Difference between revisions of "Afghan War Diary (public reaction)"

Latest revision as of 11:10, 4 December 2010

See main article Afghan War Diary

Other than the raw data, the primary source of information for the majority of consumers of information from WikiLeaks has been media sources, government and non-government organizations.

Commentary[edit]

Significance of the disclosure[edit]

Wikileaks[edit]

Wikileaks editor Julian Assange said "it is the most comprehensive history of a war ever to be published, during the course of the war".^[1] He compared the release of the war logs with the release of the Pentagon Papers in the 1970s.^[1][2] In an interview with Der Spiegel, Assange said that he believed the release would "change public opinion", and said that "we understand why it is important to protect certain U.S. and ISAF sources." He added that "the most dangerous men are those who are in charge of war. And they need to be stopped."^[3] Assange also claimed that the files "suggest thousands of war crimes."^[4]

News organisations given advanced access to the documents[edit]

The New York Times[edit]

The New York Times described the war logs as "a six-year archive of classified military documents [that] offers an unvarnished and grim picture of the Afghan war".

On the decision to publish, they stated:

"Deciding whether to publish secret information is always difficult, and after weighing the risks and public interest, we sometimes chose not to publish. But there are times when the information is of significant public interest, and this is one of those times. The documents illuminate the extraordinary difficulty of what the United States and its allies have undertaken in a way that other accounts have not.

Most of the incident reports are marked "secret", a relatively low level of classification. The Times has taken care not to publish information that would harm national security interests. The Times and the other news organizations agreed at the outset that we would not disclose—either in our articles or any of our online supplementary material—anything that was likely to put lives at risk or jeopardize military or antiterrorist operations. We have, for example, withheld any names of operatives in the field and informants cited in the reports".^[5]

The Guardian[edit]

The Guardian called the material "one of the biggest leaks in U.S. military history ... a devastating portrait of the failing war in Afghanistan, revealing how coalition forces have killed hundreds of civilians in unreported incidents, Taliban attacks have soared and NATO commanders fear neighbouring Pakistan and Iran are fuelling the insurgency".^[6]

The Guardian also reported that Daniel Ellsberg has described the disclosure as on the scale of his leaking of the Pentagon Papers in 1971 revealing how the U.S. public was misled about the Vietnam War.^[7]

Der Spiegel[edit]

Der Spiegel wrote that "the editors in chief of Spiegel, The New York Times and the Guardian were 'unanimous in their belief that there is a justified public interest in the materialTemplate:' ".^[8]

Other views[edit]

United States military[edit]

US Army officials condemned the public dissimination of military secrets and the White House urged the website WikiLeaks to not publish any more classified documents related to the Afghan war.^[9][10] U.S. Defense Secretary Robert Gates said that it is up to the Justice Department to determine if there would be criminal charges in the release of classified military documents by WikiLeaks, but the website was "morally guilty for putting lives at risk".^[11]

On 6 August 2010, U.S. military authorities urged Wikileaks to return the already published 70.000 documents, and the other 15,000 records the website was expected to post soon as well, which contained sensitive details of Afghans who had assisted ISAF forces. Pentagon spokesman Geoff Morrell said "If doing the right thing is not good enough for them, then we will figure out what alternatives we have to compel them to do the right thing."^{[12][13][14][15]} On 7 August 2010, spokesman "Daniel Schmitt" said that Wikileaks would continue to publish secret files from governments around the world despite the U.S. demands to cancel plans for further release, claiming that this directly contributed to the public's understanding of the conflict and rejecting allegations that the publication was a threat to America's national security or put lives at risk.^[16]

Afghan authorities[edit]

According to a statement by Rangin Dadfar Spanta, security advisor of the Afghan government and former Minister of Foreign Affairs, the allies of Afghanistan had failed to pay necessary attention to prevent the support for international terrorism and to eliminate its hideouts and centres that can create a major threat to security and stability in the region. "The content of these documents reveal that Afghanistan has been righteous in its stance about the rise of terrorism and political and military discrepancies in counter-terrorism struggle".^[17]

Council on Foreign Relations[edit]

Daniel Markey, a senior fellow with the Council on Foreign Relations and former South Asia analyst for the Bush administration, said, "Whether WikiLeaks uncovered anything new isn't actually important â€“ it's on the front page of every newspaper in the country; the media is now focused on Afghanistan, and that makes it a big deal. [...] The public is now more skeptical about the administration's strategy in Afghanistan than they were last week, and that makes it real."^[18]

Los Angeles Times[edit]

An editorial in the Los Angeles Times stated that comparisons to the Pentagon Papers was an exaggeration as the documents lacked the policy implications of the papers, but that "no democracy can or should fight a war without the consent of its people, and that consent is only meaningful if it is predicated on real information".^[19] The LA Times did seem to indicate the documents have parallels with the Pentagon Papers in being published during a subsequent administration "the documents offer insight primarily into the war-fighting of the recently departed George W. Bush administration; the Pentagon Papers ended with the Johnson administration and were not published until Richard Nixon was president."^[19]

The Washington Post[edit]

An Editorial in The Washington Post stated "they hardly provide a secret history of the war or disclose previously unknown malfeasance" and that "tends to fill out and confirm the narrative of Afghanistan between 2004 and 2009 that most Americans are already familiar with."^[20] The Post commented that it hardly merited the media hype and was not comparable to the Pentagon Papers or the MfS files^[20] The editorial argued Wikileaks' founder revealed his organization's antiwar agenda by making the claim it contained evidence for war crimes prosecutions.^[20]

Foreign Policy[edit]

Blake Hounshell wrote in his blog on Foreign Policy that, after reading "selected documents", he believed that there is less new information in the documents than The New York Times, The Guardian, and Der Spiegel were reporting.^[21] Hounshell indicated how careful both The Guardian and The New York Times were to note "the raw reports in the Wikileaks archive often seem poorly sourced and present implausible information."^[21] Commenting on the significance of the documents:

I'd say that so far the documents confirm what we already know about the war: It's going badly; Pakistan is not the world's greatest ally and is probably playing a double game; coalition forces have been responsible for far too many civilian casualties; and the United States doesn't have very reliable intelligence in Afghanistan.^[21]

Legality of the disclosure[edit]

Ann Woolner wrote in an editorial in the Bloomberg publication that Wikileaks' publication of the documents is legally allowed in the United States because the group did not solicit the documents.^[22] Asking someone to leak secret information, "with intent or reason to believe that the information to be obtained is to be used to the injury of the United States",^[23] would violate the United States' Espionage Act of 1917 In violation of the post-WW1 accord signed into law by then President Woodrow Wilson.^[23][24]

Reactions[edit]

Template:country data EU An official from the European Union has told The Associated Press "that the organization 'wants to stay as far from this as possible.Template:' "^[25]

Template:country data Afghanistan While the Afghan government has stated that the majority of the leaked documents did not comprise new information, it has expressed concern over both Pakistan's connection with the Taliban and the United States' involvement in their funding:Template:Citation needed Siamak Herawi, deputy spokesman for the office of the President,^[26] stated, "There should be serious action taken against the Inter-Services Intelligence, who has a direct connection with the terrorists. These reports show that the U.S. was already aware of the ISI connection with the al Qaeda terrorist network. The United States is overdue on the ISI issue, and now the United States should answer."^[27]

Template:country data Australia Australian Prime Minister Julia Gillard has stated that the Department of Defence will investigate the content of the leaks to examine what the implications are for Australia which had 1,500 troops deployed in Afghanistan.^[28] This investigation concluded in October 2010 and found that the leaked documents "had not had a direct significant adverse impact on Australia's national interests".^[29]

Template:country data Canada The Canadian Minister of Foreign Affairs Lawrence Cannon said the leak could endanger Canadian troops.^[30] Canada also disputed one of the records, saying it inaccurately described an incident as friendly fire.^[31]

Another document suggests that a Canadian was among the casualties in a helicopter that was destroyed by heat-seeking missiles. The document indicates that the U.S. wanted Canada to put pressure on Saudi Arabia and South Africa, where the U.S. believed Taliban fundraising was taking place.^[25] The documents claim that American diplomats spoke with two senior Canadian Foreign Affairs officials in their appeal for the Canadian government to join the U.S. government in issuing a joint diplomatic rebuke to Saudi Arabia and South Africa. The documents also allege that Canada was asked to rebuke the United Arab Emirates independently over alleged militant fundraising.^[32]

One document suggests that a Canadian C-130 Hercules was hit with an anti-aircraft weapon fired by the Taliban during takeoff. The document states that the C-130's landing gear and some of its fuselage was destroyed by a 14.5 mm round as the aircraft departed from the western province of Farah, with the report stating, "It is unusual that insurgents would engage aircraft in such close proximity to an airfield with a weapon of this caliber." The documents also say that a number of Canadian unmanned drones have crashed and that in one instance, locals removed a vehicle's technology before soldiers could recover it.^[33]

Cannon refused to comment on the documents, saying that they had "nothing to do with Canada" and denied the Canadian government was misleading its citizens on the war in Afghanistan.^[32] New Democratic Party leader Jack Layton said that the documents "undermines the confidence" Canadian citizens have in their government and called on politicians to "get to the bottom of" the situation regarding the friendly fire report.^[34]

Template:country data Germany The German government has stated that the documents could place its 4,600 troops in danger, and condemns their release.^[35] During a meeting in Brussels, Guido Westerwelle, the German Minister for Foreign Affairs, has suggested that the entirety should be "carefully examined, to see what possible new revelations there might be".^[36] In general, the government "has shown little alarm over the release of the documents", with a spokesman from the Federal Ministry of Defence stating that there was "nothing newsworthy"; however, opposition party The Greens welcomed the release of the files, with Claudia Roth stating that "[the] Wikileaks documents prove just how dramatic the situation in Afghanistan is", and "show the lengths the allies are prepared to go to in their fight for more stability."^[36]

The Greens also showed distrust in the federal government over the lack of disclosure of U.S. special forces activities in German-controlled areas. Omid Nouripour, the security spokesman for the party, said, "On our reading of the U.S. documents, it is disturbing how little the federal government has informed the parliament about the activities of American special forces in German areas. We demand an immediate explanation from the federal government as to what they know about the missions. We will push with all force for answers."^[35]

Template:country data India The Ministry of External Affairs said:^[37]

"We have seen media reports about classified information, supposedly from US government sources, put out in public domain, on support to terrorism by ISI - Pakistan's military intelligence agency. Sponsorship of terrorism, as an instrument of policy, is wholly condemnable and must cease forthwith. The utilisation of territory under Pakistan's control to provide sanctuaries for recruiting and sustaining terrorist groups, and to direct terrorist activity against neighbors, must stop if our region is to attain its full potential for peaceful development."

Template:country data Pakistan Pakistani President Asif Ali Zardari announced via spokesman Farhatullah Babar that allegations about ISI's involvement "have been regurgitated in the past. Also, these represent low-level intelligence reports and do not represent a convincing smoking gun. I do not see any convincing evidence." The spokesman continued rhetorically, asking if "those who are alleging that Pakistan is playing a double game are also asserting that President Zardari is presiding over an apparatus that is coordinating attacks on the general headquarters, mosques, shrines, schools and killing Pakistani citizens?"^[38] Pakistan's ambassador to the United States Husain Haqqani on Sunday denounced the leak of secret files calling them as “irresponsible,” saying it consisted of “unprocessed” reports from the field. “The documents circulated by Wikileaks do not reflect the current onground realities,” he said in a statement.^[39]

A senior ISI official denied the allegations, saying they were from raw intelligence reports that had not been verified and were meant to impugn the reputation of the spy agency. He spoke on condition of anonymity in line with the agency's policy. Former ISI Chief Hamid Gul, who headed the agency in the late 1980s when Pakistan and the U.S. were supporting militants in their fight against the Soviets in Afghanistan, denied the allegations that he was working with the Taliban, saying "these leaked documents against me are fiction and nothing else."^[40]

Politicians and defence analysts critically commented on leaks and the western media in using the ISI card while not highlighting most of the civilian casualties resulting from bombing of NATO forces like how U.S. special forces dropped six 2,000 lb bombs on a compound where they believed a “high-value individual” was hiding, after “ensuring there were no innocent Afghans in the surrounding area”. In fact, up to 300 civilians had died in those attacks.^[41]

Template:country data United Kingdom On July 28, Britain announced that it would launch two new inquiries into the country's role in the war. A committee member said the launching of the inquiries had nothing to do with the Wikileaks documents.^[42]

Template:country data United States National Security Advisor James L. Jones and Pakistan's ambassador to the United States, Husain Haqqani, both condemned Wikileaks for an "irresponsible" disclosure.^[43] White House National Security Advisor James Jones issued a statement to reporters shortly before the documents were posted online, saying the leaks were “irresponsible” but would not impact U.S. strategy in Afghanistan and Pakistan. "The United States strongly condemns the disclosure of classified information by individuals and organizations which could put the lives of Americans and our partners at risk, and threaten our national security," he said in his statement, "These irresponsible leaks will not impact our ongoing commitment to deepen our partnerships with Afghanistan and Pakistan; to defeat our common enemies; and to support the aspirations of the Afghan and Pakistani people."^[44]

• • Deputy National Security Advisor for Strategic Communications Ben Rhodes stated that "[since] taking office, President Obama has been very clear and candid with the American people about the challenges that we face in Afghanistan and Pakistan. [...] It is important to note that the time period reflected in the documents is January 2004 to December 2009. The war in Afghanistan was under-resourced for many years. [...] On Dec. 1, 2009, President Obama announced a new strategy and new resources for Afghanistan and Pakistan precisely because of the grave situation there," and that they "strongly condemn the disclosure of classified information by individuals and organizations that put the lives of the U.S. and partner service members at risk and threatens our national security."^[8][45]
  • Representative Dennis Kucinich (Democrat) of Ohio said "These documents provide a fuller picture of what we have long known about Afghanistan: The war is going badly. We have to show the ability to respond to what’s right in front of our face: This war is no longer justifiable under any circumstances."^[46] Senate Foreign Relations Committee chairman Senator John Kerry (Democrat) of Massachusetts said "However illegally these documents came to light, they raise serious questions about the reality of America's policy toward Pakistan and Afghanistan. Those policies are at a critical stage and these documents may very well underscore the stakes and make the calibrations needed to get the policy right more urgent."^[46] In a later release he was quoted as saying "All of us [are] concerned that after nine years of war ... the Taliban appear to be as strong as they have been."^[47]

Taliban spokesperson, Zabihullah Mujahid, has stated they are inspecting the leaked documents which contain the names, tribes, and family information of Afghan informants who were helping the US. "We knew about the spies and people who collaborate with U.S. forces," he said. "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."^[48] This statement comes after the Taliban has recently begun intimidating and brutally executing those who cooperate with NATO forces.^[49]

Reactions of human rights groups[edit]

A coalition of five human-rights organizations addressed Julian Assange, founder and editor of the Wikileaks website, expressing their concerns for the safety of persons identified in the published documents. These human-rights groups were Amnesty International, Campaign for Innocent Victims in Conflict (CIVIC), Open Society Institute (OSI), the Afghanistan Independent Human Rights Commission and the Kabul office of the International Crisis Group (ICG), all worried about the execution of Afghan civilians by the Taliban and other insurgent groups. The AIHRC published figures showing that executions had soared in the first seven months of 2010 to 197, from a total of 225 in all of 2009. The victims were often persons who supported the Afghan government, or their family members, who may have come into contact with the U.S. or other international forces.^{[50][51][52][53][54][55]}

On 12 August 2010, the international press watchdog organisation Reporters Without Borders (RWB) accused WikiLeaks of "incredible irresponsibility" after the website said it "absolutely" would release the remaining 15,000 documents. In an open letter to Assange, Jean-François Julliard, RWB secretary-general, and Clothilde Le Coz, RWB representative in Washington DC, wrote that the publication was "highly dangerous," particularly when it named Afghan informants.^{[56][57][58][59][60]}