Wikileaks : Secret Afghanistan War logs

[Bhim]

So much so for the leaks, deliberate or accidental, but will this impact the operation in Afghanistan and will there be some form of strategic change in the working of NATO forces?
Now again Pakistan is in the world news for all evil, so what would Pakistan do to come out clean?
How will it prove to the world that the ISI is truly just a spy agency and not any terror spreading machinery?
I think by just rubbishing reports or questioning its authenticity or labeling it unreliable because it's from junior officers or that its not official or that the USA govt itself condemns the leak, will certainly not get the spy agency out of dock.
People will say look what we have been saying all along now comes with thousands of pages of proof all made public, now please can some one tell ISI to become the good guys, as we have suffered enough, we have had enough.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

So much so for the leaks, deliberate or accidental, but will this impact the operation in Afghanistan and will there be some form of strategic change in the working of NATO forces?
Now again Pakistan is in the world news for all evil, so what would Pakistan do to come out clean?
How will it prove to the world that the ISI is truly just a spy agency and not any terror spreading machinery?
I think by just rubbishing reports or questioning its authenticity or labeling it unreliable because it's from junior officers or that its not official or that the USA govt itself condemns the leak, will certainly not get the spy agency out of dock.
People will say look what we have been saying all along now comes with thousands of pages of proof all made public, now please can some one tell ISI to become the good guys, as we have suffered enough, we have had enough.

At the end of the day the greatest impact on Pakistan will be from the position other nations/governments take with respect to Pakistan, not how the media deals with Pakistan (though changing that narrative in the long run is important as well).

And from the excerpts in my last few posts, it is clear that the governments that matter already acknowledge the fact that most of these reports accusing the ISI are rubbish and distorted. This is also supported by the fact that the US continues to provide military and civilian aid to Pakistan and cooperate extensively with it.

So the ISI does not 'have to become a good guy' since it already is, and nothing in these leaks is evidence to the contrary, as admitted in the excerpts posted earlier by me.

 

[somebozo]

Well if ISI is plundered to death in its Taliban saga then it could also point towards CIA involement and funding. Much of these drums beaten about ISI were allegedly done in full compliance with uncle sam.

The CIA very much also operates in secret from american "civilian surveillance". Funding and arming forigen millitia and dissidents, drug trafficking and smuggling to raise its own finances. Even the drone attacks by CIA in PAK are completely different and secret program parallel to offical WOT.

So I must say if ISI is corrupt it only learned it from CIA.

 

[aakalim]

Another important thing to consider is the time frame that these reports cover. Even if we accept, for the sake of argument that these reports are credible (which they don't seem to be), the fact is that most of these reports are "outdated", and cannot be used to doubt Pakistan's existing effort and commitment to this war.

US lawmaker says leaks paint 'outdated' Pakistan picture ​

Monday, 26 Jul, 2010

WASHINGTON: A top White House ally in the US Congress warned Monday against judging Pakistan's role in the Afghan war by “outdated reports” in a massive cache of leaked Pentagon documents on the conflict.

“Some of these documents implicate Pakistan in aiding the Taliban and fueling the insurgency in Afghanistan,” House Armed Services Committee Chairman Ike Skelton, a Democrat, said in a statement.

“It is critical that we not use outdated reports to paint a picture of the cooperation of Pakistan in our efforts in Afghanistan,” he stressed, adding that Pakistan had “significantly stepped up its fight against the Taliban.”

"While we still have concerns about Pakistan's efforts against the Afghan Taliban, there is no doubt that there have been significant improvements in its overall effort," said Skelton.

The lawmaker also slammed the whistleblowing website Wikileaks for “recklessness” in making public the roughly 92,000 Pentagon files and field reports, billed as perhaps the largest leak in US military history.

“Our nation's secrets are classified for a reason, and the release of classified documents could put our national security-and the lives of our men and women in combat-at serious risk,” Skelton said in a statement.

At the same time, Skelton said the “troubling” documents seemed to support his criticisms of the war effort since it began in late 2001, but insisted US President Barack Obama's troop “surge,” announced in December 2009, would right the faltering campaign.

“Under the new counterinsurgency strategy implemented earlier this year, we now have the pieces in place to turn things around. These leaked reports pre-date our new strategy in Afghanistan and should not be used as a measure of success or a determining factor in our continued mission there,” said Skelton. -AFP

 

[Jigs]

Robert Gibbs just had a presser at the White House over the articles. I don't think the WH is too happy atm with this leak.

---------- Post added at 11:08 AM ---------- Previous post was at 11:07 AM ----------

Gibbs: Document disclosure is 'breach of federal law' - The Oval: Tracking the Obama presidency


Gibbs: Document disclosure is 'breach of federal law'


White House spokesman Robert Gibbs condemned the release of classified documents on the Afghanistan war today, calling it a "breach of federal law" that is the subject of "an ongoing investigation."

Gibbs declined to discuss details of the investigation. He did say that the administration learned late last week that certain documents would become public Sunday night.

The release of some 92,000 "top secret" documents could pose a danger to troops and threaten "operational security," Gibbs said.

There are no new major revelations in the documents, Gibbs added, but the details of specific operations and names of local citizens who are helping the U.S. and its allies has "the potential to do harm."

Gibbs also said the documents do not reflect the progress the U.S. has made with Pakistan, which is often accused of assisting the Taliban insurgents in Afghanistan. The White House spokesman said Pakistan is working to forbid "safe havens" for terrorists.

As National Security Adviser Jim Jones did last night, Gibbs also pointed out that the documents end in December of 2009, right before President Obama unveiled a new strategy for the Afghanistan/Pakistan theater of war.

"We have certainly known about safe havens in Pakistan," Gibbs said. "We have been concerned about civilian casualties for quite some time. And on both of those aspects, we've taken steps to make improvements."

The New York Times, one of the media organizations that initially published the documents first released on the WikiLeaks website said in a statement that the information is in the public interest.

"The documents illuminate the extraordinary difficulty of what the United States and its allies have undertaken in a way that other accounts have not," the Times said. It added that it "has taken care not to publish information that would harm national security interests."

Gibbs said The New York Times acted responsibly, and was much more critical of the WikiLeaks website, which opposes the Afghanistan war.

"WikiLeaks published the documents," Gibbs said. He declined to say whether the federal investigation includes WikiLeaks, which has previously disclosed classified information related to the Afghanistan war.

"There is an ongoing investigation that predated the end of last week into leaks of highly classified secret documents," he said.

Rep. Ike Skelton, D-Mo., who chairs the House Armed Services Committee, also criticized the leak, but added that many of the documents "appear to support what I was asserting for years: the war in Afghanistan was not going well, and we needed a real strategy for success."

He added that "for nearly a decade under the previous administration (of George W. Bush), our brave war fighters were under-resourced and lacked the direction of a clear strategy."

 

[muse]

The US policy is in doldrums but the problem on our side is that there are people in the policy making circles, not just the conservative population, who seem to rejoice and celebrate their problems in the region. We can, and should of course have difference of opinion and policy on a wide range of issues keeping in mind our objectives and goals. However, in the larger scheme of affairs, it is outright ridiculous to assume that an unstable Afghanistan and a confused US will be somehow beneficial for us in the region.

Sparlingway



While it is true that some rejoice at US confusion and that this is unhelpful attitude, we should also be mindful that US policy does not come from some burning bush or cave in Mecca -- that a policy, fundamentally flawed, mean spirited and malevolent not towards a single country but an entire region and particular religious sensibility, should be exposed is a net positive -- I think we should keep in mind that policy should be understood and meet with general approval so that it can be assured some measure of success - by your own contention, US policy falls short -- WHY does it continue to fall short after now close to 10 years?? What is it about the policy that causes such consternation among stakeholders? Why in the face of failure does it persist??

I'm sure you will agree that a sure sign of fanatics is that in the face of evidence that their theories does not pass testing, they opt to change not their theories but the results of the testing of that theory - isn't US policy an example of the above?

Some imagine that criticism means negation of the positive role the US could and ought to play - this is not the case with the opinion I am offering.

An unstable Afghanistan is not in the interest of any nation state "in the region" (which country involved in this mess is not of the region and does not have any direct interests?) -- What are US interests in Afghanistan? Why should these trump the interests of all others?? How will these "others" react to such an arrogant approach? How have the internal stakeholders and rivals reacted to this policy? How is it that after 10 years the US government in Kabul, the propaganda organs broadcasting out of Eastern Europe (Radio Liberty) and official govt statements have continued to spew venom against their neighbors??

Some take it for granted that US policy makers offer varied opinions and therefore the notion that fanatics form and run this policy is nonsensical -- and yet, look at the policy ten years on - please lets be real, yes, the US, like any other country, has a diverse population and interest groups - but has changed in their policy in the last 10 years?? Has the arena they have chosen as their venue for conflict not increased?? We all recognized that the US must have fundamentally different relations with Muslim majority countries, that this is in the basic self interest of the US and Muslim majority countries - And yet, what fundamental changes can we point to in this regard?? - Seems to me it's not possible to deny that there is a "structural" inability, a structural impediment within US policy making circles - after all, just which Muslim majority country does the US have any kind of meaningful relations with? That this bodes ill for
The US and for Muslim majority countries goes without saying.

That US policy is in doldrums is a understatement, which is why we have suggested that the US citizen, voter, must become involved - it simply will not do, for much longer, to govern a great republic through the creation of fear and the spreading of venom against particular religious and ethnic groups. If some see this as rejoicing at US "confusion" - then perhaps we have to suffer this slur even as we continue to hope that greater numbers of US citizenry will seek to become engaged, informed and to voice their concern -- the longer this goes on, the longer questions are not raised about policy and policy makers, the greater the danger to US and to those who see the US as a possible positive force in the world.

The point has also been made that the same needs to be applied to Pakistan policy -- certainly, of course, but lets not lose sight of the fact that Pakistani policy is not what is driving events, it is US policy (whatever it may be) and that Pakistani policy ought to be seen in that light.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

I think it is interesting the Gibbs couched administration concerns about ISI-Taliban links in terms of 'concerns over safe havens' rather than in terms of 'material support and planning', but I think he was nonetheless evasive enough in terms of not pointing out the speculative and distorted nature of many of these reports to sustain the argument that the US administration publicly continues to be duplicitous and lie about events in Afghanistan and Pakistan to pressure Pakistan.

 

[Haywards 5000]

WHOLE PICTURE.....

America want pakistan to do more against taliban
India enter into Afghanistan under american umbrella
ISI dont like this...So it start playing double game..and start helping taliban
ISI helping taliban to through america out slowly slowly...
Because pak need weapons and aid...and after pak get the weapon,it will used against India after american pull out of afganistan....
DONT THINK IM TROLLING
CHECK OUT YOUTUBE
General Hamid Gul with Ahmed

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

WHOLE PICTURE.....

America want pakistan to do more against taliban
India enter into Afghanistan under american umbrella
ISI dont like this...So it start playing double game..and start helping taliban
ISI helping taliban to through america out slowly slowly...
Because pak need weapons and aid...and after pak get the weapon,it will used against India after american pull out of afganistan....
DONT THINK IM TROLLING
CHECK OUT YOUTUBE
General Hamid Gul with Ahmed

And so goes the rant and conspiracy theories against Pakistan, and people say Pakistanis are obsessed with conspiracy theories....

Hamid Gul has been out of service for decades - nothing he says has relevance from the perspective of official policy.

 

[fawwaxs]

BBC guy to Hamid Gul: "why do you get mentioned so often in such reports?" Gul: "because I keep exposing them [CIA]"

 

[fawwaxs]

watch Hamid Gul talk about the wikileaks allegations

 

[Storm Force]

WAT BLOODY MESS THIS USA WOT AFGHAN/ PAKISTAN has become.

I cant see this ending ever.

 

[H2O3C4Nitrogen]

Come on Uncle Sam have some balls and talk it over with the Russians instead of finding scapegoats .. !!!

 

[Jigs]

 

[H2O3C4Nitrogen]

I think it is interesting the Gibbs couched administration concerns about ISI-Taliban links in terms of 'concerns over safe havens' rather than in terms of 'material support and planning', but I think he was nonetheless evasive enough in terms of not pointing out the speculative and distorted nature of many of these reports to sustain the argument that the US administration publicly continues to be duplicitous and lie about events in Afghanistan and Pakistan to pressure Pakistan.

Infact this is the sole purpose, they want to have the stick in there hand.. !
Frankly these pressure tactics every now and then havent prooved fruitful to US. But still the purpose is not clear, why so much documents being leaked at such a pivotol point .. they could be deliberative and could not be either, The fact that all these loud speakers like NYT,Gurdian,BBC etc etc filtered out reports highlighting ISI's duplicity point to nothing but lame pressure tactics to force Pakistani counterparts to become part of policy descition which is either being agreed upon or is in the construction phase.

However in case if Pakistan dosent complies then what choices Obama admin has :

1. Declare Pakistan a terrorist state and expand a conventional war into its borders with the help of Indians
2. Peacefully negotiate the minimum bargains they can get and pull out with honor and dignity which has been blown away.

I dough the yanks have good intentions.