Explosive leaks about Afghanistan

[D.Turtle]

Holy shit, I think Afghanistan will dominate the headlines for a little while again:

The Afghanistan Protocol
Explosive Leaks Provide Image of War from Those Fighting It

By Matthias Gebauer, John Goetz, Hans Hoyng, Susanne Koelbl, Marcel Rosenbach and Gregor Peter Schmitz

In an unprecedented development, close to 92,000 classified documents pertaining to the war in Afghanistan have been leaked. SPIEGEL, the New York Times and the Guardian have analyzed the raft of mostly classified documents. The war logs expose the true scale of the Western military deployment -- and the problems beleaguering Germany's Bundeswehr in the Hindu Kush.

A total of 91,731 reports from United States military databanks relating to the war in Afghanistan are to be made publicly available on the Internet. Never before has it been possible to compare the reality on the battlefield in such a detailed manner with what the US Army propaganda machinery is propagating. WikiLeaks plans to post the documents, most of which are classified, on its website.

Britain's Guardian newspaper, the New York Times and SPIEGEL have all vetted the material and compared the data with independent reports. All three media have concluded that the documents are authentic and provide an unvarnished image of the war in Afghanistan -- from the perspective of the soldiers who are fighting it.

The reports, from troops engaged in the ongoing combat, were tersely summarized and quickly dispatched. For the most part, they originate from sergeants -- but some have been penned by the occasional lieutenant at a command post or ranking analysts with the military intelligence service.

The documents' release comes at a time when calls for a withdrawal of troops from Afghanistan are growing -- even in America. Last week, representatives from more than 70 nations and organizations met in Kabul for the Afghanistan conference. They assured President Hamid Karzai that his country would be in a position by 2014 to guarantee security using its own soldiers and police.

A Gloomy Picture

But such shows of optimism seem cynical in light of the descriptions of the situation in Afghanistan provided in the classified documents. Nearly nine years after the start of the war, they paint a gloomy picture. They portray Afghan security forces as the hapless victims of Taliban attacks. They also offer a conflicting impression of the deployment of drones, noting that America's miracle weapons are also entirely vulnerable.

And they show that the war in northern Afghanistan, where German troops are stationed, is becoming increasingly perilous. The number of warnings about possible Taliban attacks in the region -- fuelled by support from Pakistan -- has increased dramatically in the past year.

The documents offer a window into the war in the Hindu Kush -- one which promises to change the way we think about the ongoing violence in Afghanistan. They will also be indispensible for anyone seeking to inform themselves about the war in the future.

Despite repeated requests, the White House refused to provide any comment in time for the deadline of the printed edition of SPIEGEL. On Saturday evening, however, a White House official finally provided written answers to select questions about the content of the reports obtained, but refused to grant an interview.

Ben Rhodes, director of strategic communication for the US National Security Council, said: "Since taking office, President Obama has been very clear and candid with the American people about the challenges that we face in Afghanistan and Pakistan. The president and senior officials in his administration have spoken openly and repeatedly about the safe havens that exist in Pakistan, the security and governance challenges in Afghanistan, and the difficulties that lie ahead. ... It is important to note that the time period reflected in the documents is January 2004 to December 2009. The war in Afghanistan was under-resourced for many years. ... On Dec. 1, 2009, President Obama announced a new strategy and new resources for Afghanistan and Pakistan precisely because of the grave situation there."

Responding to the intention of WikiLeaks to make the classified military documents available online, Rhodes said: "We strongly condemn the disclosure of classified information by individuals and organizations that put the lives of the US and partner service members at risk and threatens our national security." He said that WikiLeaks made "no effort to contact the United States government about these documents, which may contain information that endanger the lives of Americans, our partners and local populations who cooperate with us."

The editors in chief of SPIEGEL, the New York Times and the Guardian have agreed that they would not publish especially senstive information in the classified material -- like the names of the US military's Afghan informants or information that could create additional security risks for soldiers stationed in Afghanistan. The publishers were unanimous in their belief that there is a justified public interest in the material because they provide a more thorough understanding of a war that continues today after nine years.

SPIEGEL ONLINE has summarized a selection of the most important findings in the data.

More info at the link - I don't want to flood this post with copy-pasted stuff. The New York Times and the Guardian also have more stuff up.

[Ilya Muromets]

Okay, this was really jarring. Considering that it's talking about the "naivety" German involvement, why the hell did they feel the need to open with this? (bolding mine)

The newly emerged documents do not contain any information suggesting that German troops were involved in any excesses of violence against the civilian population or in any illegal clandestine operations. Nevertheless, they convey an image of Germany's armed forces, the Bundeswehr, that is still devastating because they depict a German military that stumbled into the conflict with great naivity. Under current German Defense Minister Karl-Theodor zu Guttenberg (pictured here), they are now learning how close to civil war Afghanistan really is and how little Germany's armed forces, the Bundeswehr have achieved there.

Er, why the hell did they feel the need to point out that, no, the Germans weren't being Nazis violent against civilians when it's talking about how unprepared they are for the conflict?From a German news site, no less. Even more so since the rest of the article doesn't even mention troop violence against civilians.

EDIT: Unless, the possibility of German troops abusing civilians in Afghanistan is a big worry in Germany. Is it?

[Aaron]

This is one of Germany's first hardcore combat deployments (if not the first, I can't recall if they where in Bosnia early on), so yes, their going to be naive and inexperienced. Thats to be expected. Theres also been a rather rosy picture of Afghanistan pained for a while, so no surprise.

Why they open with that, who knows. I know that the war is unpopular in Europe, maybe some folks did expect them to goose-step across Afghanistan kicking kittens.

[Havok]

EDIT: Unless, the possibility of German troops abusing civilians in Afghanistan is a big worry in Germany. Is it?

Do you really need to ask this question? I would think that it is abundantly clear that German troops are, for the time being, and as long as WWI and II remain in our collective living memories, going to be under increased scrutiny, especially when interacting with civilians. I would think that the German population would be even more sensitive to that fact.

I wonder who leaked 91,000 documents?

[Sinanju]

Uh...back up a second. Why is this a contradiction again? From what I've read so far it seems like the Bundeswehr is being described as naive in the 'oh hey this area seems pretty quiet BUT WAIT! It isn't!' sense. So, uh...why is this mutually exclusive with them not committing war crimes?

The way I parsed the article is that they were dealt a shitty hand but are dealing with it in a professional way.

[Axiomatic]

They naively neglected to murder civilians, I guess?

[Ilya Muromets]

Uh...back up a second. Why is this a contradiction again? From what I've read so far it seems like the Bundeswehr is being described as naive in the 'oh hey this area seems pretty quiet BUT WAIT! It isn't!' sense. So, uh...why is this mutually exclusive with them not committing war crimes?

It's not about it being a contradiction. It's because it came out of left field, given that the article mentioned nothing about troops and atrocities. All it was talking about was the inexperience of the troops, how they've trouble coping with difficulties in the field, and how Pakistan may be an unreliable ally. Nothing about atrocities and troop abuses at all. So why mention that, "Oh, BTW, they didn't commit atrocities" when captioning one of the pictures?

[Zac Naloen]

It reads to me that it's a subtle dig at the US and British who's scandals generally have been the abusing or death of civilians?

[Serafina]

Well, i can't say much about the naivety of german troops (the ones i have been talking with seem pretty pragmatic), but the german populace is more than just naive.
First of all, deployment of the Bundeswehr outside of Germany (or rather, at all) is still despised by many. And the government just recently stopped portraying Afghanistan as a non-combat mission and started to admit that it is a combat mission (and Germany is not deployed in the hot zones).
There is also a LOT of fear that german soldiers might commit barbaric acts like american (and other) soldiers did. Even if it is just a single squad, the public reaction would be extreme.

Overall, the german populace has almost zero tolerance for actual warfare in a foreign nation.

[salm]

There is also a LOT of fear that german soldiers might commit barbaric acts like american (and other) soldiers did. Even if it is just a single squad, the public reaction would be extreme.

Overall, the german populace has almost zero tolerance for actual warfare in a foreign nation.

The public reaction was pretty extreme when that one Oberst called air support to bomb a fuel transporter and a whole bunch of civilians were killed.

We´ve also had trouble with idiot soldiers making photographs of themselves skullfucking, well, skulls, of dead Afghans.

[Dahak]

Quite frankly, I really don't see why we have to "defend Germany at the Hindukush".
At the end of the day it is a massive resource drain in a time when we can use the money more sensible. I fail to see how Germany benefits from that or somehow becomes "safer".

[salm]

Quite frankly, I really don't see why we have to "defend Germany at the Hindukush".
At the end of the day it is a massive resource drain in a time when we can use the money more sensible. I fail to see how Germany benefits from that or somehow becomes "safer".

Indeed, it seems like we´re doing this only so we can say: "Hey, look, we´re doing our share for the war on terror afterall."

[Thanas]

We´ve also had trouble with idiot soldiers making photographs of themselves skullfucking, well, skulls, of dead Afghans.

Dead soviet soldiers, actually.


That said, there are a lot more reports of american and coalition war crimes in German media, so the Bundeswehr has come under a lot of scrutiny as well. Especially considering that the KSK missions are classified, but the rumour mill has been throwing around a lot of stuff they allegedly did.

The public reaction was pretty extreme when that one Oberst called air support to bomb a fuel transporter and a whole bunch of civilians were killed.

Yeah, though that story vanished completely out of the news. I bet most Germans do not even know the guy was acquitted.

[Guardsman Bass]

I've read The Guardian, the New York Times, and the english-language Der Spiegel accounts on the leaks, and I think the whole thing is overblown, to be honest. There were basically a couple main points in what was released, which were

• Corruption is rampant in the Afghan National Police, and Afghan government.
• There are US special forces groups targeting Taliban leadership.
• US official and the ground leadership think that the ISI is heavily involved in the insurgency, but the proof is muddled.
• There have been a number of incidents in which civilians were killed, and the whole thing was white-washed.
• The insurgency has stepped up the use of roadside bombs.

It's interesting information, but it's not particularly new information. There's been a good amount of media coverage on just about every one of those points.

That said, some of the minor information was interesting. Like how the Bundeswehr is having issues with their once-peaceful area in the north of Afghanistan.