# 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:** 6
**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, 3:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wikileaks-and-guardian-leak-92-000-secret-documents-on-afghan-war/548033/101 "2010-07-27T03:06:34Z")
> [@MOIDALIZE](#): > > > [@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. The NYT is a liberal rag that’s essentially dropped all pretense of being anything other than that at this point. So you quoting their opinion on issues like this isn’t all that surprising or helpful. ---
**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, 3:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wikileaks-and-guardian-leak-92-000-secret-documents-on-afghan-war/548033/102 "2010-07-27T03:07:45Z")
Thank you, Randall. We’re all well aware that you’ve got nothing. ---
**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, 3:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wikileaks-and-guardian-leak-92-000-secret-documents-on-afghan-war/548033/103 "2010-07-27T03:10:07Z")
> [@MOIDALIZE](#): > > > [@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 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? [/QUOTE] You think perhaps the soldiers in the field know what weapons the Taliban and insurgents have. They are the first to know. This revelation is for the American citizens who don’t know anything the military doesn’t tell them. The military lies. they always have. This is not new. ---
**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, 3:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wikileaks-and-guardian-leak-92-000-secret-documents-on-afghan-war/548033/104 "2010-07-27T03:14:48Z")
> [@MOIDALIZE](#): > > Thank you, Randall. We’re all well aware that you’ve got nothing. Right. Lots of folks are posting in this thread about how the leaks were no big deal, and somehow I’m the one that’s got nothing. I’ve made zero unprovable assertions. ---
**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, 3:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wikileaks-and-guardian-leak-92-000-secret-documents-on-afghan-war/548033/105 "2010-07-27T03:16:02Z")
I won’t bother with a quote-by-quote response. However, our civilian oversight (in my case, the Harper government; in yours, the Obama administration) has a profound interest in making its decisions look rosier than they actually are. You’re right, the information is not all that shocking, in the details —but it does provide some information and insight that could easily change people’s opinions about the war. As for voting out the Democrats, that is an entirely legitimate response for Americans, sure\*. But how could they make that choice without knowing that they’re being misled? As for your concern about endangering the troops, I’ll let **MOIDALIZE** take you on. He doesn’t need any help. \*I wouldn’t, but I’m Canadian, so it’s not my problem. I could get on board with voting out Harper though. ---
**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, 3:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wikileaks-and-guardian-leak-92-000-secret-documents-on-afghan-war/548033/106 "2010-07-27T03:16:35Z")
[QUOTE=MOIDALIZE] Where does it say anything about the tactics of our soldiers? [/QUOTE] Because they are LOGS, that have details in them about what was happening, what the enemies response was, what we did about it, etc. Go and read the article, man. Seriously, did you think they classified this stuff on a whim? > [@](#): > > Unless you’re counting “blowing away civilians at a checkpoint” as tactics… If you seriously think that all the hoopla from 90k documents is simply prosaic BS like your quote here, then all I can say is…well, actually I don’t know what to say. > [@](#): > > How does knowledge that the Taliban possess heat-seeking missiles that they’re using against our choppers harm the troops? Because it details what effect they had on our systems, which, to the keen eyed Taliban might show them what they are doing wrong and how to correct the situation. If nothing else it will tell them whether or not to put their resources into getting more of the things, or whether their resources would be better spent doing something else to kill our troops. This all seems obvious to me, but I guess maybe it’s not? > [@](#): > > How is that in any way a secret? Let me turn this around, since essentially you’ve asked the same thing over and over and I’ve given why I think it is. Why do you think Obama and the Dems THINK these things should continue to be secrets? I mean, you read the part of the Guardian article I quoted that was the White Houses response. THEY seem to feel that these things should have remained secret. John Kerry is also quoted as feeling this was a pretty grave breach. Why? Just to cover up the military? Make Obama et al look good? -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, 3:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wikileaks-and-guardian-leak-92-000-secret-documents-on-afghan-war/548033/107 "2010-07-27T03:16:39Z")
nm ---
**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, 3:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wikileaks-and-guardian-leak-92-000-secret-documents-on-afghan-war/548033/108 "2010-07-27T03:21:30Z")
> [@xtisme](#): > > [QUOTE=MOIDALIZE] > > > [@](#): > > > > How does knowledge that the Taliban possess heat-seeking missiles that they’re using against our choppers harm the troops? > > Because it details what effect they had on our systems, which, to the keen eyed Taliban might show them what they are doing wrong and how to correct the situation. If nothing else it will tell them whether or not to put their resources into getting more of the things, or whether their resources would be better spent doing something else to kill our troops. > > This all seems obvious to me, but I guess maybe it’s not? [/QUOTE] What the hell are you talking about? This isn’t 11 dimensional chess. If they have a weapon, they can see for themselves if it works or not. They don’t need to read an account in the New York Times to conclude “Hey, these missiles are pretty effective!” ---
**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, 3:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wikileaks-and-guardian-leak-92-000-secret-documents-on-afghan-war/548033/109 "2010-07-27T03:24:40Z")
> [@xtisme](#): > > [QUOTE=MOIDALIZE] > Where does it say anything about the tactics of our soldiers? Because they are LOGS, that have details in them about what was happening, what the enemies response was, what we did about it, etc. Go and read the article, man. Seriously, did you think they classified this stuff on a whim? [/QUOTE] In many cases, yes. Point something out to me that provides damaging levels of access into the strategic or tactical mind of our military leadership. I’m not demanding it right this instant, but I’ll need something significant to conclude that the American people should not have access to this information. > [@](#): > > Let me turn this around, since essentially you’ve asked the same thing over and over and I’ve given why I think it is. Why do you think Obama and the Dems THINK these things should continue to be secrets? I mean, you read the part of the Guardian article I quoted that was the White Houses response. THEY seem to feel that these things should have remained secret. John Kerry is also quoted as feeling this was a pretty grave breach. Why? Just to cover up the military? Make Obama et al look good? > > -XT Yes! That’s precisely why. You really think the government is willingly going to provide the ugly truth about themselves? ---
**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, 3:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wikileaks-and-guardian-leak-92-000-secret-documents-on-afghan-war/548033/110 "2010-07-27T03:27:13Z")
[QUOTE=MOIDALIZE] If they have a weapon, they can see for themselves if it works or not. [/QUOTE] You shoot a missile. It hits the helicopter. It doesn’t kill it. Why? You shoot a missile, it misses the helicopter…why? You shoot a missile, another helicopter that you didn’t see blows you away, you never know what it does or doesn’t do because you are dog food… etc, etc etc. If you are a Taliban leader who didn’t personally shoot the weapon, or you are a Pakistani who is deciding on whether or not to ship more heat seekers or perhaps IED materials, this information might have some value, no? > [@](#): > > They don’t need to read an account in the New York Times to conclude “Hey, these missiles are pretty effective!” And they would just know this how exactly? Even assuming the shooters are actually making detailed reports back to their command and control system, and such reports are being widely disseminated (both of which are extremely unlikely), how the weapons operate from OUR perspective might be useful to the leader types, and certainly to other people who may not have access to all the detailed reports coming back from the field by the literate and earnest Taliban fighter types. -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, 3:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wikileaks-and-guardian-leak-92-000-secret-documents-on-afghan-war/548033/111 "2010-07-27T03:28:44Z")
Oh, and this is not especially a propos, but somebody asked earlier whether WikiLeaks would leak its own information. [Yes.](http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2009/02/wikileaks-force/) ---
**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, 3:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wikileaks-and-guardian-leak-92-000-secret-documents-on-afghan-war/548033/112 "2010-07-27T03:34:45Z")
> [@xtisme](#): > > [QUOTE=MOIDALIZE] > They don’t need to read an account in the New York Times to conclude “Hey, these missiles are pretty effective!” And they would just know this how exactly? -XT [/QUOTE] Gee, I don’t know…Maybe they could if the missile [knocks a helicopter out of the air and causes it to nosedive into the ground.](http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/afghanistan/7910482/Wikileaks-Afghanistan-Taliban-used-heat-seeker-missiles-against-Nato-helicopter.html) This explains how [heat-seeking missiles work](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infrared_homing), just in case you weren’t aware. ---
**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, 4:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wikileaks-and-guardian-leak-92-000-secret-documents-on-afghan-war/548033/113 "2010-07-27T04:38:28Z")
> [@xtisme](#): > > 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 I won’t be getting cracking on any such thing. I have made no assertions in this thread, thus I have nothing that I need to back up. Thus far you have made assertions, and when asked for cites, you present your ignorance and ask others to do your fact checking. ---
**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, 5:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wikileaks-and-guardian-leak-92-000-secret-documents-on-afghan-war/548033/114 "2010-07-27T05:03:17Z")
> [@Rand\_Rover](#): > > > [@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? What I’ve read of and about the documents so far. > [@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. While that may true, it’s also unrealistic to pretend this has no real world consequences. If 90 percent of the documents were unnecessarily made secret, that’s still thousands of now-public documents that might’ve been secret for a legit reason. Like several of us said upthread, the name of informants were published. Someone who was sufficiently dedicated could review the names and kill those people. Being an informant in Afghanistan is already risky, I am sure. I think the secrecy issue here is a really vital one and I am glad more information is public but we shouldn’t pretend there could not be any consequences. There are more options than just “this is like the D-Day location being leaked and the war will be lost” or “the military lied to keep all of this secret and none of it could possibly be used to harm anyone.” ---
**Author:** ![Declan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/ecae2f/32.png) [@Declan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Declan)\ **Post date:** [July 27, 2010, 6:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wikileaks-and-guardian-leak-92-000-secret-documents-on-afghan-war/548033/115 "2010-07-27T06:44:20Z")
[QUOTE=MOIDALIZE] 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? [/QUOTE] Heat seekers have been used in every conflict around the globe since the vietnam war, when the soviets and or chinese gave the NVA the SA-7 strela. The US and other powers gave Stingers, Redeyes,Blowpipes and probably knock off copies of the major weapons from the rest of the world to the original afgan resistance back in the eighties. Depending on when the report came out that the Taliban were using Heat seeking missiles, people are at least assuming it was the stinger. We were talking about it on the dope at least a couple of years ago, I remember a conversation with Airman Doors about the relative merits of the weapon and how the Taliban were likely to employ it. So if the report came out in 05 that someone was taking potshots at Allied helicopters with heat seekers, no big deal. They would have been in Taliban weapons caches and probably in the arms bazzares. If on the other hand , the reports were 09/10 vintage, then those missiles are newly supplied and someone is selling them, Pakistan, Iran and Russia come to mind. Its not that its anymore dangerous for the troops, than exists currently to acknowledge that the weapons are on the street so to speak. But it may be highly embarrassing for the folks who were extremely distressed to learn that a whole boat load of documents from the state department, that may have corralated evidence that the heat seekers were supplied to the Taliban, by Pakistan , who recieved those same missiles from the US aid. Declan ---
**Author:** ![VinylTurnip](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/v/b2d939/32.png) [@VinylTurnip](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/VinylTurnip)\ **Post date:** [July 27, 2010, 7:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wikileaks-and-guardian-leak-92-000-secret-documents-on-afghan-war/548033/116 "2010-07-27T07:12:52Z")
> [@xtisme](#): > > Seriously, did you think they classified this stuff on a whim? It’s a leading question, to which I will respond in kind: based on history, are you confident that the unilateral power of classification is always used to protect soldiers and national security, and never to conceal misdeeds and obfuscate unpleasant political truths? ---
**Author:** ![CoolHandCox](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/coolhandcox/32/16233_2.png) [@CoolHandCox](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CoolHandCox)\ **Post date:** [July 27, 2010, 8:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wikileaks-and-guardian-leak-92-000-secret-documents-on-afghan-war/548033/117 "2010-07-27T08:43:57Z")
> [@straight\_man](#): > > Oh, and this is not especially a propos, but somebody asked earlier whether WikiLeaks would leak its own information. > > [Yes.](http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2009/02/wikileaks-force/) That was me. Thanks, it answered my question. Your link showed WikiLeaks makes it money on donations and yet they leaked their own donor list. Donors were at risk. > [@xtisme](#): > > Seriously, did you think they classified this stuff on a whim? [re: the 92k documents leaked] I’ve seriously edited your previous post, but just wanted to answer this one question. If my editing was Moore’ish’ let me know. First, all information the Gov’t has is presumed _un_classified. Use FOIA, and it’s yours. However, classified info is off limits (for 10 years. But, if requested/granted, then no more than 25yrs max). I’ve learned/heard/been told though that when in doubt, err on the side of _classify_ (secrecy). I’m not saying that in an evil way, it’s just easier and less overall work in the long run to classify. Personally, I think most of what was classified (top secret, secret, classified) should have been. I’ve looked through (less than 100/out of 76k total, but they are sorted by "topic’) documents and it got really boring and I stopped and posted this. “_One detainee is sent to Bagram_” same report x1,000 “_Suspicious vehicle is looked at, it ultimately drives away with no incident_” same report x# ect, ect. What’s been reported in the NY Times (like 15-20 documents) is the absolute minimum of what’s interesting/reportable. I’m not sure why the they needed to leak 76k/92k documents. Donations will come with just what the Times reported on. I guess. Maybe it looks more damning with a big number. Should it be classified. Like you, I err on agree. However, it’s not earth shattering stuff. Personally, my winning, and I want to win, depends neither with or without this leak. [QUOTE=MOIDALIZE] 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? [/QUOTE] [Verse three of the flow] I agree. The enemy knows what weapon they are using (Stinger or it’s cousin) and know whether it in fact worked or not. The document releasing it’s use (see below), just reports what they already know. Now, **xtisme** , (I’m thinking) is saying not everyone, outside a small circle that fired it, knows that. But I dunno, just watch Charlie Wilson’s War…it’s the same weapon. Do the documents empower that use? I’ve read that document [here](http://wardiary.wikileaks.org/afg/event/2007/05/AFG20070530n650.html). If there’s more to it than that one document, let me know; seriously, I haven’t read everything. I just don’t see anything _in this one instance_ that’s being debated throughout this thread, that’s life or death for coalition forces in future situations. ---
**Author:** ![An\_Arky](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/87869e/32.png) [@An\_Arky](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/An_Arky)\ **Post date:** [July 27, 2010, 9:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wikileaks-and-guardian-leak-92-000-secret-documents-on-afghan-war/548033/118 "2010-07-27T09:58:07Z")
> [@Sam\_Stone](#): > > > [@An\_Arky](#): > > > > > [@Sam\_Stone](#): > > > > > > So you WOULD have been okay with leaking the existence of the enigma code in WWII? You’d be alright with Patton’s Calais force being exposed as a lie? > > > > That’s an easy mother’s skirt strawman to hide behind, The fact of the matter is that if our government’s activities are that easily exposed, then they should be, because that’s what our enemies can do. > > So the fact that it was exposed is justification for exposing it? It seems that’s what you’re saying. > > Nope. If it’s exposable, it’s already been exposed to our enemies. These leaks are only exposing our info to the only folks who didn’t know it - our own citizenry. > > > [@](#): > > > > In WWII, there was no internet, but there were segregated water fountains, so bleah. > > You completely lost me there. What does that have to do with anything at all? > > Well, your WWII example had little to do with anything here. This ain’t then. (note: my words - AA) > > > [@](#): > > > > We’re fucking around in places we shouldn’t be fucking around in, at a tremendous cost of lives and capital. I’m not willing to just give a nudge and a wink and trust the spooks, because they’re comitting equivalent atrocities to our supposed enemies. > > I think this is what it comes down to - you guys approve of these leaks because you don’t like the war. > > It’s interesting to contrast the difference in reaction between this and the leaking of Valerie Plame’s name, isn’t it? 92,000 pages of specific military information that could harm the war effort and get soldiers killed? Nothing to see here. But leaking the name of a CIA agent who was barely under cover and not even operating in a foreign country? TREASON! > > I think for some of you, any leak with furthers your goals is righteous and good. Any leak that benefits the other side of the partisan divide? Treasonous. Nope; I’m for honesty and openness. The fact of the matter is that we can no longer depend on some honor system/veil of secrecy to “protect” us, so there’s no use getting all bent out of shape anymore when that flimsy veil is drawn back. This is something that happens easily, and our methods must be able to withstand it. ---
**Author:** ![E-Sabbath](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/e19adc/32.png) [@E-Sabbath](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/E-Sabbath)\ **Post date:** [July 27, 2010, 10:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wikileaks-and-guardian-leak-92-000-secret-documents-on-afghan-war/548033/119 "2010-07-27T10:13:10Z")
And there are some things we knew were true, but wouldn’t officially admit. Like the Pakistan’s secret service’s relationship with the Taliban. It’s out in the open now. ---
**Author:** ![ivan\_astikov](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/58f4c7/32.png) [@ivan\_astikov](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ivan_astikov)\ **Post date:** [July 27, 2010, 10:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wikileaks-and-guardian-leak-92-000-secret-documents-on-afghan-war/548033/120 "2010-07-27T10:24:51Z")
Honestly, honesty is the best policy. And becoming as bad as the enemy in order to beat them, is totally counter-productive for the human race, but extremely beneficial for those with shares in The War Machine. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wikileaks-and-guardian-leak-92-000-secret-documents-on-afghan-war/548033.md?page=5) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wikileaks-and-guardian-leak-92-000-secret-documents-on-afghan-war/548033.md?page=7)