No intent, real or implied. Simple statements of fact.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Lorraine
Ken, I'm not sure of your intent here. Can you explain further?
The first should be totally self explanatory and is accurate; the nation and the Army simply have not mobilized for the small wars that we have engaged in since 1945. That does not mean that no one cared or did not do their best in the role given, merely that the nation -- and thus, the Army -- has not had to fully mobilize since WWII.
That was a war that involved about 11% of the population in service and about 70% or so of adults in civilian supporting roles. It required about 35% of annual GDP each year for defense alone, other costs probably were almost as much. No war since then has seen more than 2% of the population in uniform (currently it's a bit over one half of 1%), other than quite minimal civilian disruption or more than 4% or so of GDP -- that was Korea, most were far less expensive. LINK (.pdf), LINK. In short, the Army has sent folks to war but the bulk of the Army remained relatively unaffected. Most important and most negatively, the Army bureaucracy was and is not forced to adapt to a war fighting mode or mentality.
The second is that we're wealthy enough -- in many senses, not just fiscally -- to do that so it has been a given (and that is unlikely to change...). Those of us who served for lengthy periods (as opposed to Draftees and short term Enlistees or Officers) knew or should have known or should know it was / is part of the job and all should be willing to accept it as the price paid for the many advantages we have. I did; no regrets at all. :cool:
That does not mean that many of the short term people should simply accept it with good grace. The career folks, OTOH should or they probably should seek other employment. Though I admit it can be -- was -- annoying from time to time it's simply the way things are; it's a human thing, a feature, not a bug. .. :wry:
Arbiters of life and death
Intentionally or not, WikiLeaks has become an arbiter of life and death.
Here's telling quote from the Channel 4 interview referenced by subrosa above:
Quote:
There is an awful amount of material here that you couldn't have looked through personally. Could it cost lives? Is it putting people in danger publishing this?
We've gone through the material and reviewed it and looked for cases where innocent informers, ie an old man saying next door there is a Taliban, or what he believes is Taliban, so we've looked for those cases and there's a particular type of report that frequently has that - those have been withheld and also the source says they have done some work in doing this as well. So I think it's unlikely that that will happen. We've worked hard to make sure there's not a significant chance of anybody coming to harm.
But you can't guarantee it?
Any information can be abused for another purpose so we can't guarantee it. But our understanding of the material is that it's vastly more likely to save lives than cost lives.
With four years experience, a "strong method", and without checks and balances, WikiLeaks steams ahead with a certainty that through their work and thier proper judgment, they can achieve justice. And by extension, that any deaths occuring as a result of their work is a regrettable means to a noble end.
Achieving justice is a monumental task with which all societies struggle. For WikiLeaks to take it on in this manner reveals a dangerous naivety in their crusade and confidence.
One Canadian angle to the docs
Been a while since I've posted, so feel free to shift this if it doesn't belong here.....
Here in Canada, one of the documents drawing the media's eye (copy saved in Scribd.com here) deals with an incident where 4 Canadians were killed in 2006. The report is classified "Friendly Fire", so media people here are reading this to mean "Cdn cas=blue-blue cas". A spokesperson for the Minister of National Defence has denied this, and people who were there also say that's not the case.
Also, in the words of one Twitterer just after the release:
Quote:
The Wiki leaks is going to get lots of people into the hit list of Taleban, even if the names are not real.
How Does the CIA Know If Its Intel Is Any Good?
A short article on FP reflecting on how intelligence works and amidst the avalanche of comments worth a read IMHO:http://www.foreignpolicy.com/article..._and_what_isnt
Now, does Wikileaks contribute to greater understanding for the reader of what has happened as a guide to today? I think not.
Getting more bizzare by the minute...
WikiLeaks posts huge encrypted file to Web Link
Quote:
LONDON – Online whistle-blower WikiLeaks has posted a huge encrypted file named "Insurance" to its website, sparking speculation that those behind the organization may be prepared to release more classified information if authorities interfere with them.
Somebody tell this guy that he isn't Will Smith and that this aint "Enemy of the State."
WikiLeaks or not -- Classified is still classified
According a Huffington Post story, this week the Navy issued an official memo notifying sailors that they should not and are not authorized to view the classified documents on WikiLeaks. Huffington Posts quotes the memo:
"There has been rumor that the information is no longer classified since it resides in the public domain. This is NOT true."
The Navy memo articulates an important message to military and civilian alike -- viewing the classified documents at WikiLeaks expands the reach of sensitive info and reinforces WikiLeaks' role as a legitimate infomation provider.
I agree with the Navy -- tempting as it may be, there are few, if any, compelling reasons for most of us to view the classified information.