WikiLeaks Does It Again.

[longfisher]

I'd be interested in your opinions of the disclosures by Wikileaks of 90,000 documents, primarily diplomatic cables and military situation reports, describing the situation in Afghanistan.

I don't see much new revealed as what's being described currently is pretty much in line with other public reporting that was already out there. That coupled with the fact that Americans as individuals have very little skin in the game, except for the military families that is, makes me believe these disclosures are going to have minimal impact on public opinion about the war. But I could be wrong.

A couple of things are clear and perhaps surprising from the cables. Firstly, OBL remains VERY active in the war unlike the picture we're so often presented of him hiding in a cave.

Secondly, although the Taliban appear to be killing a far larger number of civilians in Afghanistan and NATO forces, the population's loyalty to the Taliban or to the unaligned indigenous militias arrayed against the U.S. remains unexpectedly high. Somehow, the NATO killings of innocents is reviled, whereas, the Taliban's killing of innocents (mostly via IEDs) is by the citizenry chalked up to the necessary cost of ridding the country of invaders.

Thirdly, the war is going badly to very badly. Even Mullen recently said it's going badly and is going to get far worse this summer before it gets better.

Lastly, EIDs are causing a terrific toll on both NATO troops and civilians alike. Moreover, the effort to detect and disarm the IEDs is only partially successfuly with more successful IED attacks than IEDs detected and rendered harmless either by detonation or disarming.

Looks like the IED is a weapon that's not going to be defeated.

Curiously, Wikileaks only released documents that pre-date Obama's inauguration. We can all speculate as to why, but, Wikileaks says it was in order to not divulge information so recent as to endanger ongoing operations, future plans and the indentities of informants. Hmmm...pretty weak here I think.

Anyway, I'd like to hear your opinions of the revelations from these documents. I'm less interested in hearing attacks on the publisher of the leaks as that's not particularly relevant. Attacking the messenger seldom is unless it's an attempt to guide the disucssion away from the meat of the disclosures, the damning cables and reports.

LongFisher

[seapower]

Treason = Execution. Frank

[clt_capt]

Treason = Execution. Frank

Agreed...


The name of the book Obama is reading is called:

The Post-American World, and it was written by a fellow Muslim.

"Post" America means the world After America ! Please forward this picture to everyone you know,
conservative or liberal. We must expose Obama's radical ideas and his intent to bring down our beloved America !

[longfisher]

Treason = Execution. Frank

Frank, whom do you believe is guilty of treason? The guy who runs Wikileaks is Australian. American laws of treason apply to Americans. Therefore, by definition, the guy who runs Wikileaks is not guilty of treason against America.

Are you referring to the source of the leaks, the Army enlisted man (I forget his name but I think it's Manning?)?

LongFisher

[longfisher]

Agreed...


The name of the book Obama is reading is called:

The Post-American World, and it was written by a fellow Muslim.

"Post" America means the world After America ! Please forward this picture to everyone you know,
conservative or liberal. We must expose Obama's radical ideas and his intent to bring down our beloved America !

Patton studied the books of Rommel, the Desert Fox.

Churchill read Hitler's Mien Kampf (spelling?).

I read the writings of the Bush-era neoconservatives, the narrative of which was carried out with greatest fealty by Bush, et. al., in their invasions of the ME.

None of those readers agreed with or supported the views of those authors. What's wrong with reading the works of one's enemy or one's detractor?

Someone doing so is insufficient evidence of the treason of which you accuse Obama. Making that accussation makes no more sense than to accuse Churchill and Patton of the same thing...that is no sense at all.

Furthermore, if I were to get a copy of G. W. Bush's reading list beyond My Pet Goat, I'm sure you'd accuse him similarly. Here's some excerpts from G. W.'s reading list (see link here: http://www.omnivoracious.com/2009/01...ding-list.html)

Ghengis Khan and the Making of the Modern World by Jack Weatherford

Khrushchev's Cold War by Aleksandr Fursenko and Timothy Naftali

Rogue Regime: Kim Jong Il and the Looming Threat of North Korea by Jasper Becker

The Shia Revival by Vali Nasr

You see, G. W. Bush also read books that by your apparent standard would make him treasonous.

It's better to be able to discern the rattle of the rattlesnake than not, don't you agree?

But if you want to know something really interesting about reading lists of presidents, the very last book known to have been read by G. W. Bush during his presidency is titled Prisoner Without a Name, Cell Without a Number. I can't help but wonder if he was looking longingly at his checkered past and the incredible torture he'd committed against detainees replete with "ghost detainees" or if he was looking forward to his own predicament if Obama did what many of us wanted him to do, prosecute Bush, et. al.

What do you think?

LongFisher

[marine4003]

I dont get it, you want comments on the documents,but no comments on the Guy who stole them? so this guy hacks into classified sites and then releases these documents,most of which are memo's and reports from people out in the field, or even desk jockeys. All of whom are trying to do there job in a bad situation.as for the accuracy of these "documents" well, thats up for debate, in the field,when asked by superiors for a sitrep, most are given to report the good news first,then gloss over the bad,again, accuracy.Then the "killing of civilians" that ones a blast, in the ME, sand fleas always use civilians as cover,that way when one gets killed, the media rises to the occasion and reports on the brutality of the NATO forces,propaganda.You cant comment on one and not the other.As for Frank calling it treason..actually this "journalist" committed an act of war against the USA,same as if he broke into the Pentagon and stole those documents.I hope he is caught and prosecuted by a military tribunal,then hanged.

[longfisher]

Good point Marine..., I didn't mean to excluse comments or even condemnations of the leaker, but my text suggested exactly that.

I meant to say let's not waste our time on the guy who published the leaked materials, the Aussie at Wikileaks. Actually, he didn't even publish them. He let the Washington Post, Guardian and another paper that escapes my mind do so.

I was just trying to exclude extensive discussions on the Wikileaks guy as it would be irrlevant to the important information in the cables and reports.

Sorry. Thanks for catching my slip up.

Besides, it's not been established yet that Manning did the leaking of the documents and he's in military custody right now. I'll add that he bragged that he'd transferred some 200,000 plus document to Wikileaks. So, it's not ridiculous to assume he might be guilty of it, I'll admit.

LongFisher

[clt_capt]

your apparent standard

I obviously have no standards - I'll engage in meaningless tripe with you...



If your opponent is of choleric temper, seek to irritate him.
Pretend to be weak, that he may grow arrogant.

[longfisher]

There was a post, momentarily viewable, on this thread in which a poster who had apparently read the book and dated the photo said something to the effect that the pic was 2.5 years old and that the book pertained to the rise of India and China.

That poster also said that although he was no particular fan of Obama the right-wing nut-case stuff was pretty darned scary too.

Post gone. Pity.

LongFihser

[mvsusaf]

Longfisher:
I am hearing on the various news shows that the documents run through DEC 09. This would include the first eleven and a half months of the Obama administration.