Skip to main content

President Obama managed to show just how nimble and how disingenuous an administration can be in his response to the WikiLeaks fiasco:

Obama, speaking from the Rose Garden after a meeting with congressional leaders to discuss funding for the war and other issues, deplored the leak, saying he was concerned the information from the battleground "could potentially jeopardise individuals or operations".

...

The chairman of the joint chiefs of staff, Admiral Mike Mullen, said he was appalled by the leaks, telling reporters "there is a real potential threat there to put American lives at risk."

Now, it may or may not be true that this leak put people in Afghanistan at risk, but I find that to be a very interesting point for this president to be making, considering that the policy and execution of his policy absolutely jeopardizes individuals in Afghanistan and around the world. After all, if you put Julian Assange and President Obama together in a room, only one person in that room is ordering heavily armed people into a hostile war zone filled with civilians. And only one of them is executinga policy that increases the likelihood of a suicide bombing campaign directed at the United States and its citizens and that kills thousands of civilians each year.

This is a tried-and-true warmonger move: according to this canard, it's those that oppose the war policy or that take action to show the conflict between societal values and actual policies that endanger everyone, not the brutal, costly policy. I would say I was a bit shocked, but this is the same president that stood up during his Nobel Peace Prize lecture and opined about the necessity of war when he feels it's justified. The President of the United States has tripled the number of troops in Afghanistan, thus putting them in harm's way for a policy that doesn't make us safer and that causes enormous hardship for those caught in the crossfire. Those who support this policy but are attacking WikiLeaks for releasing this data need to take a good, hard look in the mirror before they jump on Julian Assange for "endangering" anyone.

But he went on to say the material highlighted the challenges that led him to announce a change in strategy late last year that involved sending an additional 30,000 troops to Afghanistan. The policy is due to be reviewed in December.

...

"We failed for seven years to implement a strategy adequate to the challenge," Obama said today, of the period starting with the 9/11 attacks. That is why we have increased our commitment there and developed a new strategy," he said, adding he has also sent one of the finest generals in the US, General David Petraeus.

Insisting that the strategy "can work", he ended with a plea to the House of Representatives to join the Senate in passing a bill to provide funds for the Afghan war as a matter of urgency.

Help me out here. Somehow, we're supposed to believe that the WikiLeaks information is "proof" that the president was right to initiate a massive escalation. If I were the president, this would be the drop-dead last argument I'd be making, because it begs the question: Okay, well, what's the situation on the ground like now, 7 months into the escalation policy, compared to the time period captured in the War Logs leak?

Short answer: the president should be pining away for the good ol' days depicted in the WikiLeaks report.

Here's a chart from the latest Afghan NGO Safety Office report, showing a massive jump in the seasonal peaks in insurgent-initiated violence since President Obama took office and started his repeated escalations.

Afghan NGO Safety Office Chart on Anti-Afghan-Government-Group-Initiated Attacks

Here's a quote from a December 2009 military report, "The State of the Insurgency" (.pdf):

  • Organizational capabilities and operational reach are qualitatively and geographically expanding
  • Strength and ability of shadow governance increasing
  • Much greater frequency of attacks and varied locations

Compare that with this quote from the latest "progress" report to Congress:

  • Organizational capabilities and operational reach are qualitatively and geographically expanding.

...

  • The strength and ability of shadow governance to discredit the authority and legitimacy of the Afghan Government is increasing.

...

  • Insurgents’ tactics, techniques, and procedures for conducting complex attacks are increasing in sophistication and strategic effect.

Lots of change there, apparently. Good work, Mr. President.

Here's a map from that same report that shows that the Kabul government is falling further behind the insurgents when it comes to winning sympathy or support in key regions of the country (a chart that the Pentagon laughably refers to when it wants to show "progress" to Congress, because they know Congress doesn't actually read the reports).

Government of Islamic Republic of Afghanistan Falling Further Behind Insurgents in "Sympathy" or "Support" Among Key Areas of Afghanistan

Here's another quote from the same source that compares the level of violence in 2010 to the level of violence at the time depicted in the WikiLeaks material:

Violence is sharply above the seasonal average for the previous year – an 87% increase from February 2009 to March 2010.

Like everyone else, I'm still combing through the documents and reading various summaries and reactions. But I don't even have to get through any of the WikiLeaks material to see that the president's attempt to spin this leak as a justification of his policies is totally bankrupt. The publicly available reports from his own administration prove it--no leak required.

Fed up with this brutal, costly war that's not making us safer? Sign Rethink Afghanistan's petition to politicians to end this war.

Originally posted to dcrowe on Wed Jul 28, 2010 at 11:16 PM PDT.

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  you do realize, don't you.... (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Samulayo, ferallike, Deep Texan

    .... that you're sticking up for something that has put our intel sources in Afghanistan at risk, just like the rightie-wingers' outing of Valerie Plame.  

    And in doing so, actually impedes our ability to exit Afghanistan, just like the Republican plan for sticking around in Afghanistan.

    Way to go! (not!)

    Politics makes strange bedfellows (eww).  

    •  oh no! (7+ / 0-)

      Don't tell me our imminent victory in now less so now that the dreaded Taliban figure out we have informants in their midst! Sometimes it takes a leak in a Western website to let the "bad guys," who have been fighting the Westerners for 9 years with ever increasing success, how to fight the war. And after our nation barely recovered from VAlerie Plame no longer being able to covertly suck state secrets out of the heads of state.

      The only thing that brings the US closer to exiting Afghanistan are military setbacks, and these have bee accelerating for some time now, unrelated to the Western public being more or less ignorant of what is being done in its name.

      "We have our teeth into the jugular, and we need to keep it there." -- Gen. Petraeus (feared Middle Eastern warlord)

      by Marcion on Wed Jul 28, 2010 at 11:38:11 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  I disagree on only one point: (4+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        G2geek, Sandino, redlum jak, Deep Texan

        Military setbacks only cause us to double down. It wasn't success that prompted Obama to triple the deployment.

        Formerly known as Jyrinx.

        “If I can't dance to it, it's not my revolution.” -- Emma Goldman

        by Code Monkey on Thu Jul 29, 2010 at 01:06:19 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  how many dead soldiers do you want for Christmas? (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Samulayo, ferallike

        What you're saying boils down to the same bullshit I got when I went looking for people to collaborate on an anti-IED project before IEDs were in the news.  

        "Oh, I don't support the war and it has to get worse before we get out!"

        Right.  I heard that a few times and nearly threw up.   Those people wanted my friends dead, and fellow Americans dead, and by the same route, more innocent Iraqis dead.  

        War is hell but once you're engaged, you have to wrap it up in a viable manner.  Taking a "leak" in public is pissing on soldiers' graves, and it also increases the civilian death toll.  

        The only people benefiting from Assange's exercise in playing Ellsberg-wannabe, are the friggin' Republicans who want to maul Obama, and of course the detestible Taliban who treat women as disposable objects.  

    •  Bedfellows? (5+ / 0-)

      That is a very strange thing to say. Tell me exactly how I'm George Bush's bedfellow in the above.

      I think you should go back and read more carefully. The above is an attack on the president's transparent attempt to spin something in a way not even supported by the publicly available reports coming from his administration. I don't care if the reader comes out of it supporting or not supporting what Assange and Co. did. I am concerned, rather, with the president not getting away with enlisting the information in a spin campaign to support his misguided, costly, and brutal policy in Afghanistan.

      •  Another Huckabee/Palin 2012 supporter? (0+ / 0-)

        Is that what you want?  Because that's what you're going to get.

        Go read your history.  LBJ and Vietnam and riots in the streets.  Followed by eight years of Nixon which set up the Southern Strategy that in turn was used to get us eight years of Reagan, whose administration was the breeding ground for a bunch of the monsters who came in under Bush II.  

        Be careful what you wish for.  

        •  What the heck are you talking about? (0+ / 0-)

          Holding a president accountable is not the same as conspiring with his enemies. I've read plenty of history, thank you very much, and I know LBJ ran his "Daisy" ad that said "We must love each other, or we must die," and then escalated the hell out of another stupid war. If the president loses because he's pushing a brutal, costly, and ultimately ineffective strategy in Afghanistan in the face of widespread opposition to the war, that's on him. You're essentially saying we have to shut up and salute unless we want a Republican. Sorry, but you don't get to hold a Palin to everyone's head to threaten them to toe the party line.

    •  It's also worth noting that (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Samulayo, G2geek, thethinveil, Deep Texan

      there were hundreds of Afghan informants outed by Wikileaks.
      Report: Afghan leaks dangerously expose informants' identities

      The leaking of 90,000 U.S. intelligence documents has put hundreds of Afghan lives at risk because the files identify informants working with NATO forces, The Times of London reported on Wednesday.

      In just two hours of searching the WikiLeaks archive, reporters found the names, villages, and fathers' names of dozens of Afghans credited with providing intelligence to U.S. forces, the paper said.

      WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange has said that all the released reports were checked for named informants and that 15,000 such documents had been held back to protect people.

      Despite his claim, The Times of London gave examples of informants named in the released documents.

      The beatings will continue until morale improves. -8.50, -6.92

      by ferallike on Thu Jul 29, 2010 at 12:10:37 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Say a more powerful country invaded the U.S. (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Sandino, thethinveil

        Would you become an informant and work with the occupying forces? Would it matter to you that your informing often resulted in the deaths of innocent civilians? Would you consider yourself a traitor or a hero for collaborating with the enemy?

        A tax cut for the wealthy is the opiate of the rightwing masses.

        by edg on Thu Jul 29, 2010 at 12:42:26 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  The informants are the ones at risk here (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          G2geek, thethinveil

          And yes I care about the Afghans who tried to help us and their own country.

          The beatings will continue until morale improves. -8.50, -6.92

          by ferallike on Thu Jul 29, 2010 at 12:59:53 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  So I can assume your answer to ... (0+ / 0-)

            my questions is "yes". Under the US Constitution, such actions are considered treason and the punishment is death.

            A tax cut for the wealthy is the opiate of the rightwing masses.

            by edg on Thu Jul 29, 2010 at 01:15:36 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Oh puh-leeze. Cut the smello-drama. (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              ferallike, Deep Texan

              You didn't see any of us advocating armed revolt during the Bush regime, did you?, despite the fact that it was the absolute worst regime we have had in living memory, right?   You didn't see diaries advocating that Americans join up with Al Qaeda, right?  

              It's going to take a hell of a lot more than the worst of Bush, McCarthy, and etc. etc. to get us to the point where we would go the armed revolt route.  Something along the lines of a regime that suspends the Constitution by decree and then emulates the worst of the Taliban.

              Once that happens and the illegitimate regime starts slaughtering Americans en masse, it's war whether you like it or not, and don't deny you'd be on the same side.   And if an illegitimate regime of that kind tried to start WW4 and a coalition of other countries decided to invade to get rid of the regime, don't try to tell me you'd be fighting for the regime.

              And no, we are not talking about e.g. Russia or whoever just deciding to invade for their own benefit.  We're talking about the UN and a coalition, after an illegitimate US regime tried to start a world war.

              In any case, the probability of this scenario happening is approximately zero.  We were able to get rid of Bush and his expected successors at the ballot box.  Having done it once, we can do it again, so long as there are ballots and boxes to put 'em in.  

        •  If the US government had policies of.... (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          ferallike, Deep Texan

          ....stoning rape victims to death for adultery, not to mention stoning gay people (that means me, thanks a bunch), banning all forms of music, banning toys for children, and using the halftime at football matches for public beheadings, HELL YEAH I would support an invader in throwing out the illegitimate detestable regime.  

          It would take something of that order of magnitude to make me go that route, but at that point I would hardly be alone.  And you too would be on my side for that one.  

          Remember, G.Washington & friends were traitors to the British Crown in 1776.  And they got help from the French.  

      •  The Times of London is about as credible (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Sandino, thethinveil

        a source of information as FoxNews.  It's disappointing that MSNBC is even reporting on that Rupert Murdoch-generated "story".

        -9.50/-7.59 - Bring 'em back, Out of Iraq and Afghanistan

        by Situational Lefty on Thu Jul 29, 2010 at 12:51:08 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  So here's the Boston Globe (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          G2geek, thethinveil, Deep Texan

          reporting on what th New York Times, the Guardian, and Der Spiegel found about the outing of 100s of Afghan Informants

          A search by The New York Times through a sampling of the documents released by the organization WikiLeaks found reports that gave the names of dozens of Afghans credited with providing credible information to US and NATO troops.

          The Times and two other publications given access to the documents — the British newspaper the Guardian and the German magazine Der Spiegel — had posted online only selected examples from documents that had been redacted to eliminate names and other information that could be used to identify people at risk. The news organizations did this to avoid jeopardizing the lives of informants.

          http://www.boston.com/...

          The beatings will continue until morale improves. -8.50, -6.92

          by ferallike on Thu Jul 29, 2010 at 12:58:52 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Same story. Different corporate news source. (0+ / 0-)

            I'm glad that wikileaks is reporting on this story in place of all the American "journalists" who are too busy filing Flak for the Military Industrial Complex.

            -9.50/-7.59 - Bring 'em back, Out of Iraq and Afghanistan

            by Situational Lefty on Thu Jul 29, 2010 at 01:18:40 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  visualize Afghan families.... (3+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Samulayo, ferallike, Deep Texan

              .... getting dragged out of their houses and tortured slowly to death, children included, thanks to the people you are cheering.

              Yes we have caused civilian casualties.  But those are not deliberate, they are regrettable accidents that occur in war.

              Know what else occurs in war?   ONE THIRD OF THE CASUALTIES TO OUR SOLDIERS ARE FRIENDLY FIRE ACCIDENTS.   THAT is why Generals and suchlike are truly reluctant to go to war.   They know what happens.  They know what's going to happen to their people, the people they are responsible for, the people who are wearing the same ranks that they themselves wore.  

              If you don't think those Generals want O-U-T in a viable manner, or that Obama wants O-U-T in a viable manner, you are downright crazy.  

        •  the people here who are up in arms about this... (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          ferallike, Deep Texan

          ... are people who have either been in the military or in intel, or have people close to them who are or have been.  We're talking about people who are committed progressive Democrats who know something about the intel universe and the risks on the ground.  

          The same people who were up in arms when Plame was outed.  

          The same people who were up in arms when NSA was abused under Bush.

          The same people who were up in arms when CIA was abused under Bush.

          The same people who wrote diary after diary demonstrating why Bush's stovepiped intel and his little group of ideologues who overrode the CIA, were full of so much shit they could have made compost.  

          The same people you agreed with then, and then, and again, and again.

          I suppose you'd prefer the Taliban took over Afghanistan again and went back to stoning rape victims for adultery.  

          •  Please spare us..... (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Situational Lefty

            ...the charges of hypocrisy, when you know darn well that the people who are making arguments in support of this war were decrying the exact same arguments made by Republicans when they were made in favor of the Iraq War.

            •  oh, so we see! two wrongs make you right? (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              ferallike

              And no one who has opposed this irresponsible leak in this thread has been a "supporter of the war," only a critic of a leak that needlessly and recklessly disclosed sources and methods.

              Your thinking is sloppy.  The supposition "supporting the war" is false, and everything that comes after it is therefore meaningless mush.  

              •  Thank you G2 (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                G2geek

                dcrowe, My Langley Blue Badger husband and I marched against and protested these wars right here in DC. We have been against these wars all along. We marched while millions in this country, including many here, sat comfortably in their own homes letting others, like us, risk arrest.

                But these leaks were irresponsible in that they revealed the names of Afghan informants and these informants will likely pay the price for this. They were trying to help their country and us to fight off a terrible murderous regime.

                You cannot rationalize this no matter how hard you try. It's unconscionable.

                The beatings will continue until morale improves. -8.50, -6.92

                by ferallike on Thu Jul 29, 2010 at 09:55:54 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  Don't misread my post... (0+ / 0-)

                  I'd refer you to this comment above:

                  The above is an attack on the president's transparent attempt to spin something in a way not even supported by the publicly available reports coming from his administration. I don't care if the reader comes out of it supporting or not supporting what Assange and Co. did. I am concerned, rather, with the president not getting away with enlisting the information in a spin campaign to support his misguided, costly, and brutal policy in Afghanistan.

              •  Again, sloppy. (0+ / 0-)

                Above you warned about all the terrible things that happened when people who oppose the war opposed LBJ and gave us "8 years of Nixon." Then you claim that people who oppose the war "prefer the Taliban took over Afghanistan again and went back to stoning rape victims for adultery."

                Nice attempt at playing all the angles, but it's transparent.

                •  dude, i've just pulled a f---ing allnighter... (0+ / 0-)

                  ...for work, so my tolerance for horse manure is starting to decline in favor of picking up a pitchfork and putting it to good use.  

                  Meanwhile you're sitting there making smug noises and splitting hairs over the dead bodies of people who risked it all (and gave it all; thanks a bunch!) to help us fight one of the most evil regimes in recent memory.  

                  Yecch.  Just yecch.  

              •  And further... (0+ / 0-)

                ...one should address the arguments actually being made if one is going to throw around the "sloppy thinking" label:

                The above is an attack on the president's transparent attempt to spin something in a way not even supported by the publicly available reports coming from his administration. I don't care if the reader comes out of it supporting or not supporting what Assange and Co. did. I am concerned, rather, with the president not getting away with enlisting the information in a spin campaign to support his misguided, costly, and brutal policy in Afghanistan.

                Please actually engage with the content in the post or stop wasting our time.

                •  oh, don't let Obama get away with it! (0+ / 0-)

                  Send a bunch of people dressed up like vampires and wearing circle-A patches, to the White House, to arrest him!

                  Have a plane standing by to take him to The Hague!  And lots of TV cameras!  

                  No, Obama won't get away with it.  You'll see to that.  Or President Huckabee and Vice President Palin will see to it.  

    •  I really don't think this is the same as Valerie (3+ / 0-)

      Plame.

      "Don't knock football...it's just like chess but without the dice" - john07801

      by voracious on Thu Jul 29, 2010 at 12:38:57 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  What's making it hard to leave Afghanistan (4+ / 0-)

      is that it's too easy to stay: Americans at this point don't give a shit, and therefore all the forces in American politics that benefit from endless war have the upper hand.

      We will never leave Afghanistan in victory. Only when we finally give up. And without a political backlash against the war, that won't happen.

      Formerly known as Jyrinx.

      “If I can't dance to it, it's not my revolution.” -- Emma Goldman

      by Code Monkey on Thu Jul 29, 2010 at 01:04:01 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  all those people who quoted Emma.... (0+ / 0-)

        .... when I was in college, were just as ignorant about the facts on the ground as you appear to be right now.  And they were totally ineffectual in terms of politics.  

        If you want to dance, go find somewhere to dance.

        If you want Huckabee/Palin 2012, keep doing what you're doing.

        If you want a clean exit from Afghanistan and Obama or someone more progressive in the next couple of elections, stop the bullshit and get real.

        •  "Stop the bullshit" (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Code Monkey

          Thank you for that very helpful strategy to hold a president accountable.

          If you want more war and more dead people, keep doing what you're doing.

          •  a dime a dozen. (0+ / 0-)

            Firebrands are a dime a dozen, and they add up to a hill of beans.

            If you want more Republicans in Congress, the Senate, and the White House, keep doing what you're doing, with all the impatience and excuses and wining and demanding and pounding your fist.  Go have a riot downtown and break some windows, and throw rocks at the cops and then scream Police Brutality! when they overreact.  

            All to hold the President accountable of course!  Right.

            Do you also take the cake out of the oven in 15 minutes and eat it half-raw, with a spoon?  

            •  What the hell are you talking about? (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Code Monkey

              When you say:

              Go have a riot downtown and break some windows, and throw rocks at the cops and then scream Police Brutality! when they overreact.

              Thanks for the random G20 protester caricature, but it's clear that you're not actually reading the main post and you're arguing with a straw man. Pushing back against blatant White House spin leads to throwing rocks at the cops? Spare us.

  •  One of the US soldiers endangered... (14+ / 0-)

    ... is my youngest nephew who is with his guard unit on their second deployment to Afghanistan.  They had to report for duty ten days after my nephew's wife gave birth to child #3.  When he was gone the first time, the youngest child (then) forgot him, and even the eldest child was on the way to forgetting who Daddy was.  I want my nephew home with his wife and kids where he belongs.

    Assange pointed out in one of his interviews a couple of days ago that the Afghan documents cover the period of ca. 2004-2008.

    That means none of the current military operations can be affected by the release of these documents.

    I wish Obama wouldn't fall for the Repuke criticism and say the same things they used to say about any release of info, even if it is outdated.  That just plays into what Dickie and his daughter and the other warmongers want to say when they want to keep everything secret.

    I have NEVER figured out why, before and after inauguration day, Obama wanted to increase troop strength in Afghanistan.  Aside from trillion dollar soil and mountains that allegedly have some kind of mineral value, Afghanistan is STILL the "graveyard of empires," just as when Alexander the Great lost his battles in those mountains and deserts.

    There is just no rhyme or reason for it.  OBL was found - AND LET GO! - at Tora Bora.  Mission Accomplished, since the stated original goal for invading Afghanistan was to capture or kill OBL for his alleged role in 9/11.  Our troops should have been put on the first troop transport planes out of Afghanistan immediately after OBL was caught and let go.  Letting him go wasn't mentioned until after the fact.  I personally think he was let go because of the oil business partnership between the Bin Laden and Bush families.  Since we've not seen any video, I think he died from his kidney problems a long time ago, and no one's admitting it because the selective release of audio tapes enables politicians to scare those who don't dare ask if their government is lying to them and scares Congress Critters into borrowing and spending more money to keep troops in Afghanistan and Iraq.

    I want these pointless and expensive wars stopped.  The last "justified" war the US was involved with was WWII.  All the people who died or were wounded in Korea, Vietnam (where I lost high school chums), and Iraq and Afghanistan have died or been wounded for no justifiable reason.  They certainly were NOT fought to "defend" the US or "our freedoms."  We can't "win" because the Iraq invasion is a war crime - and Dumbya and Dickie have still not been investigated and tried for their lies and war crimes.  We can't "win" anything in Afghanistan because we never were at war with their people who - like Iraq - were never a threat to us in the first place.  We went into Afghanistan to go after a small gang of loosely organized criminals who have no homeland and were never a part of any nation's military force.  To go after probably less than 1000 gang members with the entire might of the US military is sheer folly.  I think it was Gates or Mullins or someone who said recently that there are less than 100 al Quaida members left.  For that our people are getting killed....  Talk about stupidity....

    They're asking for another four years -- in a just world, they'd get 10 to 20. ~~ Dennis Kucinich

    by NonnyO on Wed Jul 28, 2010 at 11:46:32 PM PDT

  •  We are approaching maximum (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Samulayo, dcrowe

    disengenuity, Mr. Obama!

    But I don't even have to get through any of the WikiLeaks material to see that the president's attempt to spin this leak as a justification of his policies is totally bankrupt.

    Everyone, including Mr. Obama, be warned: all bubbles eventually burst. And the dishonor, when judged, will not be upon those doing the bursting.

  •  These leaks (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Samulayo

    help no one,but can end up hurting and causing death for allies of NATO.

    This is a messy war, just like all wars,that Obama inherited. No great options. The strategy will be reviewed in December,and drawdown will begin in July,2011.

    In the meantime, outing informants that are assisting NATO troops,is treasonous,unless you are allied with the Taliban and AQ.

    If a single named person is killed as a result,then Assange should be tried and convicted.
    Aussie troops are in Afghanistan also. Is he a citizen of Australia?

  •  Offensive (0+ / 0-)

    These leaks have not added anything to our understanding of the War. In the aggregate they do not advance anyone's political position vis-a-vis the war.

    They are operational minutia. The release of which  endangers American and allied soldiers by exposing details of operations. And, hideously endangers Afghan informants - those folks trying to promote a better future for Afghanistan.

    It is shameful that anyone here rejoices in this wikileak dump.

    •  The post above is about how the White House... (0+ / 0-)

      ...is reacting to the release, and attempting to enlist it in a spin campaign to bolster the rationale for an ongoing escalation. You don't have to support the Wikileaks leak to see through what the president tried to do with it in his statement.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site