The Wikileaks collection

[huskerguy7]

In my opinion, I think the release of these classified reports is inappropriate and unnecessary. Even though much of the names are deleted, it still compromises relationships, tactics, operations, and strategy. I do agree with transparency to an extent, but 92,000 documents from an ongoing war is disappointing. As a citizen, I know that some facts about ongoing conflicts are going to be hidden, and understand. I'm ok with that because I trust the people in office and in command. What's really frustrating is that the mass media is going to capitalize on a couple of these documents to paint their own picture of the war. I think that this may cause unnecessary panic and several misunderstandings about the war. Don't get me wrong, I am taking advantage of this event to learn more about the war. However, I would rather have preferred that this leak did not happen; the effects are not worth it. Nevertheless, anybody could oppose this assertion with legitimate points.

As for the content of the documents, I've had the chance to examine some (I'm the kind of person that prefers to avoid relays when receiving information). There is a substantial amount of interesting information that confirms some of my opinions, proves some wrong, and surprises me. After reading a certain amount, I feel that my understanding is better.

[Red Rat]

I have only seen the UK's 'Guardian' newspaper coverage.

From the perspective of an informed observer there appears to be little new in the material released. Most was 'known of' in the public domain, even if it was not widely reported or acknowledged. The sheer amount of material published does IMHO mean that an analysis of it will reveal stuff relating to our intelligence structure, efforts and effectiveness that we just do not want people to know. It will damage us. The Guardian acknowledges (link given elsewhere in thread) that they had too much material and not enough time to process it, so they used a word search facility to home in an areas of interest (search 'blue on blue', 'casualties', 'Iran' etc). This methodology means IMHO that they are simply unable to say truthfully or accurately that its release will not put lives at risk or damage national interests. Overall I found the analysis disappointingly superficial which reinforced my feeling that they were overloaded with information and have not been able to look at it properly in the time they had.

The coverage is interesting too. The 'Guardian' is a left of centre liberal newspaper. The narrative it appeared to be trying to build was that the war was messier (morally and physically) then we think and we cannot trust what we are being told about the situation out there:

• More civilian casualties
• SF taskforces killing targets under dubious legal grounds
• Issues over Afghan government effectiveness (and moral worth), Pakistan and Iranian involvement.

This will strike a chord with the 'why are we there and what are we achieving' component in the UK.

[John T. Fishel]

As a former national level Army analyst, my experience was that there was an awful lot of stuff classified that had no business being classified.
A little background for those who don't know:
1. There are only 3 levels of classification in the US, confidential, Secret, and Top Secret with Secret being the middle level (contrary to the NYT story). They are established and defined by Executive Order, not by legislation. There are also compartments within each category where access is granted based on "need to know."
2. Level of classification is chosen by the"degree of harm" to US national security based on unauthorized release.
3. Most classified documents are classified because they are based on previouslly classified documents - called "derivative classification authority."

IMO documents are legitimately classified when they relate to war plans (writ large), intel sources and methods, and perishable friendly and enemy information, as well as non-perishable stuff. Generally, once a plan has been executed, there is no longer a need to keep it classified although there may be some parts that should remain so. Generally, intelligence information is perishable and becomes part of the public domain fairly quickly so there is usually no longer a need to keep the INFORMATION itself classified. Sources and methods need to stay classified fro a very long time.

My experience has been that once classified it is unusaul for declassification to take place. An exception was OPORD BLIND LOGIC, my plan for the post-conflict reconstruction of Panama which my boss deliberately declassified after it had been executed. But, it is generally too difficult to take the time to declassify plans and information while retaining as classified what should be retained. So, people don't bother. There are also plenty of examples of the improper use of classification. When the opening to China took place, my organization ran a curren intel article on Ping Pong Dipolmacy that the author classified as Confidential even though he had taken it directly from the CBS Morning News on the grounds that if it were UNCLAS the generals would not believe it! In other cases, things have been classified only because they would embarrass public officials if released - this was IMO the primary reason the Nixon Administration sought to block the release of the Pentagon Papers.

Despite some cases of improper classification, the general problem of overclassification and lack of declassification is the all too human response that doing what is right is simply in the "too hard" box. That brings on its own problems such as Wikileaks and the Pentagon Papers (which should simply have been declassified and released).

Cheers

JohnT

[J Wolfsberger]

As a former national level Army analyst, my experience was that there was an awful lot of stuff classified that had no business being classified.

I worked with a guy who tried to classify F=ma (Top Secret, no less), on the grounds we didn't want the Soviets to know we were using basic physics. (No, I'm not making that up.)

I'll second John, but then introduce a caveat. While there is probably stuff in this release that shouldn't have been classified, that wasn't the leaker's decision to make.

[A. Shahid]

The 'documents', if they can be called as much, appear to simply be culled from a well-known database used in theater.
The other issue, one that I'm personally concerned about, is the impact on the lives of named individuals in these documents. When we signed our agreements concerning the proper use of classified material, it was implied that the government would hold up its end of the bargain and prevent the unauthorized disclosure of our names, identities, activities, etc. The fact that US individuals are named in these documents and NOT redacted by the media is disturbing. This could have significant personal and professional ramifications for those who are not career, active-duty intelligence personnel. In some cases, the perception of involvement in 'covert' or 'special forces' raids could make us unhireable in certain professional disciplines.
What sayeth the Council on this matter?

[tom_mancino]

1. No moral equivalency between the Pentagon Papers, released by one of the authors, and a disturbed 22 year old PFC Manning - the most likely source of this leak.
2. Failure to prosecute/stop these leaks shows a disturbing lack of leadership. Where was the CIA? Was any effort made to stop this or other leaks? The existence of this data had been suspected since Manning's arrest.
3. What will Wikileaks have to produce in order to be prosecuted? Names and addresses of operators? The founder is an Australian after all, a NATO and combatant country.
4. These leaks and others like them will have a chilling effect on intelligence operations. Would you give information if you thought it/you might be made available to the enemy?
5. Failure to prosecute these types of events provide support to our enemies, irrespective of the value of the intelligence they contain, by showing that we are not serious. What would have happened had this type of event occurred during WWII? Are we at war or not?

[Ken White]

...What would have happened had this type of event occurred during WWII? Are we at war or not?

and have not been since WW II. Elements of the Army are committed to a war, the institution is not at war nor is the US.

I know very well why that is distasteful. However, I'm unsure why it is not more widely known and accepted (in the sense that it is inevitable so you might as well enjoy it...).

[Yank in Germany]

One other story last week shows the lack of public commitment to the war.
The Washington Post story on "Top Secret America" condemns the role of contractors however because many Western powers are volunteer forces, the logistic and intelligence tasks have to be picked up by contractors rather than by filling the personnel shortfalls with draftees.