Schlagwort: Media

As long as they are showing how evil the dictators of this world are, they are welcome. But as of recently, the whistleblower-website Wikileaks has been in the crosshairs of the US government. They have posted online around 76,000 secret documents on the war in Afghanistan, revealing immense security problems of the ISAF forces as well as brutal facts from the battlefield – and they announced the posting of another 15,000 reports. The US and other countries involved in the conflict have protested against what they call a „threat to national security“.  Wikileaks has – now to a broader public – shown what a powerful instrument it can be. This, however, does not come without risks.

The „Afghan War Diary“ comprises documents dating between January 2004 and December 2009.  Most of the papers are reports from military officers – nobody knows, who has „leaked“ them. The internet platform Wikileaks offers to publish all official documents anonymously. The essence of the war logs is: this is a failing conflict. They establish a picture of massive civilian losses in the course of military operations, so-called „blue-on-white“ events,  a secret „black“ unit of special forces that hunts down Taliban leaders for „kill or capture“ without trial, and they tell us from Pakistani and Iranian involvment in the conflict – for the Taliban, of course. Also bleak news for Germany: the security situation in the Afghan north around Kundus, where the German troops operate, has deterioriated.

In around 144 accounts, assaults on civilians are reported – with an admitted death toll of 195 persons and almost the same numer of people injured. But, as the Guardian points out, this number might be underestimated, as many incidents do not show in official documents, and often the exact numer of casualties is not known. Besides high collateral damages in airstrikes, the newspaper reports:

The bulk of the „blue-white“ file consists of a relentless catalogue of civilian shootings on nearly 100 occasions by jumpy troops at checkpoints, near bases or on convoys. Unco-operative drivers and motorcyclists are frequent targets.

Most civilians, nevertheless, were killed by the Talibans, who have managed to step up their roadside bombing campaign, which has killed at least 2,000 persons to date. Also some evidence linking the Pakistani secret service ISI to Taliban operations has popped up, accusations that high-ranking officers have financed, trained and supported the Taliban insurgency – vague material, hard to interpret. The Guardian admits:

If anything, the jumble of allegations highlights the perils of collecting accurate intelligence in a complex arena where all sides have an interest in distorting the truth.

What role can the Wikileaks dossier play in this messy situation? The documents were classified „secret“ at the time, but are no longer militarily sensitive. The danger that Taliban commanders get information about current war strategies is excluded by Leaks-founder Julian Assange. The documents, as stated, were issued between 2004 and 2009, therefore cannot bear „timely“ details of military tactics by the Allied troops, as he states.

httpv://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-E5nrTRHSck

The people behind Wikileaks have high-level goals. Indeed, one is not completely on the wrong track to say: They are on a mission. Their website states:

Principled leaking has changed the course of history for the better; it can alter the course of history in the present; it can lead us to a better future.

As an example for a possible positive result of „leaking“ they name Daniel Ellsberg, who disseminated the Pentagon Papers in the early 1970s, a 7,000 page study by the US-government about the countries involvment in Vietnam. One of the biggest „leaks“ in US history:

Among other things, the Papers revealed that the United States government deliberately expanded its role in the war with airstrikes against Laos, raids of the coast of North Vietnam, and U.S. Marine Corps attacks before the American public was told of them, while President Lyndon B. Johnson was promising not to expand the war. The document widened the credibility gap between the U.S. government and the American people, hurting the Richard Nixon administration’s war effort.

It turned out well in the early 1970s. However, for such complex situations such as in Afghanistan there can be no „one size fits all“- solution. And though the Wikileakers are absolutely right in their endeavour for more transparent governance and responsible information policy, providing the stone-age Islamists with valuable information around the allied forces certainly can neither be the wish of the Leakers nor the Wikileaks-staff – whether they were for or against this intervention. By the way: the current Obama government wasn’t – therefore, ousting it now would not make sense.

Indeed, there is room for abuse and misinterpretation: After all, with todays possibilities of retouching images and documents, reports might be found one day in the emailaccounts of the Wikileaks staff „evidencing“ all kinds of events – also data that might severely strenghten authoritarian and undemocratic regimes. The fact that also internal loyalties and internet accesses are not distributed equally among the countries might again result in biased pictures. Through the Afghan War Diaries we are delivered a relentlessly realistic bit of the „truth“ – but again only a bit. In other words:  We are more than lucky if a Taliban-whistleblower uploads internal war logs of the same value and the same size on the platform. Up to now it can be taken for granted the Islamists were delighted to read about the leaked documents.

In addition: to interpret these documents, with the supposed outcome to correct undemocratic tendencies, it needs able and intelligent analysts and journalists. Not only in the office(s) of Wikileaks, as it can be supposed that most readers will read in newspapers about Wikileaks, not in Wikileaks itself. As indicated before – as to the outcome of the publication of secret documents, there is no automatism. If you ask me: Seeing and reading on Julian Assange, he gives an able, intelligent and honest impression. Nevertheless, besides him and his German colleague Daniel Schmitt, noone knows who is responsible for the interpretation of the material. And Assange assured that there are no details in the Afghan warlogs „endangering local informants or giving away genuine military secrets“. The newspapers Guardian, the NYTimes and the magazine Der Spiegel however deny this. We don’t know. Judged from my perspective, nevertheless, Wikileaks has the power to do a lot of good – let’s hope they do this with utmost care and responsibility.