You are correct, JDmysticDJ, that I don’t regard those who may simply have an
opinion that differs from mine disparagingly.  They didn’t create the problems I
catalogued.

As I see by your latest, you appear to agree with me that what Wikileaks did had
perhaps unintended, potentially dire and counterproductive consequences. 
That’s part of the problem of unauthorized spewing of raw intelligence. 
Behaving irresponsibly, whether inadvertently or not, should have
consequences.  Documents are classified for a reason.  Whether one agrees with
the rationale or not, it is debacles like this that illustrate why they are so
classified and why there are criminal penalties for disclosure violations.

There are other ways to register opposition to continued involvement in these
conflicts.  Jeopardizing intelligence sources - and possibly our troops - is not
one of them.

Having seen Admiral Mullen Head of the Joint Chiefs of Staff give an interview yesterday, I’m not sure if it was actual names that needed to be redacted, or if it was information that would identify those who provided the coalition forces with information that needed to be redacted. It was a heinous error in any case.

Blueboy 38

Sorry about the arrogate, I see that you were referring to the leakers, and not to others who supported the leaks, right?

Evidence I’ve seen indicates that the documents do contain the names of Afghanis who gave information to coalition forces, and that some are in Taliban controlled areas, where coalition forces can not assist them. The leakers truly are “Dolts” for releasing the documents without redacting the names; a serious screw-up to say the least. Whether Assange is guilty of being grossly stupid, or criminally negligent is unclear to me.

I still maintain that we wouldn’t be having this problem if we weren’t occupiers. Assange says the documents contain evidence of war crimes. I’m curious as to how this will play out in the final analysis, but its clear that releasing the documents without the names redacted was a heinous error.

Well, JDmysticDJ, i’ll state it again:  I was referring by the term “Dolts” specifically to the screw ups at Wikileak and their “Oops!” moment of including the names of intelligence sources - plus the criminal who gave them the classified information.  I never referred to anyone else by that term, and I don’t really appreciate your trying to imply, aver, state, arrogate the contrary;-)

No, sir,  the most important of any leaks is the
death of innocent human beings not the tangled web
betwenn Pakistan and our MIC.

  Gerard,, I have been naming ways for six months how
to traverse our economy from that of a military complex
to that of a manufacturing and agriculture economic
system…

and have been ridiculed by almost everyone on
TRUTH DIG,....including you !!!!!

Blueboy 1938

Promoted from “Dolts” to Folks,” thank you!

If the names of Afghani assets were included in the documents, then wikileaks is guilty of a grievous error, which could very well result in disastrous consequences for our Afghani allies.

Avoiding future potential atrocities of this sort, along with other atrocities associated with the U.S./Nato invasion could be avoided. All it would require is removing the U.S./Nato presence from that area of the world. Granted, removing the U.S./Nato presence from that area of the world, would not eliminate all future atrocities from that area of the world, but it would eliminate U.S./Nato from perpetrating atrocities, and aggravating the circumstances that instigate atrocities.

Unfortunately, atrocities have been occurring, on a regular basis, in Afghanistan, for over three decades now. I’ll argue that the responsibility for these long running atrocities is shared by many parties. My hope is that the U.S./Nato presence will be eliminated, thereby eliminating the U.S./Nato responsibility for future atrocities.

You state yourself that a prolonged presence is to be avoided, so why prolong the presence?

I’m guessing that we will have a difference of opinion on this issue. I’ll state my opinion that there won’t be a time in the future when the situation won’t be “dire,” as long as we have a presence in that area of the world, and that those who ascribe to U.S., (not so much Nato,) policy remind me of Richard Nixon’s policy of “Peace with Honor” during the Vietnam era. That policy failed to facilitate peace or honor.

It’s my reasoned belief that even if the U.S. were to achieve some semblance of a stability in Afghanistan, which I don’t believe is likely, the U.S. presence there would continue for “security” and other strategic geopolitical reasons (Read access to natural resources,) and that there would be no security or stability for that part of the world.

There are those radicals and absolute moralists that believe the U.S. presence in the Americas has no moral authority, the argument is easier made that the U.S. has no moral authority to have a military presence in that part of the world.  As I see it, the only morally acceptable presence for the U.S., in that part of the world would be diplomatic, and not one of military reinforced occupation.

OK, folks, let me try again:

Wikileaks and its source(s) committed apparently criminal acts that are likely to
have real consequences, namely the torture and/or death of intelligence
“assets” - who are, or were, living human beings who cooperated with NATO in
the conflict.

Loss of intelligence assets will set the war effort backward.

The Obama administration will not get US out of Afghanistan - or Iraq for that
matter - if the situation is dire.

So, even aside from the criminal acts committed, the results will be
counterproductive to the goal of ending US involvement.

Even Wikileaks admits that failing to redact the names of sources was
“unfortunate”.  Kind of their contribution to the tragic collateral damage count.

The loss of life, whether of those who are involved in the conflict on either side
or those who are not involved or who are there trying to cover the story or
rebuild the country, is disheartening.  It should be stopped as soon as it can be
and avoided to the extent possible under the present circumstances.  Exposing
our troops and our allies, as the named sources of intelligence in the published
reports have been called, is both criminal and foolishly counterproductive!

Blueboy 38

Are you concerned about Afghan allies? If you are; good for you, but I can’t help but wonder if your equally concerned about Afghan innocents. Let’s hope that we come to the aid of our Afghan allies, and help those in jeopardy avoid the dangers that may await them.

War is hell, if these wikileaks play a part in ending that hell, and saving lives, then they will have served a noble purpose.

I sincerely hope that the repercussions from releasing these documents will not be severe, and more similar to the repercussions of revealing Brewster Jennings, and not be the blood bath you believe will occur.

The circumstances are still unfolding; let’s hope the consequences of releasing these documents will be more positive than negative.

Blueboy1938 and his “dolts”:  As it is quite widely assumed these days that both starting the war in Iraq, and following up with starting the war in Afghanistan has been both illegal and more counterproductive than helpful, it would appear that there is something rather “doltish” about American foreign policy, yes?

Many educated people (and some uneducated ones) are now becoming aware that war itself is the problem—that modern wars have reached a point where they are self-defeating. What we have to do is stop them, stop trying to use them as foreign “policy” and rethink (re-feel) the entire human situation worldwide.  Ancient ideas of “conquest”, “force” and “domination” are proving to be failures.

Rather than the “end of time”, we have a chance to make it the “end of warring” and “exploitation”—a major shift in the history of the human race. Once new goals are set, new ways of thinking and feeling can develop—ways more appropriate to taking care of each other and of the planet. It’ll be a tight squeeze, but there is hope—at least I feel so (in my spiritual boots, so to speak).
  We will need the help of the rest of the world. To say this should be unnecessary, but American egotism being what it is, I feel that point must be spelled out. And we Americans are going to have to learn to listen to other ways and views. (Actually, we are more than a little stupid, as I found out in numerous trips abroad for extended periods.)

I repeat:

Reported today on the Los Angeles Times website (
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/politics/wire/sns-ap-us-afghanistan-wikileaks,0,2437923.story ):

“Britain’s Channel 4 News reported that in a telephone interview, a Taliban
spokesman named Zabihullah Mujahid said the Afghans named in the leaked
documents were being scrutinized. ‘We will investigate through our own secret
service whether the people mentioned are really spies working for the U.S. If
they are U.S. spies, then we know how to punish them,’ he is quoted as saying.”

As I have said before, this is not a game.  The real world consequences include the jeopardizing of intelligence sources in country.  These people are very likely to be killed and/or tortured.  Thanks a lot, Wikileaks and your unnamed source!

So the result will be to set back the war effort in incalculable fashion, which will make it harder for the administration to justify withdrawal.  Nice job, dolts!

gerard

“Necessity is the mother of invention” The necessity is that we end these immoral, stupid, and murderous wars now, before we waste additional billions, the invention can come later.

“We know that the Afghan conflict is complex and difficult, with a corrupt government in Kabul, a war-fighting policy that seems to alienate civilians while endangering our troops…”

Well isn’t it nice,it is now called “Afghan conflict”, why don’t you use the real word “Agression” which is more appropriate than sanitized “conflict”. And I’m sick and tired of hearing about “endangering our troops”, what is this a fucking summer camp in the woods, they are wearing uniforms and carrying weapons for fuck’s sake, they are in the army which happens to be engaged in a war.

If you think that Obama is any more a decent human being than Robert Strange McNamara, you are entirely mistaken.  Obama is possessed of the same dry, brittle, conscienceless, purely calculating and cunning kind of intelligence as McNamara.  Beyond what it takes to become president of this nation and its totally and hopelessly corrupt political system, Obama is nothing more than a heavily tattooed gang banger with a truly impressive and frightening arsenal of deadly weapons.

“A central principle of counterinsurgency warfare is that most conflicts are settled by negotiation and reconciliation rather than victory.”

Repeat. Repeat. Repeat.  A central principle of peace, large or small, is that “most conflicts are settled by negotiation and reconciliation.”

But ... negotiation and reconciliation would put the military-industrial complex and the Pentagon out of business and millions of people would be out of a job, either as workers or as fighters.

Please, everybody who thinks and writes for and in these columns, think about this issue and make suggestions as to how to forge the link that will get us from here to there.  What could the MIC do instead to provide jobs and make (less but cleaner) profits?  What could the Pentagon do to keep all that brass happy?  How can Government get free from the control of MIC and Pentagon pressures?

Somebody (or some group) has to come up with some step-by-step, practical suggestions and somebody else has to push them into public awareness—preferably a.s.a.p. Is it lack of imagination or lack of will, or both?