Wikileaks Killing Video
July 26, 2010 by USA Post
Wikileaks Killing Video, [CBS News] Following the release of U.S. classified records 91 000 Severe military painting a portrait of the war in Afghanistan, the U.S. government , and the military are trying to focus squarely on Wikileaks, the organization leaked documents.
Wikileaks, officials complain, is an anti-war group with an agenda. Founder Julian Assange, told White House reporters, says things like “the most dangerous are those who are in charge of the war.” He noted that his group had no contact with the U.S. government to verify what is in the documents. (Though the New York Times and to a lesser extent, news organizations have access to documents it did a month ago.) National Security Advisor Gen. James Jones said the U.S. “Strongly condemns the disclosure of classified information by persons and organizations which could put the lives of Americans and our partners at risk, and threaten our national security.”
Wikileaks is undoubtedly an important part of history – and is certainly an organization with an agenda. (Just consider the fact that the group is called a video of explosives that were previously leaked showing the actions of an Apache helicopter in the U.S. Army in Baghdad: “Murder of security.”) But this should not changes that the military intelligence files appear to be legitimate premium. While not all of them necessarily entirely true – the sources include the payment of informants and Afghan intelligence officials with their own agenda – which reflect what is being seen and heard by those actually fighting the war.
Assange said Monday that the U.S. government has decided “to criticize the messenger to detract from the power of the message.” It has a good reason. It is a crucial time for the war in Afghanistan, exactly one year before U.S. troops is supposed to start coming home. However, instead of a positive portrayal of the war effort, the American people are shown in unprecedented detail how hindered coalition efforts by the Allies been questionable, conflicting loyalties, and a pervasive culture of corruption and violence.
Afghan police have described beatings and harassment of civilians, according to a report, when his bodyguards refused to shoot a civilian, a police chief’s bodyguard shoots the place. An orphanage that opened with great fanfare is shown to be empty, the money taken out of the coalition, police and army are described competing with each other, and the insurgents are attacking U.S. troops using vehicles supplied by the coalition to fight them.
The documents describe the efforts of the Taliban to turn U.S. allies enemies with bribes and threats and the killing of civilians through mistakes and misunderstandings (a deaf person who flees from a convoy of the nerves can not hear the warnings and get shot, and five children died in a rocket attack was part of a failed attack against an enemy that is not present). It is also revealed more widespread use of unmanned aircraft known in Afghanistan and the Taliban using heat seeking missiles at U.S. planes, the same weapon that the United States has provided the mujahideen to defeat the Soviets in the 1980s. (CBS News Lara Logan reported on the latter last year.)
And then there are suggestions that Pakistani intelligence is helping to coordinate attacks on U.S. troops, including suicide attacks – a charge particularly incendiary in light of the billions of dollars in aid flowing into the country U.S. coffers. (These reports, it is important to remember, reflect on what the military are told by the parties with a range of programs, which may not be truthful, Pakistan has vehemently denied the accusations.)
The government was quick to point out that these documents are only until December 2009, before President Obama’s new strategy was launched. But the reality today may actually be worse than it was then, rates are highest have been in almost nine years of war, the Taliban is stronger than ever, and coalition efforts to create self-governments Sustainability remains insufficient and inefficient.
The authorities have insisted that most of the information contained in documents is old news for those who have been watching the war closely. But while to some extent, it is true, it matters little: the change of the discussion papers to the harsh realities of war at a time when the military and administration officials once hoped that Americans would be held U.S. momentum against the Taliban.
Public and congressional support for the war for nearly nine years of age, was already faltering before the release, and for some documents could be the last straw. The Obama administration will likely remain strong, stick to your carefully crafted strategy, and remind people that a withdrawal could mean a return to the environment that formed the basis of the September 11 attacks. But c3acks are already beginning to show: Senator John Kerry, D-Mass., chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, said after the release that “these documents illegally yet surfaced that raise serious doubts about the reality of U.S. policy toward Pakistan and Afghanistan. ”
The White House gave some flexibility when it announced it would begin withdrawing troops next year in July – President Obama was notably vague about how many troops will leave and insisted that the plans could change depending on conditions the field. The documents are a reminder of Wikileaks demoralizing for those conditions are not good, the question now is how the government and Congress will respond to what will likely be a further erosion of support for the war effort at home and abroad.
Please feel free to send if you have any questions regarding this post , you can contact on
Disclaimer: The views expressed on this site are that of the authors and not necessarily that of U.S.S.POST.