WikiLeaks set to release 500,000 Iraq documents

Biggins

In what will be the worlds biggest ever dump of leaked documents, Wikileaks is about to share to the world American war documents across the net. Possibly in the next few days - definitely before the end of the month.
This time however the documents are supposed to be vetted better to hide and save lives according to reports.

The Pentagon said today that it had a 120-member team prepared to review a massive leak of as many as 500,000 Iraq war documents, which are expected to be released by the WikiLeaks website sometime this month.
Pentagon spokesman Colonel Dave Lapan said the timing of the leak remained unclear but the Defense Department was ready for a document dump as early as tomorrow or Tuesday, a possibility raised in previous WikiLeaks statements.
People familiar with the upcoming leak said they did not expect WikiLeaks to release the classified files for at least another week.

Story continues here: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1321398/Pentagon-prepares-largest-security-breach-U-S-military-history-WikiLeaks-set-release-500-000-Iraq-documents.html

KyussBishop

A couple of other articles worth noting:

Glenn Greenwald wrote:

How propaganda is disseminated: WikiLeaks Edition:
This is how the U.S. government and American media jointly disseminate propaganda: in the immediate wake of some newsworthy War on Terror event, U.S. Government officials (usually anonymous) make wild and reckless -- though unverifiable -- claims. The U.S. media mindlessly trumpets them around the world without question or challenge.

Those claims become consecrated as widely accepted fact. And then weeks, months or years later, those claims get quietly exposed as being utter falsehoods, by which point it does not matter, because the goal is already well-achieved: the falsehoods are ingrained as accepted truth.

I've documented how this process works in the context of American air attacks (it's immediately celebrated that we Killed the Evil Targeted Terrorist Leader [who invariably turns out to be alive and then allegedly killed again in the next air strike], while the dead are always, by definition, "militants"); with covered-up American war crimes, with the Jessica Lynch and Pat Tillman frauds -- the same process was also evident with the Israeli attack on the flotilla -- and now we find a quite vivid illustration of this deceitful process in the context of WikiLeaks' release of Afghanistan war documents:

...

http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2010/10/17/wikileaks/index.html

There's good discussion in the above one, relating to how the accusations of WikiLeaks having "blood on their hands" with the Afghanistan documents, were completely false.

WikiLeaks-Twitter wrote:

Pentagon appears to pre-empt alleged WikiLeaks Iraq leak with FOIA release

https://twitter.com/wikileaks
http://cryptome.org/0002/sigacts/centcom-sigacts.htm

Interesting to see in this one, that WikiLeaks has actually opened up some level of voluntary transparency in the US military; even if for the wrong reasons

policarp

Go to China....

orourkeda

Any indications as to what the documents relate to exactly.

I know half a million documents is quite a haul but are there any particular areas that are likely to be focused in on primarily.

Local-womanizer

orourkeda wrote: »

Any indications as to what the documents relate to.

I know half a million documents is quite a haul but are there any particular areas that are likely to be focused in on primarily.

According to the Pentagon they relate to "Iraqi security forces and civilian casualties" as well as "significant acts,unit level reporting and tactical reports"

The pentagon have said that Wikileaks have not got the required expertise to keep safe those to be affected by the documents. Its not as simple as removing names.

The release of these documents will just stir up more hatred and bring more Islamics into the fold of actually picking up a rifle and fighting coalition troops.

orourkeda

Local-womanizer wrote: »

According to the Pentagon they relate to "Iraqi security forces and civilian casualties" as well as "significant acts,unit level reporting and tactical reports"

The pentagon have said that Wikileaks have not got the required expertise to keep safe those to be affected by the documents. Its not as simple as removing names.

The release of these documents will just stir up more hatred and bring more Islamics into the fold of actually picking up a rifle and fighting coalition troops.

But how much worse can it get?

Additionally will this Jeopardise the recently announced plans to withdraw troops from Iraq.

bleg

Local-womanizer wrote: »

According to the Pentagon they relate to "Iraqi security forces and civilian casualties" as well as "significant acts,unit level reporting and tactical reports"

The pentagon have said that Wikileaks have not got the required expertise to keep safe those to be affected by the documents. Its not as simple as removing names.

The release of these documents will just stir up more hatred and bring more Islamics into the fold of actually picking up a rifle and fighting coalition troops.

Do you really think a leak like this will affect them that much when all they have to do is look out the window to see the effects of coalition troops?

orourkeda

bleg wrote: »

Do you really think a leak like this will affect them that much when all they have to do is look out the window to see the effects of coalition troops?

The first casualty of war is the truth I suppose. At least there's someone brave enough to ask questions

KyussBishop

Local-womanizer wrote: »

According to the Pentagon they relate to "Iraqi security forces and civilian casualties" as well as "significant acts,unit level reporting and tactical reports"

The pentagon have said that Wikileaks have not got the required expertise to keep safe those to be affected by the documents. Its not as simple as removing names.

The release of these documents will just stir up more hatred and bring more Islamics into the fold of actually picking up a rifle and fighting coalition troops.

The documents will stir public attention towards the wars in Afghanistan/Iraq, and may help bring the wars to an end sooner (it's still going on in Iraq, even though the US have 'officially' pulled out; they still have tens of thousands of troops/mercenaries there).

If it helps bring the wars to an end sooner, this could help save hundreds/thousands of civilian lives all across Iraq/Afghanistan/Pakistan, as the US troops presence is not helping anything at the moment.

Here is another great article from Glenn Greenwald, giving some insight into how America's presence in these countries is inciting more people to join the war and attack the US troops (also making some wish to attack the US and Europe):

Glenn Greenwald wrote:

They hate us for our occupations:
In 2004, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld commissioned a task force to study what causes Terrorism, and it concluded that "Muslims do not 'hate our freedom,' but rather, they hate our policies": specifically, "American direct intervention in the Muslim world" through our "one sided support in favor of Israel"; support for Islamic tyrannies in places like Egypt and Saudi Arabia; and, most of all, "the American occupation of Iraq and Afghanistan" (the full report is here).

Now, a new, comprehensive study from Robert Pape, a University of Chicago political science professor and former Air Force lecturer, substantiates what is (a) already bleedingly obvious and (b) known to the U.S. Government for many years: namely, that the prime cause of suicide bombings is not Hatred of Our Freedoms or Inherent Violence in Islamic Culture or a Desire for Worldwide Sharia Rule by Caliphate, but rather. . . . foreign military occupations.

...

http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2010/10/12/terrorism/index.html

Another:

Glenn Greenwald wrote:

War on Terror logic:
The U.S. war in (against) Pakistan continues to escalate, as Pakistanis attacked NATO tankers carrying fuel through their country to soldiers in Afghanistan last night, killing three people, an attack that was in retaliation for vastly increased U.S. drone strikes in Pakistan this month, which were ordered in alleged response to reports of increased Terrorist threats aimed at Europe, which, in turn, were in retaliation for the escalating wars in Afghanistan and Pakistan (as evidenced by the large numbers of individuals of Afghan descent involved in these plots). Jim White -- in a post this morning entitled "Stuck in Feedback Loop: Drone Strikes Provoke Terrorists Who Provoke More Drone Strikes" -- documents exactly the process at play here:

The situation in Pakistan appears to have reached a point where a positive feedback loop prompts continued escalation on both sides. The US sees drone attacks as its primary weapon and has stepped up such attacks in the belief that they will create more security for military actions in Afghanistan and disrupt planning of terrorist attacks on the West. Instead, the attacks appear to enrage the surviving targets, recruit more to their ranks and lead to more attacks.


What a surprise: bombing Muslims more and more causes more and more Muslims to want to bomb the countries responsible. That, of course, has long been the perverse "logic" driving the War on Terror. The very idea that we're going to reduce Terrorism by more intensively bombing more Muslim countries is one of the most patently absurd, self-contradicting premises that exists.

It's exactly like announcing that the cure for lung cancer is to quadruple the number of cigarettes one smokes each day. But that's been the core premise (at least the stated one) of our foreign policy for the last decade: we're going to stop Terrorism by doing more and more of exactly the things that cause it (and see this very good Economist article on the ease with which drones allow a nation's leaders to pretend to its citizenry that they are not really at war -- as we're doing with Pakistan).

...

http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2010/10/04/terrorism/index.html

The sooner the US gets the **** out of these countries, the better.

Manic Moran

This time however the documents are supposed to be vetted better to hide and save lives according to reports.

Nice of them to acknowledge that they screwed up the last time.

There's good discussion in the above one, relating to how the accusations of WikiLeaks having "blood on their hands" with the Afghanistan documents, were completely false.

Not entirely. Just said that there was no evidence of anyone 'sensitive*' harmed or needing to be moved. Even if you wish to focus purely on informants, it's quite possible, for example, that they moved themselves once they heard that their names were disclosed. There's no small amount of internally displaced persons in the country, who'd notice a few more? Certainly a Taliban spokesman announced to the Press that they were combing through the documentation. Either way, anyone who read the Afghan leaks could see what compromising information was released: If the opposition were unable to use that information at the time could not be known in advance, and even if such information was used (for example knowing which base helicopter reinforcements come from to a certain location or that they had a leak in a certain meeting), that doesn't mean to say that we would know about it. This is an intel-driven war, not a traditional slugfest like Desert Storm, and handing the opposition a bunch of files doesn't help.

I know half a million documents is quite a haul but are there any particular areas that are likely to be focused in on primarily.

Unlikely. A half-million documents is basically a raw data dump, done because they can. If they were worried about highlighting Coalition abuses or such like, they'd be releasing just those ones to focus attention on them. The attention is being drawn to Wikileaks for the size of the dump, not the content. In reality, despite all the publicity, how much did the Afghan leak really advance Wikileaks' goal? Huge archive release, lots of low-level information... and nothing happened on the world stage. Off the top of your head, what was the most significant document out of that 150,000? Can you even describe, say, ten of the events without looking them up? One set of photographs from an Iraqi prison, however, gave us a topic of conversation which has turned into the common lexicon. Wikileaks is confusing quantity with quality, thinking that a lot of tactical or operational information is going to have effect on the strategic or grand strategic world stage.

But how much worse can it get?

That's the saving grace. Iraq right now is pretty much an Iraqi problem. The issue there isn't whether or not the Coalition did good or bad things when they were on the streets in the past, but whether or not the Shia government of today can properly integrate the Sunnis and Kurds satisfactorily. This leak is going to have a bigger political effect outside of Iraq than inside it. Iraqis pretty much won't care, they have more immediate concerns.

If it helps bring the wars to an end sooner, this could help save hundreds/thousands of civilian lives all across Iraq/Afghanistan/Pakistan, as the US troops presence is not helping anything at the moment

Well, there's an informed statement. Do you know what the ISAF troops are actually doing, or do you think they're just running around all day looking for people to shoot?

Interesting to see in this one, that WikiLeaks has actually opened up some level of voluntary transparency in the US military; even if for the wrong reasons

I think it's going to be used as an honesty trace: To see which documents get released and prevent false claims of incidents being withheld.

NTM

*A source can be non-'sensitive', and, indeed, most are 'non-sensitive'

KyussBishop

Manic Moran wrote:

KyussBishop wrote:

There's good discussion in the above one, relating to how the accusations of WikiLeaks having "blood on their hands" with the Afghanistan documents, were completely false.

Not entirely. Just said that there was no evidence of anyone 'sensitive*' harmed or needing to be moved. Even if you wish to focus purely on informants, it's quite possible, for example, that they moved themselves once they heard that their names were disclosed. There's no small amount of internally displaced persons in the country, who'd notice a few more? Certainly a Taliban spokesman announced to the Press that they were combing through the documentation. Either way, anyone who read the Afghan leaks could see what compromising information was released: If the opposition were unable to use that information at the time could not be known in advance, and even if such information was used (for example knowing which base helicopter reinforcements come from to a certain location or that they had a leak in a certain meeting), that doesn't mean to say that we would know about it. This is an intel-driven war, not a traditional slugfest like Desert Storm, and handing the opposition a bunch of files doesn't help.

There are no reports of deaths as a result of the documents being released, thus to state that WikiLeaks have "blood on their hands" is false.

Even recently, information has been released about the Pentagon judging that the documents did not "jeopardize any U.S. intelligence or sensitive military operations".

Manic Moran wrote: »

KyussBishop wrote:

If it helps bring the wars to an end sooner, this could help save hundreds/thousands of civilian lives all across Iraq/Afghanistan/Pakistan, as the US troops presence is not helping anything at the moment

Well, there's an informed statement. Do you know what the ISAF troops are actually doing, or do you think they're just running around all day looking for people to shoot?

The drone attacks alone from the US (and this is only counting Pakistan) account for over 700 deaths just this year.
https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Drone_attacks_in_Pakistan

Out of 1800 total deaths from drone attacks over the years, at least 500 are civilians, and the US is now well known to over-report militant deaths; i.e. to label all deaths from drone strikes as militant deaths, without adequate verification, even when civilians have been killed.

The leaked Afghanistan documents actually uncovered several instances where civilian deaths had been misreported as militants, so the number of civilian deaths could be much higher.

Manic Moran

There are no reports of deaths as a result of the documents being released, thus to state that WikiLeaks have "blood on their hands" is false.

Faulty logic. There are no reports of deaths being directly attributed to the document release. (a ) That implies that ISAF would truthfully report any such, and why would they confirm to the opposition that they've correctly killed informants? (And to the locals that if they work with ISAF they could get killed? There's an incentive...)(b ) It implies that any such deaths have evidence directly linking them, which isn't necessarily going to be the case, (c ) ignores battlefield deaths caused by any tactical information released because it's almost impossible to prove, and (d ) ignores the very obvious fact that small pieces of intelligence can mount up: One of the 150,000 incidents which I do recall, for example, stated to the effect that "On this date, at this guy's house, a secret meeting was held. The following people were present, the following was discussed." It doesn't say who provided the information, you can't say that any deaths would be a direct result of that piece of information, but the reprecussions are obvious: The opposition certainly won't be meeting in that place again, reducing the chances of either gaining information or a successful action, plus they know that they had a leak at that meeting, information which could be used to help identify the leak, if they even knew to start looking. One would have to be in denial to not acknowledge the detremental effect to the ISAF effort.

The drone attacks alone from the US (and this is only counting Pakistan) account for over 700 deaths just this year

Stop looking at only part of the data. If ISAF pulled out tomorrow, how many people would die to to direct increased insurgent attack or indirectly because the construction and maintenance of infrastructure would rapidly reduce? ISAF provides the security (and money) needed for the government services which, for example, have saved tens of thousands of people from dying of TB alone, according to WHO.

http://www.afghan-web.com/health/tb.html

It would be much simpler for ISAF to withdraw. Fewer ISAF soldiers would die, and budgets would be smaller. It would also be disastrously wrong for the Afghan people.

NTM

Teutorix

inb4 Julian Assange assassinated

Biggins

Teutorix wrote: »

inb4 Julian Assange assassinated

Waste of time. The site, etc would still keep going.
In fact the worst thing they could do would be for him to die.
Even IF it was pure accident, it would be looked at very suspiciously and the massive publicity on America would bear no long term good benefits.

The only way they will take down his now well staffed organisation is by continuous, never ending electronic/web warfare.
(Just like the possible Siemens fiasco in Iran)

KyussBishop

Manic Moran wrote: »

Faulty logic. There are no reports of deaths being directly attributed to the document release. (a ) That implies that ISAF would truthfully report any such, and why would they confirm to the opposition that they've correctly killed informants? (And to the locals that if they work with ISAF they could get killed? There's an incentive...)(b ) It implies that any such deaths have evidence directly linking them, which isn't necessarily going to be the case, (c ) ignores battlefield deaths caused by any tactical information released because it's almost impossible to prove, and (d ) ignores the very obvious fact that small pieces of intelligence can mount up: One of the 150,000 incidents which I do recall, for example, stated to the effect that "On this date, at this guy's house, a secret meeting was held. The following people were present, the following was discussed." It doesn't say who provided the information, you can't say that any deaths would be a direct result of that piece of information, but the reprecussions are obvious: The opposition certainly won't be meeting in that place again, reducing the chances of either gaining information or a successful action, plus they know that they had a leak at that meeting, information which could be used to help identify the leak, if they even knew to start looking. One would have to be in denial to not acknowledge the detremental effect to the ISAF effort.

It's perfectly valid logic: Innocent until proven guilty.

Even the Pentagon, in speaking to the US senate, said that the documents were mostly inconsequential.

Manic Moran wrote: »

KyussBishop wrote:

The drone attacks alone from the US (and this is only counting Pakistan) account for over 700 deaths just this year

Stop looking at only part of the data. If ISAF pulled out tomorrow, how many people would die to to direct increased insurgent attack or indirectly because the construction and maintenance of infrastructure would rapidly reduce? ISAF provides the security (and money) needed for the government services which, for example, have saved tens of thousands of people from dying of TB alone, according to WHO.

http://www.afghan-web.com/health/tb.html

It would be much simpler for ISAF to withdraw. Fewer ISAF soldiers would die, and budgets would be smaller. It would also be disastrously wrong for the Afghan people.

I said that the US presence in these countries could cause hundreds if not thousands of more deaths the longer they stay there, as a direct cause of US action, so the data I pointed out is perfectly valid, and deserving of attention, rather than being ignored. The report you give reference to there is over 2 and a half years old as well.

As things stand, Afghanistan is ****ed no matter what the ISAF do (it's the general consensus that the war there is unwinnable); currently around 200 civilians in Afghanistan have been killed by the ISAF this year, with 900 by militants; a percentage (how much we don't know) of the militant civilian casualties are caused by attacks on ISAF forces.
https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Civilian_casualties_of_the_War_in_Afghanistan_%282001%E2%80%93present%29

In total, taking only Afghanistan and Pakistan, that is over 900 civilian deaths caused by US forces this year; not far from my speculation of "hundreds, if not thousands" of civilian casualties? If you factor in Iraq, it's probably already breaking 1000.

If the ISAF are preventing more civilian deaths than they are causing (both by their direct actions, and just by them being there), is there any hard data on that? If there is (lets stick to 2010 to keep things simple), link me.

Nodin

tbh, dumping the paperwork of a war into the public domain may not show much (except that theres a lot of a paperwork....). Still, we shall see.

Manic Moran

KyussBishop wrote: »

Even the Pentagon, in speaking to the US senate, said that the documents were mostly inconsequential.

I agree, they mostly were.

It's the ones that don't count as 'mostly' which rather concern me more. My initial question still stands: What good did the Afghan leak do, and why, in hindsight, was it worth the risk?

I said that the US presence in these countries could cause hundreds if not thousands of more deaths the longer they stay there, as a direct cause of US action, so the data I pointed out is perfectly valid, and deserving of attention, rather than being ignored.

I never said anything about ignoring it. I'm suggesting that it be put into the larger context.

The report you give reference to there is over 2 and a half years old as well.

It's gotten better over time, for example the 'access to healthcare' figure is now somewhere around 95% instead of the 80% in the article. I'll see if I can't find something which isn't put out by USAID or ISAF, since doubtless you'll just accuse it of being biased propoganda.

As things stand, Afghanistan is ****ed no matter what the ISAF do (it's the general consensus that the war there is unwinnable);

Forgive me for not subscribing to that 'general consusus' (General consensus of who?). If 'winnable' is defined as 'killing the Taliban into oblivion', I'll agree with you. If 'winnable' is a sustainable country with some semblance of infrastructure and governance, I'll disagree with you.

If the ISAF are preventing more civilian deaths than they are causing (both by their direct actions, and just by them being there), is there any hard data on that? If there is (lets stick to 2010 to keep things simple), link me.

There are two problems with this. 1:- How are you expecting me to numerically prove the absence of something? 2:- 2010 isn't over yet, so there will be no figures stating 'Malaria cases for 2010 have been X many thousand, compared to 4,300 in 2008 or 85,000 in 2002.' (2008 and 2002 figures from Afghan Ministry of Public Health)

NTM

KyussBishop

Manic Moran wrote: »

It's gotten better over time, for example the 'access to healthcare' figure is now somewhere around 95% instead of the 80% in the article.

That's good, yes; I'm not trying to diminish past accomplishments in Afghanistan, I'm concentrating on present ramifications of the ISAF's presence there. Afghanistan will still have a healthcare system in place after they leave, and international aid can still be contributed as well.

Manic Moran wrote: »

I'll see if I can't find something which isn't put out by USAID or ISAF, since doubtless you'll just accuse it of being biased propoganda.

Nice, accusing me of being irrationally biased against the USAID/ISAF, when I've done nothing of the sort.

It's kind of biased itself isn't it? Attacking my credibility to attempt to discredit my arguments.

Manic Moran wrote: »

Forgive me for not subscribing to that 'general consusus' (General consensus of who?). If 'winnable' is defined as 'killing the Taliban into oblivion', I'll agree with you. If 'winnable' is a sustainable country with some semblance of infrastructure and governance, I'll disagree with you.

General consensus of most of the US and British population:
http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2010/09/16/afghanistan

Agreed, the Taliban wont be defeated, and hopefully the country will come out of this with improved infrastructure/government; progress can be made towards that without the ISAF.

Manic Moran wrote: »

KyussBishop wrote:

If the ISAF are preventing more civilian deaths than they are causing (both by their direct actions, and just by them being there), is there any hard data on that? If there is (lets stick to 2010 to keep things simple), link me.

There are two problems with this. 1:- How are you expecting me to numerically prove the absence of something? 2:- 2010 isn't over yet, so there will be no figures stating 'Malaria cases for 2010 have been X many thousand, compared to 4,300 in 2008 or 85,000 in 2002.' (2008 and 2002 figures from Afghan Ministry of Public Health)

I don't know; some indication of how the ISAF exiting the country would cause more deaths than it would prevent, e.g. if there have been studies done on this in the US, for examining the impending withdrawl of troops next year.

Basically, there needs to be some level of proof/support to justify the ISAF being there, or they should not be there.

As far as the healthcare concerns go: Why do the ISAF need to be there for that to work out? That can continue without them being there.

Manic Moran

KyussBishop wrote: »

That's good, yes; I'm not trying to diminish past accomplishments in Afghanistan, I'm concentrating on present ramifications of the ISAF's presence there. Afghanistan will still have a healthcare system in place after they leave, and international aid can still be contributed as well.

Kindof like in Haiti or Chad, where it took guys in uniforms with guns to maintain the security that the healthcare providers or international aid workers needed in order to contribute?

Nice, accusing me of being irrationally biased against the USAID/ISAF, when I've done nothing of the sort.

I apologise for the pre-emptive strike. :-)

It's kind of biased itself isn't it? Attacking my credibility to attempt to discredit my arguments.

No, I was attempting to deflect any attempt to discredit my arguments. Oftentimes in the past, I have noticed, people on the opposing side of this somewhat emotive issue will disregard the official statements from the military or government agencies involved. Especially if they tend to take after Mr Greenwald, who himself has a very healthy skepticism of those organisations.

General consensus of most of the US and British population:
http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2010/09/16/afghanistan

An excellent sample of people who have a thorough understanding of what's going on in Afghanistan.

On the other hand, people who have no understanding at all of the realities on the ground in Afghanistan, such as Afghans, seem to have another view of the utility of ISAF troops remaining for a while longer. As of the beginning of this year, under a quarter wanted ISAF out by the middle of 2011.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/shared/bsp/hi/pdfs/11_01_10_afghanpoll.pdf

They must think there's something going for it.

Agreed, the Taliban wont be defeated, and hopefully the country will come out of this with improved infrastructure/government; progress can be made towards that without the ISAF.

That is the long-term goal, yes. The unfortunate truth, however, is that the only people who seem to be available to perform this function are ISAF soldiers. ISAF generally doesn't want to do the job, it's not the best suited for it. If you want to train Afghan police, it would be nice if countries (and I'm including the US in this) would actually provide police to do the training. Instead, the job is falling on ISAF soldiers. If you want to teach people how to grow legitimate cash crops such as saffron, it would be nice if Dept of Agriculture (or related) personnel and advisors would be willing to go out into the fields. Instead, the job is falling on ISAF soldiers. If you want to teach construction engineers how to build things, it would be nice if nations sent their engineers out. Instead, the job is falling on ISAF soldiers. If you want to teach local governments how to govern, it would be nice to have some Dept of Foreign Affairs personnel out there, instead the job is falling on ISAF soldiers. If you want to teach doctors current medical practice, Dept of Health personnel would be nice. Instead, the job is falling on ISAF soldiers. If you want to teach the Afghan Army the best way to fight, hey, something the ISAF soldiers are actually the best available people for!

ISAF spend most of their time not fighting. They're spending it on patrol with police or Afghan army, hauling agricultural equipment with HMMWVs, visiting construction sites, going to hospitals, attending (or facilitating) Shuras and Jirgas, all because the situation is considered so dangerous that the other agencies won't go. If ISAF doesn't do it, pretty much nobody will. Fortunately, to take the US Army as an example, there is an excellent Corps of Engineers that knows how to build bridges, dams, roads and the like, Military Police and reservists who are civilian policemen know how to train police, agricultural flyover States like the Kansas National Guard provide the Agricultural Development Teams, lots of doctors and nurses in the military can work with local doctors, even politicians are in the Guard (As an extreme example, the Lt Governor of Guam served for a while in uniform in Afghanistan) and they all know how to take care of themselves in the event that the Taliban do make an appearance. Something which the IRC or Concern (or whoever) cannot do the job with either the same level of scope or security.

So until some group like the Gardai decide to get on the ground proper (and the EUPOL contingent there is very limited in both size and what they are permitted to do), ISAF is the only viable option.

As far as the healthcare concerns go: Why do the ISAF need to be there for that to work out? That can continue without them being there.

Certainly with nowhere the same level of capability. The good news is that the Afghans are getting better. They're not there yet, they still need Western doctors showing up, Western engineers to build the roads that allow the medicines (and staff) to travel and the odd military patrol to provide the security that allows the medical facilities to run without undue interference and the suppllies to move. I'm not sure it's possible to overstate just how horrendous the infrastructure of that country was, we're still fixing it.

NTM

Gigiwagga

Manic Moran wrote: »

Faulty logic. There are no reports of deaths being directly attributed to the document release. (a ) That implies that ISAF would truthfully report any such, and why would they confirm to the opposition that they've correctly killed informants? (And to the locals that if they work with ISAF they could get killed? There's an incentive...)(b ) It implies that any such deaths have evidence directly linking them, which isn't necessarily going to be the case, (c ) ignores battlefield deaths caused by any tactical information released because it's almost impossible to prove, and (d ) ignores the very obvious fact that small pieces of intelligence can mount up: One of the 150,000 incidents which I do recall, for example, stated to the effect that "On this date, at this guy's house, a secret meeting was held. The following people were present, the following was discussed." It doesn't say who provided the information, you can't say that any deaths would be a direct result of that piece of information, but the reprecussions are obvious: The opposition certainly won't be meeting in that place again, reducing the chances of either gaining information or a successful action, plus they know that they had a leak at that meeting, information which could be used to help identify the leak, if they even knew to start looking. One would have to be in denial to not acknowledge the detremental effect to the ISAF effort.



Stop looking at only part of the data. If ISAF pulled out tomorrow, how many people would die to to direct increased insurgent attack or indirectly because the construction and maintenance of infrastructure would rapidly reduce? ISAF provides the security (and money) needed for the government services which, for example, have saved tens of thousands of people from dying of TB alone, according to WHO.

http://www.afghan-web.com/health/tb.html

It would be much simpler for ISAF to withdraw. Fewer ISAF soldiers would die, and budgets would be smaller. It would also be disastrously wrong for the Afghan people.

NTM

Jesus if the cursed US stayed in their own country and minded their own bloody business how many thousands of Iraqis would be alive today.
Stop apologising for your blood thirsty country, it comes across as so pitiful.

Chaotic_Forces

An entire document could consist of one word.

For all we know it's just a bunch of random tripe that makes no sense whatsoever unless viewed from the eyes of the pentagon.

Clawdeeus

Gigiwagga wrote: »

Jesus if the cursed US stayed in their own country and minded their own bloody business how many thousands of Iraqis would be alive today.
Stop apologising for your blood thirsty country, it comes across as so pitiful.

About 70,000. But then again, there are numerous episodes of Saddam killing many more now and again (directly after the first gulf war for one). I was against the Iraq invasion but it is incredibly naive to believe things would ocntinue plodding along with no violence unless some sort Western power directly causes it.

Also, has anyone apologised for the invasion of Iraq, or even tried to justify it in this thread?

Im curious, do people actually believe that if ISAF were to pull out (of Afghanistan) that the situation would be better? Or just less complicated and therefore easier to rectify?

My understanding of the objectives in Afghanistan was not that it is to establish a functioning democracy, but merely a governement that does not allow groups to plan and organise attacks on the West within there borders (as much as a government can anyway.) An example of such a system may be Syria, Egypt or Saudi Arabia, who do make it (at least in theory) much more difficult for said groups to function within their borders.

On the topic, seems like it was just wrong :P http://english.aljazeera.net/news/americas/2010/10/2010101821123868598.html This will be moving to the CT forums me thinks .

KyussBishop

Manic Moran wrote: »

An excellent sample of people who have a thorough understanding of what's going on in Afghanistan.

On the other hand, people who have no understanding at all of the realities on the ground in Afghanistan, such as Afghans, seem to have another view of the utility of ISAF troops remaining for a while longer. As of the beginning of this year, under a quarter wanted ISAF out by the middle of 2011.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/shared/bsp/hi/pdfs/11_01_10_afghanpoll.pdf

They must think there's something going for it.

By that, 47% want US/ISAF forces to begin leaving or to have left by the middle of 2011 (22% before, 25% after), 21% want them to stay longer, and 29% say it depends on the security situation.

Another section of the poll marks high confidence in Karzai, the provincial government/police and the Afghan army in keeping order in their local area, while half and half are confident/not-confident with respect to US/ISAF forces.
In another section regarding support for troops etc. it's similar again, with Afghan police/army etc. getting high support, but much less so for US forces.

A question regarding air strikes, have 66% of people say they are unacceptable, and general civilian casualties seem to be blamed equally among militants and the US/ISAF.
General opinion of the US seems to be half/half favourable/unfavourable (same with Iran), with Britian being a good bit more unfavourable interestingly.
It's also very worrying/interesting to see that support for having an Islamic state there is a fair bit more popular than democracy.

Overall, opinions seem to be quite mixed/divided, it is an interesting poll though; I would wonder how the answers to it would be now 10 months later.
It would also be interesting to see the numbers of US/ISAF personnel vs various pro-government Afghan police/military groups, to get an idea of how much of a difference their presence makes.

Manic Moran wrote: »

That is the long-term goal, yes. The unfortunate truth, however, is that the only people who seem to be available to perform this function are ISAF soldiers. ISAF generally doesn't want to do the job, it's not the best suited for it. If you want to train Afghan police, it would be nice if countries (and I'm including the US in this) would actually provide police to do the training. Instead, the job is falling on ISAF soldiers. If you want to teach people how to grow legitimate cash crops such as saffron, it would be nice if Dept of Agriculture (or related) personnel and advisors would be willing to go out into the fields. Instead, the job is falling on ISAF soldiers. If you want to teach construction engineers how to build things, it would be nice if nations sent their engineers out. Instead, the job is falling on ISAF soldiers. If you want to teach local governments how to govern, it would be nice to have some Dept of Foreign Affairs personnel out there, instead the job is falling on ISAF soldiers. If you want to teach doctors current medical practice, Dept of Health personnel would be nice. Instead, the job is falling on ISAF soldiers. If you want to teach the Afghan Army the best way to fight, hey, something the ISAF soldiers are actually the best available people for!

ISAF spend most of their time not fighting. They're spending it on patrol with police or Afghan army, hauling agricultural equipment with HMMWVs, visiting construction sites, going to hospitals, attending (or facilitating) Shuras and Jirgas, all because the situation is considered so dangerous that the other agencies won't go. If ISAF doesn't do it, pretty much nobody will. Fortunately, to take the US Army as an example, there is an excellent Corps of Engineers that knows how to build bridges, dams, roads and the like, Military Police and reservists who are civilian policemen know how to train police, agricultural flyover States like the Kansas National Guard provide the Agricultural Development Teams, lots of doctors and nurses in the military can work with local doctors, even politicians are in the Guard (As an extreme example, the Lt Governor of Guam served for a while in uniform in Afghanistan) and they all know how to take care of themselves in the event that the Taliban do make an appearance. Something which the IRC or Concern (or whoever) cannot do the job with either the same level of scope or security.

So until some group like the Gardai decide to get on the ground proper (and the EUPOL contingent there is very limited in both size and what they are permitted to do), ISAF is the only viable option.

Ok, that's a good/interesting countering viewpoint; I don't know enough about anything there to comment on it, and I'm not sure where I'd look to find out more.

I don't know whether it's good/bad for the US/ISAF to pull out sooner rather than later; hopefully when they eventually do, the Afghan forces will be strong enough and well trained enough to replace them.
Either way, the rates of civilian casualties from the US (primarily with regards to the drone program) are far too high, and that deserves a good bit of attention.