support just about any conclusion you want.
If cricketer Imran Khan was involved in this—well, now I understand everything! No, I don’t really, but cricket stars are very important celebrities in Pakistan, and I can easily see how Khan’s complaining about this issue at a press conference could gain a lot of attention very rapidly.
Thus further proving that celebrities should stay the hell out of politics.
And the Red Cross knew about this, told the Pentagon, who blew the whole thing off.