Leaked Documents and The War in Afghanistan
http://thedianerehmshow.org/shows/2010-07-27/leaked-documents-and-war-afghanistan
The release of classified military documents by WikiLeaks offers troubling revelations about the Afghan war. How the leaked reports could affect American foreign policy and the responsibility of the press when publishing classified information.
Guests
Rep. Jane Harman
(D-California, 36th District) Chair of the House Homeland Security subcommittee on intelligence.
Eric Schmitt
terrorism correspondent, The New York Times.
Jeff Jarvis
associate professor and director of the interactive journalism program at the City University of New York's Graduate School of Journalism. He blogs about media and news at Buzzmachine.com, and writes a new media column for "The Guardian."
John McLaughlin
former acting director of the CIA and now senior fellow at the Johns Hopkins School of Advanced International Studies.
John Barry
defense correspondent for Newsweek
Comments
Please familiarize yourself with our Code of Conduct and Terms of Use before posting your comments.
I think we need to consider how it will be perceived in the region. At the risk of a bit of stereotyping, the dominant way of interpreting events like the leak is to assume it was intentional and then ask "who benefits?" from its occurrence. Therefore even if we grant that nothing new was leaked (and I don't grant that because details do matter) our interlocutors in the region will be more skeptical of our intentions.
PS It's not stereotyping in the sense that most people view politics through the framework of their own "political milieu" and in countries like Pakistan (less so than in places like Syria or Saudi Arabia, however) leaks (or rumors) like this would be intended for some purpose.
Your guest Ms. Harmon, says that the leaks are dangerous because they may give the Taliban a new "enemies list," and for that reason she is against them. However, she supports a discussion - an "informed public discussion" of Afghanistan policy. But how can we have an informed discussion without the information contained in these leaks?
Yes, there is nothing new in the recent wikileaks, but what it has done is that it has compelled a public debate on the AFPAK strategy. The only way to defeat Taliban is to cut the continuous flow of money and arms, which mostly comes from Pakistan with the support from elements in the ISI, radical political parties and former military officials.
The United States can do all the right things in Afghanistan such as improve security for ordinary people, allocate resources to train the Afghan national army and successfully reduce corruption in the Hamid Karzai government, and yet remain entangled in a low intensity conflict that will be lethal and will put the country further in debt.
If the U.S. and the world community ensure that Pakistan does not, in any manner, support Taliban; the Afghan army will be competent enough to hold its ground against Taliban after the U.S. withdraws or reduces it forces next year. Obama administrations exit strategy will only succeed if Pakistan is forced by the world community, including Islamic countries, to end its military, financial and political support to Taliban. However, if nothing is done, then when the U.S, withdraws from Afghanistan the Taliban will march into Kabul with the help of Pakistan military. PAKISTAN HAS TO BE ON THE SIDE OF PEACE AND PROGRESS IN AFGHANISTAN.
Barack Obama has said consistently that the real focus on fighting Islamic terrorists should have remained on Pakistan and the border between Pakistan and Afghanistan. NOT Iraq! He took heat for this during the presidential campaign from those in his own party, including Clinton, Dodd and others.
I have not read these leaks, but I think we should all keep in mind that President Obama is doing what he said he would do. Unlike George W. Bush. Maybe these documents might show reasoning behind the Bush/Cheney push for the Iraq invasion/occupation.
Certainly the mechanism of state (and its chief instrument, the military) enjoys and requires the privelege of secrecy.
All institutions, however, succumb to their own self-importance and fail at even-handed self criticism. They are the worst interpreters of their own history. The Roman Catholic Church protects its own reputation, as does the American Government.
Wiki-leaks is invaluable as a means to transparency, however risk laden.
Tim in Alexandria
Great comment by guest Jeff Jarvis at approx. 0:35:00 mark, i.e., that the mainstream media needs to understand that it no longer "owns the conduit" of government-provided "insider" information.
Consider also, that the vast majority of federal agencies' relationship with mainsteam media journalists is essentially based in informal, personal relationships.
Federal "press officers" in agencies' Public Affairs offices operate arbitrarily when they choose which journalists will, and will not, get interviews, documentation, "unofficial leaks", etc.
As a blogger (and former federal employee), I get the run-around whenever I ask a federal press officer for a copy of their "public affairs" procedures (e.g., after I request an interview for my program on OpenGovRadio).
This is definitely not classified information. Ironically, it may take a FOIA request in order to release information about the procedures for how federal agencies are supposed to interact with the public. (!)
Tim in Alexandria,
How would you feel about the leaking of information about the RC Church's cover-up of pedophilia if the leaked information included the names of the informants and the names of the victims?
There are responsible ways to bring institutions to account, but by posting the documents in unredacted form on the internet, Mr. Assange has been irresponsible and placed individuals at risk of retaliation.
This is very similar to the harm done by the leaking of Valery Plame's status as a CIA agent by Dick Cheney's office. It doesn't just affect the person outed, but also the lives of sources.
When John Barry, defense correspondent for Newsweek, said that the Obama Administration is more worried about these leaks than the previous administration, Steve Roberts replied, "Interesting," the NPR DR Show code word for "I don't believe that."
'Tis no wonder that NPR is known as either National Pentagon Radio or National Propaganda Radio. Today's guests, Harman (hawk), McLaughlin (super hawk), Barry (defense permanent embed), and the plain vanilla Roberts as host. If any of the participants or research staff had listened to any of the past 2 days coverage of Wikileaks on DemocracyNow, then they would not have made the errors re Assange's work, the Gaurdian's pre-emptively removing names, locales, etc., ahead of the NYT and White House and Pentagon.
As Assange stated in yesterday's press conference, it is very likely that war crimes have been commited for the past 6 years. That's the importance of the leaks! That and the vaunted, vanishing , never present transparency.
The parallel universe that NPR and the US lives in is one of our largest failings.
Show not up to DR standards.
'Tis no wonder that NPR is known as either National Pentagon Radio or National Propaganda Radio. Today's guests, Harman (hawk), McLaughlin (super hawk), Barry (defense permanent embed), and the plain vanilla Roberts as host. If any of the participants or research staff had listened to any of the past 2 days coverage of Wikileaks on DemocracyNow, then they would not have made the errors re Assange's work, the Gaurdian's pre-emptively removing names, locales, etc., ahead of the NYT and White House and Pentagon.
As Assange stated in yesterday's press conference, it is very likely that war crimes have been commited for the past 6 years. That's the importance of the leaks! That and the vaunted, vanishing , never present transparency.
The parallel universe that NPR and the US lives in is one of our largest failings.
Show not up to DR standards.