Abu Muqawama: Post
Abu Muqawama retains its autonomy and the views and beliefs expressed within the blog do not reflect those of CNAS. Abu Muqawama retains the right to delete comments that include words that incite violence; are predatory, hateful, or intended to intimidate or harass; or degrade people on the basis of gender, race, class, ethnicity, national origin, religion, sexual orientation, or disability. In summary, don't be a jerk.
Scoop!
July 25, 2010 | Posted by Abu Muqawama - 9:58pm | 60 Comments
Here are the things I have learned thus far from the documents released via Wikileaks:
- Elements within Pakistan's Directorate for Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) support the Taliban.
- The United States integrates direct action special operations into its counterinsurgency efforts in Afghanistan, targeting insurgent leaders through capture/kill missions.
- Civilians have died in Afghanistan, often as the result of coalition combat operations.
I'm going to bed, but if I were to stay up late reading more, here is what I suspect I would discover:
- "Afghanistan" has four syllables.
- LeBron is going to the Heat.
- D'Angelo Barksdale didn't actually commit suicide in prison. Stringer Bell had him killed.
- Although a document dated 17 October 2004 claims the Red Sox were down 3-0 in a seven-game series with the Yankees, they actually went on to win 4-3.
- Liberace was gay.
- The Pathan remains wily.
- Julian Assange is a clown.
Lara Logan may have had an
Lara Logan may have had an affair with a SOF Soldier.
Well, what's next for
Well, what's next for Julian? A photo shoot with Annie Leibowitz?
http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2010/jul/25/julian-assange-profile-wikil...
I don't think I've ever seen
I don't think I've ever seen such a disconnect between the American public and its supposedly "elite" decision-making classes in my life. From the right-wing sites to the left-wing sites, you find the same comments about the document dump: "ooh, big surprise here. We knew this already."
What does it say about our public policy elite, our decision makers, our DC class, that the official line is all: "our staunch ally, our indespensible ally, here's aid money for blah blah blah."
Your DC world is broken, Abu M: your lefty think tank, the righty think tanks, the foreign policy white-paper writing elite, Congress, the Senate, the upper echelons of the military. You craft surreal and unworkable solutions to our very real problems, speak silly diplo-speak to a rightly skeptical public, and then expect the rest of us out in the hinterlands to respect you.
I'm done. I'm just done with the lot of you. You are incapable of making strategies or policies that are effective. Both parties. Both sets of D.C. partisans.
Good luck in life (and on this I am sincere. You all seem like nice sorts, I just don't understand how you can be so misguided. And then I remember my years at Harvard. Good grief, academia is corrupt. No one has the balls to take it on, because either you leave of your own disgusted accord as I did, or you keep your mouth shut in the hopes of making some kind of difference in the future.)
Someone please interview Senators Lugar and Kerry about this. Do your jobs, dear friends in the media. For the love of all that is holy, please do your GD jobs. I'm still on your side, oddly enough. Don't know why, but I am.
The real scandal is the way this document dump shows your Washington set floundering. Stop the aid, pare back to something workable in Afghanistan, and quit making fun of everday Americans as "whiners" about their taxes. Our hard earned dollars made from that extra shift, from overtime, taking that second degree, taking a second job, deciding to become entrepreneurs despite the difficulties and laying awake at night worrying about how the business will run, funds that town. Don't ever forget it, you parasites.
Dude, major spoiler alert
Dude, major spoiler alert with the Barksdale info.
But also, "Anon is all you deserve," I don't understand what the outrage is all about. A lot of the same blogs you reference that have previously said the same things 'revealed' in the documents have also called for an end to operations in Afghanistan for those very reasons. I think your problem is with our actual elected leadership, which I would say most people have a problem with.
Or at least, I understand where your rage is coming from, but not what the wikileaks stuff has to do with it.
What a diatribe! Too bad
What a diatribe! Too bad we'll never track down "anon is all you deserve" and convince him to give us another shot.
Sorry if that came off as
Sorry if that came off as rage - it was sadness and disgust. I'm not rageful. And I DO wish people well.
If the hosts think my comment should be deleted, please go ahead. I did not mean it to come off that way. I was reading the NYT and HotAir commenters and I guess it just set something off. wikileaks and the articles it is generating underscore the weird disconnect of what everyone knows to be reality, and what officials are saying public. The disconnect is so very large.
Yeah sleep well, it won't
Yeah sleep well, it won't play in the news...we have closer things to worry about.
Learn the lesson about the press, and the Progressives.
They're both geebas.
From the NYT: Senator John
From the NYT:
Senator John Kerry, the chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, said the documents released by WikiLeaks raised serious issues about the U.S.’s handling of the situation in Afghanistan and Pakistan.
“However illegally these documents came to light, they raise serious questions about the reality of America’s policy toward Pakistan and Afghanistan. Those policies are at a critical stage and these documents may very well underscore the stakes and make the calibrations needed to get the policy right more urgent.”
This is what set me off. Now I'm horrified, everyone. There is no excuse for my rudeness. It's just so strange isn't it? The words versus the reality? Shouldn't the Senator have something more specific to say given the crafting of certain legislation?
I guess I'm the only one that is having that particular issue with wikileaks. Sigh. Off to take some anti-"rage" pills, or a stiff drink, or something.
http://atwar.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/07/25/the-war-logs/
Although I don't like
Although I don't like Wikileaks, it clearly has an political agenda to push, there is justified public interest in the leaked reports. The American Citizen (and the citizens of other countries aiding America in Afghanistan) deserves to know what their Militaries are doing in Afghanistan. The Military serves people, not the other way around.
I just don't like the fact
I just don't like the fact that numbered and colored TFs will now be bandied about the blogosphere.
Uncool.
After reading some of
After reading some of analysis, it's been shown that the Militaries have repeatedly failed to investigate incidents that resulted in the death Innocent Afghan civilians or outright lied to the Media.
Hey, man! Spoiler alert for
Hey, man! Spoiler alert for #3 on your second list!
Seriously though, I agree with the sentiment of your post. But what about the fact that the Taliban has been using heat-seeking missiles against allied aircraft? Surely that's new info for the public. After reading Steve Coll's "Ghost Wars," I got the impression that heat-seeking missiles gave the Ruskies a really big, bleeding, pus-filled black eye back in the day. Of course, there is no opposing superpower supplying the enemy with a steady, free supply of Stingers this time, but we're more casualty-averse (in the sense that every casualty has a higher political cost in the US) than the USSR was.
Anyway, I think Wikileak's good works are overshadowed by their god-complex and conspiratorial paranoia about every institution in existence. There was just no point in publishing this information. The public can only be informed insofar as their knowledge and intelligence allows, no matter how much data and information you throw in their face. Most people won't know how to process this information, or be able to figure out what it means for them, for the war, or for the country. But our enemies, both current and potential, sure do.
it's been shown
it's been shown that...
You've never been in a war, or investigated, have you?
I mean, you are kidding right? You thought we're the police?
Holy shit, a progressive earthquake....
LOL
"Julian Assange is a
"Julian Assange is a clown."
And you're a fucking asshole.
Making the world less safe for democracy.
And by the way, you're
And by the way, you're lying. You're actually really pissed off this all became public.
And how much money did people like you give Hekmatyar before be became a bad guy?
To some of us he was always a bad guy, just like bin Laden.
But you're 'Merkin from Texas. You didn't give a shit about anything east of Oklahoma till "they" attacked "us".
You used to worry 'bout the Communis'
What a stupid fucking country.
8. Dr. Josh Foust was a big
8. Dr. Josh Foust was a big hit at the lattest Bacha Bazi down south, dressed as Justin Bieber lip sync-king to Baby, almost causing a 5 way civil war in Afghanistan since all the southern warlords wanted to boink him bad.
What ibn Batuta said. The
What ibn Batuta said. The irony for me is that after not being able to share any of the information about Canadian military operations contained within with my ANA colleagues, for security reasons, it all sees the light of day now in a tabularized, digital, easily exploitable format in a U.S. database. God love 'em, but if I'd passed some of the same info at the time to the Afghans, they'd have written it down, badly translated and with the grids all wrong, on a sheet of paper. Then lost the paper.
I'd love to pretend this'll help, but the likely result of this sort of thing will be the pushing up of even routine operational traffic from SECRET to TOP SECRET, limiting its ability to influence operations, increasing the number of soldiers who need even higher clearances to manipulate it, etc., etc.
Yep. Pointless! Totally
Yep. Pointless! Totally pointless! Journalists and whomever else already know all this stuff (they're the only ones that need to!), and why would any of the hundreds of millions of people who live in the U.S. and Europe and are paying for the Afghan adventure be interested in learning more concrete details about what's going on over there?
I mean, who likes secret government documents relating to critical issues that affect many millions of people? We're all busy watching reality shows, and efforts to provide information to citizens in the hope that they become more informed about foreign affairs is stupid and kinda weeny. Also there's no way that any of this information will help reporters or historians or other academics with FOIA requests--basically the leak was a huge waste of time and just a publicity stunt. No substance at all here and we should just deride the whole effort and everyone connected to it! Quit trying to provide us with information you Wikileaks lame-os!
Sorry for the snark, I guess, but it's impossible to take seriously the original post by Muqawama and a number of followup comments. It's like you folks are living on a different planet.
ABu M: Youre making the
ABu M: Youre making the faulty assumption that your own perspective equals that off the public. Over here in Europe, the "debate" on Afghanistan has been virtually non-existent, and at least Norwegian operations have been clouded in absolute secrecy. While the Wikileaks may not be telling those of us who follow this obsessively anything new, it will have a big impact on the public sphere and (hopefully) raise a debate about wtf we are doing there. Because as far as I can see, while COIN is a good idea as opposed to a bad idea, its been thought up approx 6 years late and is today no more realistic than Rumsfelds light footprint mirage.
We still seem to be stuck in the realms of holistic policy, that if the will is strong facts on the ground will change as a result. Thats magical thinking, and it just doesnt work. So if the Wikileaks are able to insert just a small dose of realism into the worlds of the airheads , forcing them to deal with numbers and facts instead of empty slogans, I say hooray and well done.
Geoff: Liked this one.
Geoff: Liked this one. http://www.smh.com.au/technology/technology-news/the-story-behind-the-af...
Blessed be the icelandic, cause through the poverty of their new situation (and their a**rape by capitalism) they have discovered purity of intent and purpose. Long live the icelandic revolution...
Who elected Julian Assange?
Who elected Julian Assange? What sovereign public collectively decided he should have life-and-death power over our military and the security of our country? What mechanisms of democracy will keep him accountable to his fellow human beings?
Oh, that's right, he appointed himself to decide what's best for all of us.
"Who elected Julian
"Who elected Julian Assange?"
Who elected the CIA and NSC and the rest of the secret government that makes decisions that affect our lives?
Who elected the military? It's like listening to a pit bull saying 'trust me"
That's not democracy son.
"Who elected Julian Assange?
"Who elected Julian Assange? "
Lets see, that must have been the silent majority who didnt get to vote for who would be heads of CNN, FOX and MSNBC? Actually, you could make the case that the whistleblowers elected Assange by giving him the info that they deemed important enough to risk prison for.
Im still waiting for anyone to read the released info and show where they directly compromise OPSEC and the sec of informers. Maybe Ill change my thinking is that comes forward. At the moment all Im hearing is anger at a researcher/infoconduit daring to be outside the system of control, *daring* to throw spanners into the works.
The point that the Taliban
The point that the Taliban has been killing coalition soldiers with SAMs, and the coalition has been lying to the media about it, is new, I think. I would like to have known that.
And details count. There's a difference between "we believe that elements of the ISI are giving some support to the Taliban" and "former ISI chief Hamid Gul, the Pakistani intelligence legend who was our link man with the mujahedin in the late 1980s, attended a Taliban strategic planning meeting on this date to discuss how to retaliate against NATO in this area".
To pick an analogy, it's like the difference between "some members of the Conservative Party are overly sympathetic to far-right groups in Europe" and "here is a photo of David Cameron and George Osborne giving Nazi salutes at a march-past of a Lithuanian fascist militia".
AM: Please explain how you
AM: Please explain how you extol journalists in every other post here but you call Assange a clown for making this information public. I have respect for your military service and your intellectial work, but I think you need to explain yourself. Please explain why Frontline gets respect for a well-produced documentary that includes footage of young US marines struggling to hold simple conversations with local villagers, but Assange gets insulted for releasing information that provides much more context on the apparent difficulties.
Journalists, first, do not write obscure travel narratives of the Middle East that exist to be name-dropped by grad students and policy analystson blogs like AM. Journalists exist first to do what Assange did. Not saying they do anymore, and not saying that Assange considers himself a journalist (I imagine he doesn't).
Let us remember the point of the enterprise.
Julian Assange>The USA
Julian Assange>The USA Military
"Who elected the CIA and NSC
"Who elected the CIA and NSC and the rest of the secret government that makes decisions that affect our lives?"
No one. They were appointed by constitutionally elected officials, and those at the policy-making level were then approved with the advise and consent of the Sentate. If you don't like their decisions or their actions, elect better politicians.
@ visitor 10:30 Thanks for
@ visitor 10:30
Thanks for saving me a few keystrokes.
It's like someone made Assange watch Jim Carey's Liar Liar while getting the Clockwork Orange treatment and gone berzerk.
Visitor on July 26, 2010 -
Visitor on July 26, 2010 - 10:30am
"Who elected the CIA and NSC and the rest of the secret government that makes decisions that affect our lives?"
No one. They were appointed by constitutionally elected officials, and those at the policy-making level were then approved with the advise and consent of the Sentate. If you don't like their decisions or their actions, elect better politicians.
Sadly, of course, many of those affected by the actions of these officials don't get the choice.
Being ANA or Afghan police, or Afghan civilians, or other Blue forces they don't get a vote in US elections. But then you knew that.
Try this for new
Try this for new information: the blackout on increases in MANPAD missile shipments into Afghanistan:
"The anti-aircraft missile threat has a strong historical resonance in Afghanistan. CIA-supplied Stingers punched dozens of Soviet Hind helicopters from the skies in the 1980s, and were considered to have played a key role in forcing the Soviets to abandon the country in 1989.
Western worries that the phenomenon could be repeated in this war have made surface-to-air missiles a favourite topic among intelligence informers, whose unconfirmed accounts of meddling foreign powers stuff the files.
As fighting intensified in April 2007 one unidentified source told an American officer that seven Manpads purchased by Iran from Algeria had been "clandestinely transported from Mashhad in Iran across the border into Afghanistan". Other reports, also unconfirmed, accused Pakistan's Inter-Services Intelligence of supplying weapons or missile-trainers to the Taliban."
Surface-to-air strike over Helmand shows Taliban had strong anti-aircraft capabilities earlier than previously thought [in 2007]
So...um...why was it so
So...um...why was it so important to keep the MANPAD's potential role in downing a helicopter secret? What did we gain from that decision?
Sure might have helped focus policymaker attention on little 'ole Stan back in '07.
"Abu Muqawama" translates to
"Abu Muqawama" translates to "Father Resistance." What are you resisting? Anti-Fatherland truth? Yep, thought so. This column is written by neither an Arab nor a Muslim nor a dissident. What a scam.
Who elected Julian Assange?
Who elected Julian Assange? He did.
He just put all our informants or "sources" if you prefer and their families in mortal danger.
They will be subject to "methods" that I doubt you widdle progressives know exist, even in your fondest masturbatory fantasies about GITMO. And killed.
I don't like the war. So I think I'll get some weak little traitor with a SIP account to pass me documents giving up information that will get them killed. Oh, and endanger some of the hated US warmonger stormtroopers in more danger. And the US and Europe (and Bali and Mooroco and Russia and Egypt and the Magheb and and and) in danger as well, civilians as well as military. I.am.important.now.
Enjoy the 15 minutes. Enjoy Iceland or wherever. I hope they render you to the ISI.
We scoff at honor, and are amazed to find traitors in our midst.
===================
"This column is written by neither an Arab nor a Muslim nor a dissident. What a scam."
No, the nomme du cyber of abu muquwama was a joke. He never hid what he was. And he gave up his real name years ago. Just tuning in, are we?
if the MANPADS threat in
if the MANPADS threat in afghanistan was a gigantic covered-up secret as the newspapers would have you believe, one wonders why the push to put out IR countermeasures like ATIRCM in afghanistan is open to anybody who bothers to subscribe to aviation leak, eg this article.
perhaps the bigger story is that people have successfully kept MANPADS down to a low level threat (no pun intended).
Ex, forget wikileaks. Re:
Ex, forget wikileaks.
Re: Stringer Bell and friends. NOT cool. I'm right in the middle of season 2. Although given what I've seen so far of season 2, that makes sense. But still...
Abu M, I'm normally a huge
Abu M,
I'm normally a huge fan of your writing and analysis, so I'm somewhat taken aback at both your post here and your Op-Ed in the NYT. It really sounds like you're mad at WIkileaks for distributing a bunch of unstructured information that you feel is both insignificant and potentially dangerous if understood out of context.
Both administrations, Bush and Obama, have worked really hard to limit access to information about their intelligence, their wars, their decisions, often without any relation to whether this information truly impacts national security or rather just reveals embarrassing details about the internal (dysfunctional) workings of their staffs.
Wikileaks, while clearly biased towards information that embarrasses the US, nonetheless provides a unique channel for raw data about what actually is going on to percolate into the public domain.
I'm not entirely sure if we're better off with this data being hidden forever behind government/contractor walls. I think we're better off trying to evaluate this stuff in the open.
Either this stuff reveals something new or it doesn't, but the fact is that it appears closer to real source material than anything that has come out of a US administration for over a decade. Can you say with a straight face that the majority of us have better sources of data available to us about activity in Afghanistan than what wikileaks released?
Take a deep breath, let go of your (apparent) anger at Assange, and dig into the wikileaks data to see how it aligns with what you know about Afghanistan, and then put your analytic mind to work figuring out what the alignment (or lack thereof) can tell us all about the war. I read your work because I value your insight, and I'd rather have you dig into this data and see what sort of patterns and insight you can divine, than have you wash your hands of it after just a few days (hours?) of review.
Abu M, I'm normally a huge
Abu M,
I'm normally a huge fan of your writing and analysis, so I'm somewhat taken aback at both your post here and your Op-Ed in the NYT. It really sounds like you're mad at WIkileaks for distributing a bunch of unstructured information that you feel is both insignificant and potentially dangerous if understood out of context.
Both administrations, Bush and Obama, have worked really hard to limit access to information about their intelligence, their wars, their decisions, often without any relation to whether this information truly impacts national security or rather just reveals embarrassing details about the internal (dysfunctional) workings of their staffs.
Wikileaks, while clearly biased towards information that embarrasses the US, nonetheless provides a unique channel for raw data about what actually is going on to percolate into the public domain.
I'm not entirely sure if we're better off with this data being hidden forever behind government/contractor walls. I think we're better off trying to evaluate this stuff in the open.
Either this stuff reveals something new or it doesn't, but the fact is that it appears closer to real source material than anything that has come out of a US administration for over a decade. Can you say with a straight face that the majority of us have better sources of data available to us about activity in Afghanistan than what wikileaks released?
Take a deep breath, let go of your (apparent) anger at Assange, and dig into the wikileaks data to see how it aligns with what you know about Afghanistan, and then put your analytic mind to work figuring out what the alignment (or lack thereof) can tell us all about the war. I read your work because I value your insight, and I'd rather have you dig into this data and see what sort of patterns and insight you can divine, than have you wash your hands of it after just a few days (hours?) of review.
Is it so hard to believe
Is it so hard to believe that something can both endanger soldiers by revealing TTPs and SOPs, while simultaneously not revealing a strategic lie by the government?
Bastard. I just started
Bastard.
I just started watching the The Wire. Please stick to historical examples in such instances.
With all the overblown
With all the overblown hyperbole we are subjected to every day it is hard to find words to express my disgust for the lack of accountability. Billions upon billions wasted and all DOD can say is "WE DUNNO"!?!?!?!. An irresponsible military and we can't even question the DOD budget!!! We have spawned a world of paramilitary, tribal wars and unlimited terror.( But no unemployment benefits at home.) I want to see an accounting of all weapons and pallets of cash that disappeared and how much money we are giving to taliban and al Qaeda for "PROTECTION" of supply convoys.(isn't that what our military is for!!!!!) This is way beyond a horrible joke, this is an insult. We are in such a horrible state of affairs it is worth considering dissolving the DOD and starting over. Oh, and why can't we let the south and especially Texas out of the union of "United" states and after they have destroyed themselves we won't let them in without a green card.
just started watching season
just started watching season 2 of the wire thanks for ruining that for me
Je n'ai pas encore lu
Je n'ai pas encore lu d'articles disant que dans ce rapport, il y aurait la conclusion secrète d'une réunion encore plus secrète : "Restons en Afghanistan tant qu'on s'y fait des couilles en or. 300.000 milliards $."
in English Google :
I have not read articles saying that in this report, there would be the conclusion of a secret more secret meeting: "Let us both in Afghanistan that it made gold balls. $ 300,000 billion."
en français Google
Here are the things I have
Here are the things I have learned thus far from the documents released via Wikileaks:
1. The military keeps written reports
Utility, analysis, intelligence, military success and ...the end of all that crap for the Afghani people (their war yeah?) All bets are on (just following the government paper trails in general.....)
I visit this site daily to
I visit this site daily to see if anything new has been added. You have a nice work in your all site! It looks that you are highly expert blogger. Your post is an excellent example of why I keep coming back after completing my EX0-103 and HP0-J36 project to read your excellent quality content that is forever updated. That was exactly what I needed to read today. Now a days i m busy HP2-E24 and 000-086 final projects also.
Tomorrow is the moncler
Tomorrow is the moncler jackets world's fastest piece of land value, because it is full of hope. Keep in mind; every day is the happiest day in the year. moncler coats Have more fun but not because less about. Do not try to start to make it fall in. sad, think about the days with laughter. To overcome the anxiety and depression, moncler jackets women may learn to be their own masters. Think of myself as a fool, do not know to ask, you will learn more. Aimless life is like sailing without a compass. Step by step learn to do anything too, worry not. The hope of tomorrow, let us forget today's pain.moncler coats men You can not control the weather, but you can change your mood. Before correct others, meditate on yourself whether you make mistake. Experience is moncler vests men the extract from the pain.http://www.monclerjacketscoats.co.uk/.
Jackson Moncler was Moncler
Jackson Moncler was Moncler Jackets on Moncler Coats
AQ, I never agree with you.
AQ, I never agree with you. It appears the entire Right -- who want to keep their invitations flowing from the USGOV (and all that lucrative funding) have been told to say Wikileaks is no big deal. You are wrong! Just wait until various ambassadors, political officers and DCMs lose their posts over this.
1. In tandem with complete access to the sources (which you do not have and I did) they show that Embassy-to-Desk are receiving highly selective politicized comments which represent whatever the official thinks is THE Washington view. But the Desk end requires many views to understand what is actually going on.
2. It shows a lack of input from the field - official dinners and meetings are fine, as far as they go
3. It shows the US has absolutely zero respect for our Arab allies (and one particular Ambassador does not putting words in the mouth of his own King); we expect them to follow our lead, report on it when they do, and discount it when they disagree. Yet, we coordinate closely with and give inordinate trust to the Israelis AS IF OUR INTERESTS ARE NOT SEPARATE.
I am not a fan of your's AQ.
I am not a fan of your's AQ. It's true that people will NOT understand what they're reading (because the media has already misreported some of it) - but that needs to be remedied. Maybe it's a good thing for people to misunderstand why our diplomats have so little respect for our allies, report only those issues that uphold their understanding and interpretation of policy, and do not actually contribute "research" -- in the sense of detailed, informative and neutral information.
it is also astounding that those who claim our democracy and free speech are precious are so swift to try to contain it.
Candidates need to obtain
Candidates need to obtain CCNA and CCIE certifications for the cause that essential requirement for acquiring this certificate.
Prerequisites for CCNA tone
Prerequisites for CCNA tone of voice certification consist of a trustworthy CCIE certification or CCNA Certification.
Add your comment