So the Americans didn’t rate the British effort in Afghanistan. So President Karzai (man of honour...hmm) was unimpressed with British efforts in Helmand Province. So the media have headlined this.
Well, let us get the facts straight because frankly, these cables published by Wikileaks really are examples of statements being taken out of context.
When the cables were sent in 2006, Helmand Province was – and still is – the most dangerous region in Afghanistan. The UK was the only country contributing troops to this area. The number of UK troops then was a brigade strength of 3000. Time and again, the soldiers fought with amazing courage and ability to take villages and Taliban strongholds. However, because of their limited numbers, they were then ordered to withdraw from their battlefield sucesses, back into their bases. The Taliban would then reoccupy what they had lost. This happened repeatedly.
In addition, commanders - both in theatre and at home - pleaded with the government to strengthen numbers and improve equipment; for the most part these pleas were ignored.
Under these circumstances, questions should be asked of our raison d’être in Helmand. If we are unable to contribute a meaningful size of force, why should we expect our troops to make the ultimate sacrifice?
The leaked cables are not telling us anything new but because they have been taken so out of context this could cause an adverse affect against British troops.
So, to set the record straight – no one is questioning the incredible bravery or ability of the British forces; they are the best in the world – absolutely no doubt. However, they lacked numbers and adequate equipment in the field which meant that they were not able to hold on to the numerous gains made.
Today, Helmand Province has a force of 30,000 comprising of 26,000 US and 4,000 British troops. They are still struggling to contain the Taliban and last month alone, the US suffered 16 deaths.
This is an illustration of how brilliantly the British servicemen and women fought with a force of only 3000.
Ecrivain Man
Wednesday, 8 December 2010
Waki Wiki Leaks Worries Washington Wets
Once again the nauseating Julian Assange and his Wikileaks disclosures have dominated the press. The 250,000 or so cables allegedly handed over to the ‘international new media non-profit organisation’ (donations gratefully accepted) by US Army Private Bradley Manning is currently – in spite of the blocking of servers – being trickle fed to the general public through selected media channels. `
The diplomatic cables were sent via the United States' SIPRNet (Secret Internet Protocol Router Network). Only 15,652 cables, are classified as "secret." and of those, 4,330 are so sensitive that they carry the additional label "NOFORN," meaning that they should not be made accessible to non-US nationals and of course, these are the cables of most interest.
On where we should draw the line with regards to freedom of information has always been a contentious issue for democratic countries. Does the publishing of the diplomatic cables promote openness, freedom and increased public knowledge or does it undermine western democracy and endanger lives?
And when a clearly worried White House administration defends its ‘candid assessments’ and condemns Wikileaks for publishing them, does this mean the US is afraid of being held to account? Oh to be a fly on the wall of the Oval Office!
The main issue with the publication of the material is that it undermines important current strategic relationships but for the most part is unlikely to directly endanger lives (from what I have seen so far). And that is the crux of the matter. Wikileaks should offer a degree of editing to remove anything which could endanger lives. I would hazard a guess that most of these cables will be within the 4330 NOFORN classification, so it is not necessary to edit a quarter of a million documents.
With regards to the reporting of the leaks, I can’t help but feel those which have made sensational reading and offered juicy dissection to news outlets are in fact the most harmless while the less spectacular feeds are those which should cause most concern. Most of what has been said so far is either already in the public domain or is commonly assumed.
Honesty time – hands up anyone who was genuinely surprised to read that foreign governments don’t trust Karzai, that Arab leaders – particularly Sunnis – are afraid of Ahmedinejad, Berlusconi is "feckless and vain" or that Mexico was failing in its fight against drug cartels. Who hadn’t already realised that Putin is seen as an alpha dog, that Obama doesn’t care about Europe or that it is actually the US bombing terrorist hides in Yemen? We knew that Cameron and Clegg didn’t get along (I love the one that says Clegg ‘gratefully’ accepted an ‘aggressive’ invitation to dinner from Cameron. Did he put a pistol to Clegg’s head or told him he’d steal his dinner money or maybe threatened to smash his face in if he didn’t come?), that the west fears Pakistani nuclear materials could fall into the wrong hands and that the Duke of York is an obnoxious, boorish freeloader.
So what if those details are out there. I do not feel that lives are put at risk by these ‘revelations’.
What I would draw the line at however (and I am surprised that this did not get as much media coverage as some of the more sensational cables) was the revelation of America’s list of ‘critical infrastructure’. These are worldwide sites which would cause chaos if hit. They vary from huge hydroelectric plants, to communication junctions, to a factory in Australia which makes antidotes for snake bites. I feel that this is a Wikileak too far and is in fact offering the terrorists a ready made list of ‘Please Insert Suicide Bomber Here’ targets.
Wikileaks has a huge number of journalists downloading these cables; I am sure there would be slightly more sympathy for Assange and his current plight had they thought to edit at least some of the revelations.
Ecrivain Man
The diplomatic cables were sent via the United States' SIPRNet (Secret Internet Protocol Router Network). Only 15,652 cables, are classified as "secret." and of those, 4,330 are so sensitive that they carry the additional label "NOFORN," meaning that they should not be made accessible to non-US nationals and of course, these are the cables of most interest.
On where we should draw the line with regards to freedom of information has always been a contentious issue for democratic countries. Does the publishing of the diplomatic cables promote openness, freedom and increased public knowledge or does it undermine western democracy and endanger lives?
And when a clearly worried White House administration defends its ‘candid assessments’ and condemns Wikileaks for publishing them, does this mean the US is afraid of being held to account? Oh to be a fly on the wall of the Oval Office!
The main issue with the publication of the material is that it undermines important current strategic relationships but for the most part is unlikely to directly endanger lives (from what I have seen so far). And that is the crux of the matter. Wikileaks should offer a degree of editing to remove anything which could endanger lives. I would hazard a guess that most of these cables will be within the 4330 NOFORN classification, so it is not necessary to edit a quarter of a million documents.
With regards to the reporting of the leaks, I can’t help but feel those which have made sensational reading and offered juicy dissection to news outlets are in fact the most harmless while the less spectacular feeds are those which should cause most concern. Most of what has been said so far is either already in the public domain or is commonly assumed.
Honesty time – hands up anyone who was genuinely surprised to read that foreign governments don’t trust Karzai, that Arab leaders – particularly Sunnis – are afraid of Ahmedinejad, Berlusconi is "feckless and vain" or that Mexico was failing in its fight against drug cartels. Who hadn’t already realised that Putin is seen as an alpha dog, that Obama doesn’t care about Europe or that it is actually the US bombing terrorist hides in Yemen? We knew that Cameron and Clegg didn’t get along (I love the one that says Clegg ‘gratefully’ accepted an ‘aggressive’ invitation to dinner from Cameron. Did he put a pistol to Clegg’s head or told him he’d steal his dinner money or maybe threatened to smash his face in if he didn’t come?), that the west fears Pakistani nuclear materials could fall into the wrong hands and that the Duke of York is an obnoxious, boorish freeloader.
So what if those details are out there. I do not feel that lives are put at risk by these ‘revelations’.
What I would draw the line at however (and I am surprised that this did not get as much media coverage as some of the more sensational cables) was the revelation of America’s list of ‘critical infrastructure’. These are worldwide sites which would cause chaos if hit. They vary from huge hydroelectric plants, to communication junctions, to a factory in Australia which makes antidotes for snake bites. I feel that this is a Wikileak too far and is in fact offering the terrorists a ready made list of ‘Please Insert Suicide Bomber Here’ targets.
Wikileaks has a huge number of journalists downloading these cables; I am sure there would be slightly more sympathy for Assange and his current plight had they thought to edit at least some of the revelations.
Ecrivain Man
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
