Wikileaks, security of our forces and why do we do it? (Merged)
1. Many of you are arguing "War is hell". This is a variation of the "Cosi Fan Tutti" (everybody does it) defence, and it won't wash.
2. Regarding the helicopter attack video, I watched it multiple times.
Here is what I saw:
a) Camera man embeds himself with an insurgent group, hoping to take some gritty Pulitzer winning images. One man is carrying an RPG7 which is visible in the middle of the video - hardly a "home defence" weapon. It is obviously intended to be fired at an American vehicle.
b) Camera man sticks his head around corner and photographs Bradley fighting vehicle one block away.
c) Camera man helpfully shares image with RPG man and others. They all crowd around to get a look at their prospective target.
d) Apache wastes them.
e) Van drives up. Apache assumes its a get away vehicle and wastes that too.
f) Children found in van, invisible to helicopter.
2. Regarding the helicopter attack video, I watched it multiple times.
Here is what I saw:
a) Camera man embeds himself with an insurgent group, hoping to take some gritty Pulitzer winning images. One man is carrying an RPG7 which is visible in the middle of the video - hardly a "home defence" weapon. It is obviously intended to be fired at an American vehicle.
b) Camera man sticks his head around corner and photographs Bradley fighting vehicle one block away.
c) Camera man helpfully shares image with RPG man and others. They all crowd around to get a look at their prospective target.
d) Apache wastes them.
e) Van drives up. Apache assumes its a get away vehicle and wastes that too.
f) Children found in van, invisible to helicopter.
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 806
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Concur Sunfish. Very little is said about that "insurgent" group. Can anyone confirm that was indeed the case ?
As for the van (and I don't want to cast dispersion on a dead man's character) was it again wrong place, wrong time doing the Good Samaritan bit or is the fact that the wagon pitches up shortly after a canny coincidence ? (I think you know what I'm getting at)
My sympathy wains if it's the latter, no matter what the ROE says. Today's driver is tomorrow's shooter. The fact the kids are in the picture if he was working with the insurgents is an even greater tragedy.
(All conjecture as the news articles seem to suggest he wasn't involved, but he got involved quick enough for some strangers. Maybe he genuinely is a better man than I am, as I wouldn't have gone in there after that unless I knew them......)
And as for the photographer, zero sympathy. When you step into a war zone and put yourself in those positions, then you're asking for it. Those that champion the media in today's war I counter that with no one's life is worth risking to bring me images to watch while I'm eating my dinner sat in front of the TV........
As for the van (and I don't want to cast dispersion on a dead man's character) was it again wrong place, wrong time doing the Good Samaritan bit or is the fact that the wagon pitches up shortly after a canny coincidence ? (I think you know what I'm getting at)
My sympathy wains if it's the latter, no matter what the ROE says. Today's driver is tomorrow's shooter. The fact the kids are in the picture if he was working with the insurgents is an even greater tragedy.
(All conjecture as the news articles seem to suggest he wasn't involved, but he got involved quick enough for some strangers. Maybe he genuinely is a better man than I am, as I wouldn't have gone in there after that unless I knew them......)
And as for the photographer, zero sympathy. When you step into a war zone and put yourself in those positions, then you're asking for it. Those that champion the media in today's war I counter that with no one's life is worth risking to bring me images to watch while I'm eating my dinner sat in front of the TV........
Last edited by FFP; 26th Oct 2010 at 20:56.
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Scotland
Posts: 664
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Standing the validity or otherwise of the Bush and Blair arguments for going to war in the first place in Iraq and Afghanistan; it is notable to my mind that there weren't many politicians at the time who had been to war who supported the case for war.
Whether it was to save us from alleged WMDs in Iraq or to stop failed states such as Afghanistan being used as refuges for 'terrorists', the aim was to increase the security of the West. I suspect the older and wiser heads who actually knew what war means also knew that unleashing the power of the West on Iraq and Afghanistan, far from increasing our security, would act as the recruiting sergeant for every militant nut-job in the Islamic world. Bush referring to a crusade just put the cherry on top.
The nature of military heirarchies is such that these leaks may result in some prosecutions, just as the Abu Ghraibh photos resulted in prison for an obviously retarded, hick-from-the-sticks American MP lassie. Have the leaks compromised security? I wouldn't have thought they've compromised tactical security that much. Have the leaks in themselves compromised our strategic security? Yes, but not one iota as much as the decision to unleash general war (with all its concomitant horrors) on these countries in the first place.
That these leaks have brought some of those horrors into the public domain does not change the fact that the dead are dead and the tortured remain tortured. The 'older and wiser' heads knew, or certainly feared, that would be the case. All I know is, that if I was a young Afghan who'd witnessed some of the 'collateral damage', I'd probably be reaching for the AK47 or the RPG-7.
It's not for nothing that the first princple of war is selection and maintenance of the aim. In both these wars, even those that ordered them had (and still have) grave difficulty voicing what they are or were trying to achieve. To me any recriminations start and end with those who ordered the horror without having the first idea of what they were ordering or what they wanted to achieve by it.
Whether it was to save us from alleged WMDs in Iraq or to stop failed states such as Afghanistan being used as refuges for 'terrorists', the aim was to increase the security of the West. I suspect the older and wiser heads who actually knew what war means also knew that unleashing the power of the West on Iraq and Afghanistan, far from increasing our security, would act as the recruiting sergeant for every militant nut-job in the Islamic world. Bush referring to a crusade just put the cherry on top.
The nature of military heirarchies is such that these leaks may result in some prosecutions, just as the Abu Ghraibh photos resulted in prison for an obviously retarded, hick-from-the-sticks American MP lassie. Have the leaks compromised security? I wouldn't have thought they've compromised tactical security that much. Have the leaks in themselves compromised our strategic security? Yes, but not one iota as much as the decision to unleash general war (with all its concomitant horrors) on these countries in the first place.
That these leaks have brought some of those horrors into the public domain does not change the fact that the dead are dead and the tortured remain tortured. The 'older and wiser' heads knew, or certainly feared, that would be the case. All I know is, that if I was a young Afghan who'd witnessed some of the 'collateral damage', I'd probably be reaching for the AK47 or the RPG-7.
It's not for nothing that the first princple of war is selection and maintenance of the aim. In both these wars, even those that ordered them had (and still have) grave difficulty voicing what they are or were trying to achieve. To me any recriminations start and end with those who ordered the horror without having the first idea of what they were ordering or what they wanted to achieve by it.
Join Date: Jun 2001
Posts: 1,451
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think what so many of those outraged that Blair and Bush led their countries into war on a false assumption about the Iraqis possessing WMD are forgetting is that Saddam Hussein, in classic Arab strongman style wanted the West (and more particularly, his many foes in his immediate region) to think he still had WMD.
With 20/20 hindsight, it's so incredibly easy to see how flimsy the basis of the intel. supporting the case for Iraq's still having WMD was. However, anyone with even passing experience of collecting intel., particularly humit., which relies all too often on shady and obscure sources (who, by the very fact they're talking to you, their country's enemy - or potential enemy - have proven they can't be trusted), will know that the real skill is in filtering that 1% of fact from the 99% of dross and deliberate misinformation the other side is feeding to you.
It's easy in hindsight to say: "See? There were naysayers. Why didn't the leadership listen to them?" If Saddam Hussein had dropped a half dozen Scuds filled with biological or nerve agents onto troop staging areas or ports in the Gulf causing even light casualties, those same critics would be screaming for Blair and Bush's heads for not believing the 'overwhelming evidence' that SH had WMD.
I accept that it didn't help that far too many in Washington wanted to believe anything that supported their case.
I think that the really huge error that was made was in Donald Rumsfeld convincing Bush and the Pentagon that the war could won on the cheap and reducing the troop levels to such a degree that there were no troops to fill the void to maintain control of the conquered lands behind the front line units who defeated the Iraqi Army. Even after this unforgivable mistake, the error was compounded to an incredible degree by L. Paul Bremer's imbecilic decision to disband the Iraqi Army, providing in one stroke of the pen a huge pool of disaffected, trained - and suddenly unemployed - men all too willing to pick up a rifle or set an IED.
As I said, 20/20 hindsight is a wonderful thing...
With 20/20 hindsight, it's so incredibly easy to see how flimsy the basis of the intel. supporting the case for Iraq's still having WMD was. However, anyone with even passing experience of collecting intel., particularly humit., which relies all too often on shady and obscure sources (who, by the very fact they're talking to you, their country's enemy - or potential enemy - have proven they can't be trusted), will know that the real skill is in filtering that 1% of fact from the 99% of dross and deliberate misinformation the other side is feeding to you.
It's easy in hindsight to say: "See? There were naysayers. Why didn't the leadership listen to them?" If Saddam Hussein had dropped a half dozen Scuds filled with biological or nerve agents onto troop staging areas or ports in the Gulf causing even light casualties, those same critics would be screaming for Blair and Bush's heads for not believing the 'overwhelming evidence' that SH had WMD.
I accept that it didn't help that far too many in Washington wanted to believe anything that supported their case.
I think that the really huge error that was made was in Donald Rumsfeld convincing Bush and the Pentagon that the war could won on the cheap and reducing the troop levels to such a degree that there were no troops to fill the void to maintain control of the conquered lands behind the front line units who defeated the Iraqi Army. Even after this unforgivable mistake, the error was compounded to an incredible degree by L. Paul Bremer's imbecilic decision to disband the Iraqi Army, providing in one stroke of the pen a huge pool of disaffected, trained - and suddenly unemployed - men all too willing to pick up a rifle or set an IED.
As I said, 20/20 hindsight is a wonderful thing...
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 806
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
20/20 hindsight is a wonderful thing (and btw Wiley, I wholeheartedly agree with your take on the Intel world, which IMO can be akin to weather forecasting but far greater consequences, for which I'm glad not to be in their shoes..
) but take the case of Afghanistan. Can we look back now and identify the warning signs ? The rhetoric coming from OBL following the Saudi's refusal of his offer during GW1, the Embassy bombing's around the world, the USS Cole incident, the chatter leading up to 9/11 ? Can we say now that AQ, under the protection of the Taleban was a threat and should have been taken out ?
I think the answer is yes. I don't think anyone looks back on the Afg situation though and thinks we should have gone in on a pre-emptive basis, based on that hindsight. With Iraq, had things gone differently and Saddam carried out those actions you mention, I think retalliation would have been the order of the day and again, no one would have held the US / UK responsible for not taking action beforehand, because I don't think the warning signs were there. That's just me though and I accept that public feeling may be different.
On that, I don't remember seeing any "warning" signs that Iraq was about to strike (I stand to be corrected if someone knows otherwise and I'm talking about evidence generated outside of our own communities) I do remember us being busy with Afghanistan at the time and thinking "WTF ? Where has all this come from ?" As a lowly line flyer, it seemed clear to me that this was going to distract us from Afg. In contrast, I'm looking at the situation with Iran now and I DO see warning signs. I feel justified in my own mind if ever questioned by the future generations about why we carried out a pre-emptive strike on Iran that I can point to lack of compliance with IAEA and rhetoric coming from the leadership regarding Israel as a credible threat.
Who knows, in a world where Iraq didn't happen and Afg was given full resources through 2003, maybe the way we engage with Iran would be different........?
All supposition though. It is what it is and it gives me a job.......
) but take the case of Afghanistan. Can we look back now and identify the warning signs ? The rhetoric coming from OBL following the Saudi's refusal of his offer during GW1, the Embassy bombing's around the world, the USS Cole incident, the chatter leading up to 9/11 ? Can we say now that AQ, under the protection of the Taleban was a threat and should have been taken out ? I think the answer is yes. I don't think anyone looks back on the Afg situation though and thinks we should have gone in on a pre-emptive basis, based on that hindsight. With Iraq, had things gone differently and Saddam carried out those actions you mention, I think retalliation would have been the order of the day and again, no one would have held the US / UK responsible for not taking action beforehand, because I don't think the warning signs were there. That's just me though and I accept that public feeling may be different.
On that, I don't remember seeing any "warning" signs that Iraq was about to strike (I stand to be corrected if someone knows otherwise and I'm talking about evidence generated outside of our own communities) I do remember us being busy with Afghanistan at the time and thinking "WTF ? Where has all this come from ?" As a lowly line flyer, it seemed clear to me that this was going to distract us from Afg. In contrast, I'm looking at the situation with Iran now and I DO see warning signs. I feel justified in my own mind if ever questioned by the future generations about why we carried out a pre-emptive strike on Iran that I can point to lack of compliance with IAEA and rhetoric coming from the leadership regarding Israel as a credible threat.
Who knows, in a world where Iraq didn't happen and Afg was given full resources through 2003, maybe the way we engage with Iran would be different........?
All supposition though. It is what it is and it gives me a job.......
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
Grauniad: WikiLeaks founder faces Swedish detention over rape case
Sweden's chief prosecutor asks for court order to detain Julian Assange on suspicion of rape, sexual assault and coercion
Sweden's chief prosecutor today asked for a court order to detain the WikiLeaks founder, Julian Assange, for questioning in a rape case. The move could mean that prosecutors were preparing an international arrest warrant for the Australian, whose whereabouts were not immediately clear.
"I request the court detain Assange in his absence on suspicion of rape, sexual assault and coercion," the director of public prosecution, Marianne Ny, said in a statement. She said the request, which will be considered by a judge later today, was made because investigators had not been able to bring Assange in for questioning. He was accused of raping a woman in Stockholm in August, a charge that was later dropped, and sexually assaulting another woman in the town of Enk.
Assange, whose website was behind the biggest leak of US military documents in history, has repeatedly denied the allegations.
Ny's statement said: "The reason for my request is that we need to interrogate him. So far, we have not been able to meet with him to accomplish the interrogation."...............
Sweden's chief prosecutor asks for court order to detain Julian Assange on suspicion of rape, sexual assault and coercion
Sweden's chief prosecutor today asked for a court order to detain the WikiLeaks founder, Julian Assange, for questioning in a rape case. The move could mean that prosecutors were preparing an international arrest warrant for the Australian, whose whereabouts were not immediately clear.
"I request the court detain Assange in his absence on suspicion of rape, sexual assault and coercion," the director of public prosecution, Marianne Ny, said in a statement. She said the request, which will be considered by a judge later today, was made because investigators had not been able to bring Assange in for questioning. He was accused of raping a woman in Stockholm in August, a charge that was later dropped, and sexually assaulting another woman in the town of Enk.
Assange, whose website was behind the biggest leak of US military documents in history, has repeatedly denied the allegations.
Ny's statement said: "The reason for my request is that we need to interrogate him. So far, we have not been able to meet with him to accomplish the interrogation."...............
