The Guardian, the New York Times and Der Spiegel have published a huge cache of secret military files from the whistleblowing website Wikileaks, detailing the war in Afghanistan.

Each of the news organisations has a slightly different take on the files.
For the Guardian the files reveal the futility of the conflict and the current strategy.

However you cut it, this is not an Afghanistan that either the US or Britain is about to hand over gift-wrapped with pink ribbons to a sovereign national government in Kabul. Quite the contrary. After nine years of warfare, the chaos threatens to overwhelm. A war fought ostensibly for the hearts and minds of Afghans cannot be won like this.

Der Spiegel says:

"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."

It adds that they show "The German army was clueless and naïve when it stumbled into the conflict."

The New York Times focuses on what the documents reveal about the role of Pakistan's security service in directing the Afghan insurgency.

"The documents suggest that Pakistan, an ostensible ally of the United States, allows representatives of its spy service to meet directly with the Taliban in secret strategy sessions to organize networks of militant groups that fight against American soldiers in Afghanistan, and even hatch plots to assassinate Afghan leaders," its top stoy on the leaks says.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/blog...logs-wikileaks

Modern version of The Pentagon Papers, perhaps.

If Iceland continues to harbor these organizations and individuals, they should be excluded from any protection pact or agreement on our side.

Yes probably the Pentagon papers were more shocking since we are less naive nowadays and really suspected most of the above anyway!

I understand the same group that was behind the Piratebay site organises Wikileaks and it is diversified across various countries just like the Internet itself to avoid prosecution.

Despite this, I understand they were relatively responsible, censoring names from the files to for example to avoid compromising individuals.

So, any comments regarding the revelations?

I for one, am a bit surprised the US is tolerating these reports that the Pak ISI are helping AQ. I'd expected a more robust... "response" against them.


GMan

It wasn't exactly a secret.
That information was available to the public years ago.

For me the scariest thing is that that such a large quantity of document s were leaked.

To me it reflects a lack of confidence in strategy, tactics and philosophy, by the troops on the ground, as well as general observers.

I think, from what I've seen so far, that Wikileaks has done the right thing, we need an independent press to keep the public informed, that doesn't happen. We need to be able to hold our govt's accountable for their decisions - that sort of happens. Whatever else, this shows that our young men and women are still willing to pu their lives on the line but are prepared to think and act for themselves. I think that this is a positive outcome.

Well, it appears that the vast majority of the leaks came from one person... some Private Bradley Manning.
The good news is that none of this information really seems to be anything new.
Also, this would be a great time for the US military to get it's SH1T together and make sure that no one below E-6 gets to see anything worth half a damn, as well as improve computer security. Technology is important but what's more important is how it's run by people. You can have the most sophisticated stuff but if your guy sets the password to "0000" and has it written on a post-it stuck under the monitor, it's really no good.
Also, honest to God there's got to be better ways to deal with rejects. This "treat them fairly" BS is going too far. If a commander sees a guy unable and unwilling to do his job, he should be able to give recommendations to have the guy dishonorably discharged in a hurry. Maybe an Officer's recommendation with signatures from two or three NCOs ranking E-5 and above should do the trick.

@Partisan

Respectfully, frankly I'm not too sure having soldiers think independently is a good thing for any army. They're supposed to follow orders, not think about them.


@ACoM
So, if this was known years ago, is there any truth to the "reports" on ISI involvement?

It never was a secret that the ISI has very deep and almost unbreakable relations with the Taliban.