# WikiLeaks and Guardian leak 92,000 secret documents on Afghan War **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [July 26, 2010, 12:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wikileaks-and-guardian-leak-92-000-secret-documents-on-afghan-war/548033 "2010-07-26T12:17:53Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 5
**Author:** ![MOIDALIZE](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e274bd/32.png) [@MOIDALIZE](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MOIDALIZE)\ **Post date:** [July 27, 2010, 1:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wikileaks-and-guardian-leak-92-000-secret-documents-on-afghan-war/548033/81 "2010-07-27T01:26:32Z")
> [@Rand\_Rover](#): > > I can presume you think you have a point? You are the one that said nothing damaging was leaked. You therefore have the responsibility to back up that assertion (or admit that you were talking out your ass, your choice). > > The fact is that it’s impossible for you or me to tell what is important to people who want to do us harm or which bits of data they need to connect the dots. I suppose the alternative is to take the government at its word that we’re succeeding in Afghanistan. Is that it? ---
**Author:** ![Rand\_Rover](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/db5fbb/32.png) [@Rand\_Rover](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rand_Rover)\ **Post date:** [July 27, 2010, 1:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wikileaks-and-guardian-leak-92-000-secret-documents-on-afghan-war/548033/82 "2010-07-27T01:30:05Z")
> [@MOIDALIZE](#): > > > [@Rand\_Rover](#): > > > > I can presume you think you have a point? You are the one that said nothing damaging was leaked. You therefore have the responsibility to back up that assertion (or admit that you were talking out your ass, your choice). > > > > The fact is that it’s impossible for you or me to tell what is important to people who want to do us harm or which bits of data they need to connect the dots. > > I suppose the alternative is to take the government at its word that we’re succeeding in Afghanistan. Is that it? No, the alternative to saying “don’t worry about it, nothing damaging was leaked” is not saying that. ---
**Author:** ![Marley23](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@Marley23](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Marley23)\ **Post date:** [July 27, 2010, 1:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wikileaks-and-guardian-leak-92-000-secret-documents-on-afghan-war/548033/83 "2010-07-27T01:31:28Z")
> [@Rand\_Rover](#): > > I can presume you think you have a point? You are the one that said nothing damaging was leaked. I never said anything close to that. I said I don’t think anything that had been leaked would comparable to **Sam Stone** ’s examples in terms of the damage it could cause. His examples included the landing plans for Normandy or the cracking of the Enigma codes. I did not say these would not cause any damage. I already pointed out that the names of informants were disclosed and I didn’t see any particular reason that needed to be made public. It definitely puts those people in danger and it could get those people killed. So far that’s the only part of this that gives me pause. Saying there couldn’t be any damage would be naive. > [@Ravenman](#): > > What’s your basis of disagreement? How much interaction do you have with the press, and on what subjects? I’m a member of the press. And no, I’m not saying everybody lets a story go if one of their sources doesn’t like it. I’m saying the issue is a real one in the press, and I think it’s particularly a real issue when you get to the top level where inside (often anonymous) sources are so important. ---
**Author:** ![MOIDALIZE](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e274bd/32.png) [@MOIDALIZE](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MOIDALIZE)\ **Post date:** [July 27, 2010, 1:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wikileaks-and-guardian-leak-92-000-secret-documents-on-afghan-war/548033/84 "2010-07-27T01:34:14Z")
> [@Rand\_Rover](#): > > > [@MOIDALIZE](#): > > > > > [@Rand\_Rover](#): > > > > > > I can presume you think you have a point? You are the one that said nothing damaging was leaked. You therefore have the responsibility to back up that assertion (or admit that you were talking out your ass, your choice). > > > > > > The fact is that it’s impossible for you or me to tell what is important to people who want to do us harm or which bits of data they need to connect the dots. > > > > I suppose the alternative is to take the government at its word that we’re succeeding in Afghanistan. Is that it? > > No, the alternative to saying “don’t worry about it, nothing damaging was leaked” is not saying that. Well…has something damaging been leaked? I don’t expect you to answer that right this second, as I imagine there may be some isolated piece of information that may conceivably be damaging, but I fail to see how dissemination of information that provides an unvarnished account of our efforts in Afghanistan “harms the troops.” ---
**Author:** ![Snowboarder\_Bo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/snowboarder_bo/32/229_2.png) [@Snowboarder\_Bo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Snowboarder_Bo)\ **Post date:** [July 27, 2010, 1:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wikileaks-and-guardian-leak-92-000-secret-documents-on-afghan-war/548033/85 "2010-07-27T01:34:17Z")
> [@xtisme](#): > > [QUOTE=Snowboarder Bo] > And you know this how? Can you provide cites to back up this assertion? You seriously want me to prove a negative? You have 92000 documents…why don’t you show me a few that show that the wool has been pulled over our collective eyes?? > [@](#): > > Which details have been changed or left out? How did you find out about them? Why were they changed or left out? Um…the one’s already mentioned in this thread? -XT [/QUOTE] I have made no assertion that the wool has been, or is being, pulled over our collective eyes. You have made an assertion, and I would like to see you back that up: > [@xtisme](#): > > What I’m saying, however, is that what we are being told isn’t some fantasy… **we ARE being told the over all strategic outlook**. **No attempt is being made to pull the wool over the public’s eyes and tell them that we are winning while we are really losing** (which is exactly what your analogy DID say). (bolding mine) How do you know that what we are being told is accurate? Where are you getting your information, and where are you getting confirmation that this information is truthful and complete? And as a follow up, how do you know that “No attempt is being made to pull the wool over the public’s eyes and tell them that we are winning while we are really losing”? ---
**Author:** ![Rand\_Rover](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/db5fbb/32.png) [@Rand\_Rover](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rand_Rover)\ **Post date:** [July 27, 2010, 1:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wikileaks-and-guardian-leak-92-000-secret-documents-on-afghan-war/548033/86 "2010-07-27T01:35:37Z")
> [@Marley23](#): > > > [@Rand\_Rover](#): > > > > I can presume you think you have a point? You are the one that said nothing damaging was leaked. > > I never said anything close to that. I said I don’t think anything that had been leaked would comparable to **Sam Stone** ’s examples in terms of the damage it could cause. What’s your evidence for that proposition? ---
**Author:** ![MOIDALIZE](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e274bd/32.png) [@MOIDALIZE](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MOIDALIZE)\ **Post date:** [July 27, 2010, 1:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wikileaks-and-guardian-leak-92-000-secret-documents-on-afghan-war/548033/87 "2010-07-27T01:36:41Z")
This is how the NYT summarized the documents: > [@](#): > > The documents — some 92,000 reports spanning parts of two administrations from January 2004 through December 2009 — illustrate in mosaic detail why, after the United States has spent almost $300 billion on the war in Afghanistan, the Taliban are stronger than at any time since 2001. ---
**Author:** ![XT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/xt/32/456_2.png) [@XT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/XT)\ **Post date:** [July 27, 2010, 1:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wikileaks-and-guardian-leak-92-000-secret-documents-on-afghan-war/548033/88 "2010-07-27T01:46:16Z")
[QUOTE=Snowboarder Bo] How do you know that what we are being told is accurate? [/QUOTE] IOW, how do I KNOW that there isn’t a tooth fairy, or that a space ship didn’t crash in Roswell, or that a government cabal didn’t REALLY bring down the twin towers, right? I ‘know’ it because I’ve seen no evidence to the contrary. If you HAVE such evidence then feel free to present it…otherwise, I’ll continue to ‘know’ it until proven differently. > [@](#): > > Where are you getting your information, and where are you getting confirmation that this information is truthful and complete? Presumably the same place you do, chief. When I see some hard evidence to the contrary then I’ll re-assess my stance on it. How about you? > [@](#): > > And as a follow up, how do you know that “No attempt is being made to pull the wool over the public’s eyes and tell them that we are winning while we are really losing”? I don’t, obviously. I don’t know that Santa Clause doesn’t hop on down the bunny trail either. However, in both cases I’ve seen no solid evidence to disuade me from my belief. There are ‘92,000’ documents and literally millions looking at them across the internets, but thus far I’ve seen nothing solid. The Dems are in control of both houses and the presidency, so I’m doubting Republican conspiracy to pull said wool. On the other side, the Republicans are unlikely (just my ‘guess’, mind) to go along with obviously false white washing from said Dems.The civilian branch oversees the military, so I’m guessing that they aren’t going to go along with a cover up either, etc etc etc (that whole ‘checks and balances’ thingy, ehe?). So…I don’t ‘know’. It’s just a premise. I can’t ‘prove’ a negative, even if that’s what you are actually after. On the other side, however, you COULD prove that we have been wool pulled…you have ‘92000’ recently released confidential documents. Best get crackin… -XT ---
**Author:** ![MOIDALIZE](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e274bd/32.png) [@MOIDALIZE](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MOIDALIZE)\ **Post date:** [July 27, 2010, 1:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wikileaks-and-guardian-leak-92-000-secret-documents-on-afghan-war/548033/89 "2010-07-27T01:52:16Z")
**Xtisme** , can you summarize, in your own words, what you believe our mission is in Afghanistan and where we stand on achieving it? ---
**Author:** ![XT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/xt/32/456_2.png) [@XT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/XT)\ **Post date:** [July 27, 2010, 1:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wikileaks-and-guardian-leak-92-000-secret-documents-on-afghan-war/548033/90 "2010-07-27T01:57:53Z")
[QUOTE=MOIDALIZE] Xtisme, can you summarize, in your own words, what you believe our mission is in Afghanistan and where we stand on achieving it? [/QUOTE] These days? Gods know. I suppose the original mission was to prevent AQ from having a nation states resources and shelter for their training and C&C/planning. We pretty much achieved that, to be sure. I’d say we could pull the fuck out now and simply bomb the shit out of any attempt for AQ to go back in and set up shop. So, the ‘mission’ today is more a political goal (presumably to create some sort of ‘stable’ construct that could, eventually and in theory stand on it’s own…or something) than a military one. Why? And what does that have to do with the released documents and the presumption that they are actually telling us something we all really need to know that’s worth the additional risk to our troops still stuck in that nasty place? -XT ---
**Author:** ![Rand\_Rover](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/db5fbb/32.png) [@Rand\_Rover](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rand_Rover)\ **Post date:** [July 27, 2010, 2:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wikileaks-and-guardian-leak-92-000-secret-documents-on-afghan-war/548033/91 "2010-07-27T02:06:45Z")
> [@MOIDALIZE](#): > > This is how the NYT summarized the documents: > > > [@](#): > > > > The documents — some 92,000 reports spanning parts of two administrations from January 2004 through December 2009 — illustrate in mosaic detail why, after the United States has spent almost $300 billion on the war in Afghanistan, the Taliban are stronger than at any time since 2001. Well, color me surprised. How does the NYT feel about extending the Bush tax cuts? ---
**Author:** ![gonzomax](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/e8c25b/32.png) [@gonzomax](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/gonzomax)\ **Post date:** [July 27, 2010, 2:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wikileaks-and-guardian-leak-92-000-secret-documents-on-afghan-war/548033/92 "2010-07-27T02:13:40Z")
> [@xtisme](#): > > [QUOTE=PrettyVacant] > Why would the military want to keep from their own public the fact of Teleban having surface-to-air missiles - for our own good, perhaps? Because the public doesn’t have a ‘need to know’, obviously. Do any of you people in this thread who think that this leak is a good idea actually understand how our government works, or what ‘representative government’ actually means? Seriously, I would like to know, because it doesn’t SEEM so. As I said earlier, if the military is keeping this information from our REPRESENTATIVES, then that’s a problem. If they are keeping it from us (especially some of you in this thread who seem clueless about the military and how it works), I see that as a feature, not a bug. -XT [/QUOTE] The whole point is to tell the people. We do vote ,you know. If the war is a farce, and almost all wars are, we need to know. Voting out those who lie about the war, would be a positive for the country. Why is it a good idea to tell the representatives ,while lying to the people? The public absolutely has a need to know. We are expected to make intelligent decisions about those we elect. ---
**Author:** ![MOIDALIZE](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e274bd/32.png) [@MOIDALIZE](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MOIDALIZE)\ **Post date:** [July 27, 2010, 2:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wikileaks-and-guardian-leak-92-000-secret-documents-on-afghan-war/548033/93 "2010-07-27T02:20:31Z")
> [@xtisme](#): > > [QUOTE=MOIDALIZE] > Xtisme, can you summarize, in your own words, what you believe our mission is in Afghanistan and where we stand on achieving it? These days? Gods know. [/QUOTE] Well, that’s no good, is it? > [@](#): > > I suppose the original mission was to prevent AQ from having a nation states resources and shelter for their training and C&C/planning. We pretty much achieved that, to be sure. I’d say we could pull the fuck out now and simply bomb the shit out of any attempt for AQ to go back in and set up shop. So, the ‘mission’ today is more a political goal (presumably to create some sort of ‘stable’ construct that could, eventually and in theory stand on it’s own…or something) than a military one. Essentially my understanding of why we remain there. > [@](#): > > Why? And what does that have to do with the released documents and the presumption that they are actually telling us something we all really need to know that’s worth the additional risk to our troops still stuck in that nasty place? > > -XT Were you aware that elements of Pakistan’s government (and not “Pakistan” generically) seems to be actively thwarting our efforts? Were you aware that Predator drone failures have necessitated sending forces to recover the drones, at great personal danger to the men? Are you aware of the number of civilians we have killed (and not just US forces, I’m talking NATO forces in general)? Did you know that the CIA has taken a hand in funding and directing paramilitary operations? The point of all this isn’t to wag our fingers at the government or the military for not executing the war perfectly. But here we are, nearly 10 years and $300 billion later, and not only are the Taliban stronger than ever, but the small number of Al Qaeda operatives remaining are probably in Pakistan. The government doesn’t seem to want to give us the opportunity to question the conduct of the war, the performance of those conducting it, and the wisdom of remaining there; their only interest is in appeasing us long enough to string us out to some other deadline (“wait till after the surge”). Meanwhile, our soldiers get killed and maimed, innocent civilians get murdered at checkpoints and in commando raids, billions upon billions of dollars get spent, and no progress seems to be happening. Are we supposed to idly accept this indefinitely? ---
**Author:** ![MOIDALIZE](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e274bd/32.png) [@MOIDALIZE](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MOIDALIZE)\ **Post date:** [July 27, 2010, 2:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wikileaks-and-guardian-leak-92-000-secret-documents-on-afghan-war/548033/94 "2010-07-27T02:21:38Z")
> [@Rand\_Rover](#): > > > [@MOIDALIZE](#): > > > > This is how the NYT summarized the documents: > > > > > [@](#): > > > > > > The documents — some 92,000 reports spanning parts of two administrations from January 2004 through December 2009 — illustrate in mosaic detail why, after the United States has spent almost $300 billion on the war in Afghanistan, the Taliban are stronger than at any time since 2001. > > Well, color me surprised. How does the NYT feel about extending the Bush tax cuts? Thanks for this complete non sequitur. ---
**Author:** ![XT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/xt/32/456_2.png) [@XT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/XT)\ **Post date:** [July 27, 2010, 2:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wikileaks-and-guardian-leak-92-000-secret-documents-on-afghan-war/548033/95 "2010-07-27T02:27:39Z")
[QUOTE=gonzomax] The whole point is to tell the people [/QUOTE] Even if it gets more of our soldiers killed and really serves no purpose? It’s one thing to expose obvious corruption, but this seems to be simple giving us more details (which we don’t need and which will probably aid the enemy) and variations on things WE ALREADY KNOW. I find it more than slightly ironic that these are the same folks who brought us the ‘scandal’ that culminated in Weathergate. The irony is that this seems much the same type of stuff…except this time it may and probably will get some folks killed. > [@](#): > > We do vote ,you know. Really? And, those folks we vote for…what’s their job again? > [@](#): > > If the war is a farce, and almost all wars are, we need to know. We ALREADY know that, man. This stuff, afaict, gives us NO new information about whether the war is or isn’t a ‘farce’. It really tells us no more than we already knew about the big picture. Obama et al are not hiding some deep dark secret about how we are on our last legs in Afghanistan or on the verge of being tossed out while they blow sunshine up our collective skirts. We already knew that things aren’t going well in Afghanistan, that the Taliban are and have been growing stronger, and that the current government in Afghanistan is weak and corrupt and would break like a rotten twig if we pulled up stakes and bolted for home. > [@](#): > > Voting out those who lie about the war, would be a positive for the country. Well duh…tell me something I didn’t know. You don’t seem to be grasping the essential nature of the discussion here. Mind, I’m militantly unsurprised… > [@](#): > > Why is it a good idea to tell the representatives ,while lying to the people? Um…because obviously straw is on sale in your neck of the woods? Or, to put it differently, you are presuming that there is some sort of conspiracy, and you seemingly don’t grasp what ‘the representatives’ jobs actually are…nor, again seemingly, the nature of our government or how it works? > [@](#): > > The public absolutely has a need to know. No…we don’t. We don’t need to know confidential or sensitive material. That’s what we pay the freaking politicians their lordly salaries for. The stuff we NEED to know we ALREADY know…plus, IMHO, a whole lot more, since our government leaks information like a barrel with no bottom. > [@](#): > > We are expected to make intelligent decisions about those we elect. Dude…seriously. Do you live on some other world? Or in some totalitarian hell hole of a country? We HAVE access to all that information. If you can’t be bothered to, you know, go out and read it, that’s your look out. -XT ---
**Author:** ![XT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/xt/32/456_2.png) [@XT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/XT)\ **Post date:** [July 27, 2010, 2:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wikileaks-and-guardian-leak-92-000-secret-documents-on-afghan-war/548033/96 "2010-07-27T02:34:47Z")
[QUOTE=MOIDALIZE] Well, that’s no good, is it? [/QUOTE] Nope…not too good at all. > [@](#): > > Were you aware that elements of Pakistan’s government (and not “Pakistan” generically) seems to be actively thwarting our efforts? Only for, oh, say 2-3 years (ok…probably significantly more). I seem to recall reading an article about it while Bush was still in office. Hell, I remember watching a show about trying to kill Bin Laden when CLINTON was in office and they were talking about elements of the Pakistani government actively helping AQ or at least thwarting, as you put it, our efforts to whack him. > [@](#): > > But here we are, nearly 10 years and $300 billion later, and not only are the Taliban stronger than ever, but the small number of Al Qaeda operatives remaining are probably in Pakistan. It’s been common knowledge that ObL, assuming the old bastard is still with us, and much of AQ has been in Pakistan for years now…and that they have been receiving at least nominal aid from elements in the Pakistani government. Again, this isn’t news or even surprising. > [@](#): > > Meanwhile, our soldiers get killed and maimed, innocent civilians get murdered at checkpoints and in commando raids, billions upon billions of dollars get spent, and no progress seems to be happening. Are we supposed to idly accept this indefinitely? Why, no…I think we should get the fuck out as if our ass was on fire. However, I don’t see the need to endanger our troops as long as they are going to be there with information that aids the enemy while really telling us nothing we didn’t already know, save the details that we DON’T need to know. As with Iraq, I’ve become something of a fervent anti-war guy…if you want to howl at the government and scream to bring our troops home, I’m all for it. Let’s howl at the moon… -XT ---
**Author:** ![straight\_man](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/straight_man/32/3027_2.png) [@straight\_man](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/straight_man)\ **Post date:** [July 27, 2010, 2:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wikileaks-and-guardian-leak-92-000-secret-documents-on-afghan-war/548033/97 "2010-07-27T02:41:08Z")
> [@xtisme](#): > > You seriously want me to prove a negative? You have 92000 documents…why don’t you show me a few that show that the wool has been pulled over our collective eyes?? I’m not sure why any self-respecting Doper would go trawling through ninety-two thousand documents when several solid news organizations have already done the [busy-work for us](http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/blog/2010/jul/26/afghanistan-war-logs-wikileaks). [QUOTE=The Guardian;] 7.49pm: If you want to know why these Afghanistan war logs are an important and, in some cases, devastating account, have a look at this excellent analysis of some of the records by Declan Walsh, into how US marines sanitised their account of a blooody rampage in which 19 civilians were killed: It started with a suicide bomb. On 4 March 2007 a convoy of US marines, who arrived in Afghanistan three weeks earlier, were hit by an explosives-rigged minivan outside the city of Jalalabad. The marines made a frenzied escape, opening fire with automatic weapons as they tore down a six-mile stretch of highway, hitting almost anyone in their way – teenage girls in fields, motorists in their cars, old men as they walked along the road. Nineteen unarmed civilians were killed and 50 wounded. None of this, however, was captured in the initial military account, written by the marines themselves. It simply says that, simultaneous to the suicide explosion, “the patrol received small arms fire from three directions”. [/QUOTE] [Different page](http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/jul/25/afghanistan-war-logs-military-leaks), summary: [QUOTE=The Guardian;] The logs detail, in sometimes harrowing vignettes, the toll on civilians exacted by coalition forces: events termed “blue on white” in military jargon. The logs reveal 144 such incidents. Some of these casualties come from the controversial air strikes that have led to Afghan government protests, but a large number of previously unknown incidents also appear to be the result of troops shooting unarmed drivers or motorcyclists out of a determination to protect themselves from suicide bombers. [/QUOTE] This is exactly the sort of information that the electorate has a right to know, that does not need to be classified. The military does not have some overwhelming right in America to hide embarrassing information by classifying it —nor do America’s elected officials have any business trying to keep the costs of their decisions from the public. After all, how can we judge the trustworthiness of our leadership, civilian or military, without knowing whether the things they say are _true_? There have been other examples of such relevant information earlier in this thread: the possession by the Taliban of heat-seeking missiles; the growth of the Taliban; etc. ---
**Author:** ![MOIDALIZE](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e274bd/32.png) [@MOIDALIZE](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MOIDALIZE)\ **Post date:** [July 27, 2010, 2:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wikileaks-and-guardian-leak-92-000-secret-documents-on-afghan-war/548033/98 "2010-07-27T02:43:26Z")
> [@xtisme](#): > > Why, no…I think we should get the fuck out as if our ass was on fire. However, I don’t see the need to endanger our troops as long as they are going to be there with information that aids the enemy while really telling us nothing we didn’t already know, save the details that we DON’T need to know. As with Iraq, I’ve become something of a fervent anti-war guy…if you want to howl at the government and scream to bring our troops home, I’m all for it. Let’s howl at the moon… > > -XT You can’t just blithely conclude that this information endangers the troops without explaining how. “\_\_\_\_\_ the troops” has become a cudgel to beat any dissenters over the head with. ---
**Author:** ![XT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/xt/32/456_2.png) [@XT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/XT)\ **Post date:** [July 27, 2010, 3:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wikileaks-and-guardian-leak-92-000-secret-documents-on-afghan-war/548033/99 "2010-07-27T03:01:27Z")
[QUOTE=straight man] I’m not sure why any self-respecting Doper would go trawling through ninety-two thousand documents when several solid news organizations have already done the busy-work for us. [/QUOTE] Nothing you quoted is particularly surprising, however. Civilians have been killed by US troops? Well, color me shocked. From your own cite: > [@](#): > > 1. I don’t think anyone who follows this issue will find it surprising that there are concerns about ISI and safe havens in Pakistan. In fact, we’ve said as much repeatedly and on the record. Attached please find a document with some relevant quotes from senior USG officials. > > 2. The period of time covered in these documents (January 2004-December 2009) is before the President announced his new strategy. Some of the disconcerting things reported are exactly why the President ordered a three month policy review and a change in strategy. > > 3. Note the interesting graphs (pasted below) from the Guardian’s wikileaks story. I think they help put these documents in context. > > 4. As you report on this issue, it’s worth noting that wikileaks is not an objective news outlet but rather an organization that opposes US policy in Afghanistan. While I concede that some a lot was white washed during the previous administration, nothing I’ve seen in the Guardian or NYT articles is particularly surprising from a big picture perspective…and a lot of it looks to me to detail a LOT about our tactics, patterns and other sensitive information. > [@](#): > > This is exactly the sort of information that the electorate has a right to know, that does not need to be classified. You think that the electorate has the ‘right’ to know details about how our troops move, what they do, and what tactics the enemy has employed that have or haven’t been particularly effective, ehe? > [@](#): > > The military does not have some overwhelming right in America to hide embarrassing information by classifying it —nor do America’s elected officials have any business trying to keep the costs of their decisions from the public. Nope, they don’t. Which is why we have civilian oversight on the military. Even during the Bush administration we found out all sorts of embarrassing information that was used to expose problems in the military and take corrective actions. But, ok…since the civilian government does indeed have oversight, what you are REALLY saying is that Obama and the Dems are now covering up for the military, correct? That in fact they are white washing the information and painting a false picture, and that this new information proves this…correct? Well, the answer is to vote the bastards out and get those nice gentlemen in the GOP back in office, ehe? 😛 > [@](#): > > There have been other examples of such relevant information earlier in this thread: the possession by the Taliban of heat-seeking missiles; the growth of the Taliban; etc. Not that I think the public needs to know what weapons the Taliban have or don’t have, but, gain, this isn’t particularly surprising either. The Taliban is growing? Really? I never would have known if they hadn’t leaked these sensitive documents! Well, maybe I would have, if I even watched the Military Channel once a week, since there have been plenty of shows discussing that very thing (and without releasing sensitive info!). I admit I hadn’t seen anything about the Taliban using heat seekers, but again, that’s not exactly a surprising turn of events, nor something that I particularly needed to know to realize things have been going south in Afghanistan for quite some time now. [QUOTE=MOIDALIZE] You can’t just blithely conclude that this information endangers the troops without explaining how. “\_\_\_\_\_ the troops” has become a cudgel to beat any dissenters over the head with. [/QUOTE] Seems obvious to me, and since others have already explained why I’m thinking I’ll just let you scroll up. If you are still unconvinced, all I can say is go back, re-read the Guardian or NYT article and consider what such logs would tell someone who is after some additional detail about the tactics or patterns being used by our soldiers, or how those heat seekers are working out… -XT ---
**Author:** ![MOIDALIZE](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e274bd/32.png) [@MOIDALIZE](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MOIDALIZE)\ **Post date:** [July 27, 2010, 3:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wikileaks-and-guardian-leak-92-000-secret-documents-on-afghan-war/548033/100 "2010-07-27T03:06:18Z")
> [@xtisme](#): > > [QUOTE=MOIDALIZE] > You can’t just blithely conclude that this information endangers the troops without explaining how. “\_\_\_\_\_ the troops” has become a cudgel to beat any dissenters over the head with. Seems obvious to me, and since others have already explained why I’m thinking I’ll just let you scroll up. If you are still unconvinced, all I can say is go back, re-read the Guardian or NYT article and consider what such logs would tell someone who is after some additional detail about the tactics or patterns being used by our soldiers, or how those heat seekers are working out… -XT [/QUOTE] Where does it say anything about the tactics of our soldiers? Unless you’re counting “blowing away civilians at a checkpoint” as tactics… How does knowledge that the Taliban possess heat-seeking missiles that they’re using against our choppers harm the troops? How is that in any way a secret? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wikileaks-and-guardian-leak-92-000-secret-documents-on-afghan-war/548033.md?page=4) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wikileaks-and-guardian-leak-92-000-secret-documents-on-afghan-war/548033.md?page=6)