The Afghan War Docs Leak: Who Benefits?

During the Bush years, when the fight against Islamic terror was still relatively new, big newspapers and other media outlets raced to publish or broadcast major state secrets of the war. The New York Times splashed all over its front pages the secret of the warrantless wiretapping of suspected terrorists. They and other papers published on Page A1 the secret of the black sites abroad, including the names of the countries that were helping us covertly detain terrorists. They published the details of the enhanced interrogation techniques we were using to extract life-saving information from top al Qaeda terrorists like Khalid Sheikh Mohammed. USA Today published a memorable piece detailing the specifics of the SWIFT program to track terrorist financing.

When these stories broke, most Americans were outraged at the lack of journalistic responsibility. How dare these left-wing outfits publish secrets that would likely empower our enemies with high-value information and endanger American lives? Normal Americans were aghast.

But the nutcases on the Left are not normal. They were so consumed with Bush Derangement Syndrome that they were automatically opposed to everything he did and were willing to imperil the nation in order to hurt him. National security was way down the list of priorities. The Bush White House begged these papers not to publish these state secrets, for fear of enhancing the enemy's intel. The papers told the White House to take a hike.

The Left elsewhere cheered the Times and the others. They were simply doing their patriotic duty, you see: informing the public of the evils of the Bush administration.

Of course, it would have been their journalistic and patriotic duty to inform the public of the evils of the ACTUAL ENEMY, but I digress.

Today, the Times, the UK Guardian, and Germany's Der Spiegel have simultaneously published portions of 91,000 secret documents about the Afghanistan war leaked to them by WikiLeaks. They pretend to have been all anguished about the decision to publish, which is nonsense of course. These papers are the Hard Left. Yes, they wanted to hit Bush when they previously published secrets. But above all, they are anti-war. They don't really care who is prosecuting it; to them, war is war and the U.S. is wrong to be anywhere.

So, they published these documents today, and it's fascinating to watch the same Left that nodded approvingly when Bush's war effort got hit be outraged today. "Irresponsible," said National Security Adviser Jim Jones yesterday. Murmurs of "treason" are bubbling up from Obama's supporters. The whole irony would be hilarious if it didn't involve the life and death of the nation.

Here's another thing to keep in mind: the leaked docs are from 2004 until December of last year, when Obama decided on the surge. Nothing after that was leaked. Convenient, isn't it? Obama's surge effort is protected, while the Left can still pound Bush for the previous years.

One last point: the docs indicate how nearly impossible the combat effort is, with Pakistan's internal security service, the ISI, helping the Afghan insurgency with a hidden hand while Pakistan takes truckloads of money from us in aid. Let your conspiratorial mind wander: what if the leak is meant to HELP Obama? What if it's meant to help him GET OUT of Afghanistan? The story the docs tell gives Obama the perfect pretext to withdraw on his original timeline.

Whenever you see a story like this, always go deeper and ask yourself: who benefits?

The answer is: Obama.

Who clearly does NOT benefit? Has anyone asked General David Petraues how he's doing today?

Comments

[SteveOk]

This is a common tactic of the left, it's called sabatoge. If you can't stop the war through democratic channels then you sabatoge the effort through giving aid and comfort to the enemy. Harry Reid did this when he declared the war in Iraq was lost and the surge wouldn't work even before it was given a chance. Certain elements of the left will even sabatoge a leftwing President if that President supports a continued war effort. Obama's surge in Afghanistan was not supported by the far left in this country and they will do anything including giving away our national security secrets to sabatoge the war effort.

For some reason we stopped prosecuting people who give aid and comfort to the enemy a long time ago. Hanoe Jane Fonda was never prosecuted for giving aid and comfort to the enemy during the Vietnam War and now opponents of American foreign policy believe they have a complete free pass to release any and all national security secrets if they disagree with that policy. It's pathetic but that is the state of this country now.

[gringoman]

///// These papers are the Hard Left. Yes, they wanted to hit Bush when they previously published secrets. But above all, they are anti-war. They don't really care who is prosecuting it; to them, war is war and the U.S. is wrong to be anywhere./////

While our Princess makes a number of valid points, on this one I beg to differ, The Left is not anti-war. Their record is so clear, going back at least as far as the bloody Jacobins of the French Revolution, that you wonder why Republicans never seem to get it.

Yes, you can say The Left is anti-(sic)"Imperialist" war, but to call it anti-war? Karl Marx himself cheered on the North in the American Civil War. Oh, sure, Professor Karl's letters to Engels reference the "N------s" in ways The Left today is careful to cover up, but The Left believed that these ignorant blacks could be used to help foment the socialist revolution (Tell us about it, Barry and Democrats and NAACP!)

The Left was very "patriotic" when it came to supporting the Stalin socialists against the Hitler socialists. Hitler could have won many of these socialists with his Big Government ways, but Schickelgruber stupidly went on a jihad about "the Jew Karl Marx."

The Left opposes other US wars not because it's anti-war, but because it sees these wars as defending capitalism instead of advancing socialism. It had to back the Pol Pol murderers against the US "colonialists," and support the Vietnamese socialists against the Vietnamese and US "imperialists."

The Left has to denounce Israel despite 1400 years of Arab/muslim war and conquests because the muslims hate America as much as the Left does. Muslims are useful in that respect, even if they want to behead homosexuals and honor-kill women (look, you can't expect an ally to be perfect.)

Monica is a bright gal. Can she do something for the Republican brainpan?

[Dgscol]

Double guessing the military apparat is probably problematic in this case. Petraeus went to Afghanistan with bribe money in hand, hopefully to exit there with "honor". The release undoubtably is to assist Obama from the relentless attacks of the right, who want to keep breast-feeding their baby Kabully. The more they save from nation building there, the better they can directly confront Amadinejad.

[gringoman]

George Will has not yet endorsed the Gringo Advisory Board's plan for Afghanistan. However, he is showing signs of not being bogged down by shibboleths of the Left or the Right.

Anyone can see how The Left is lusting for US defeat and much of The Right is fantasizing a nebulous "victory." The Left, still buoyed by the US debacle in Vietnam, would love another historic humiliation of "the imperialists." The Right, or large segments of it, want to "bomb into the stone age" a land that's already there.

George Will isn't yet calling for GAB's "victory" plan, i.e. an open-ended but strategically scaled down presence that will deny victory to the fanatics.

But give him time....

GEORGE WILL/////Counterinsurgency, as defined by McChrystal's successor, Gen. David Petraeus, and tepidly embraced by Barack Obama for a year or so, does not just involve nation-building, it is nation-building.

This does not just require political acumen, it requires the wisdom of Aristotle, the leadership skills of George Washington and the analytic sophistication of Tocqueville. But, then, the grinding paradox of nation-building is this: No one with the aptitudes necessary for it would be rash or delusional enough to try it.

The McChrystal debacle comes as America's longest war is entering a surreal stage: The military is charged with a staggeringly complex task, the completion of which — if completion can even be envisioned — must involve many years. But when given the task, the military was told to begin bringing it to a close in a matter of 18 months.

[DJ]

Speaking as a layman I can't understand how our "leaders" beleive they can pull off a military victory in Afghanistan let alone be successful in a nation building endeavor. I say because of this: isn't it true WE backed Osama Bin Laden and crew defeat the Soviet Union during the Reagan Administration? And isn't it true we provided the Mujahideen with stinger missiles? From my understanding the Soviets were defeated in large part due to our providing the Mujahideen with arms and military advisers. Fast forward to the present. Are we not making the same mistake the Soviets made? Will or ARE the Russians, possibly through proxies, aiding the Taliban? (Paybacks are a bit*h and all that.) Again, what makes our leaders think we can achieve victory in Afghanistan? Especially when the Afghan people regard us as invaders not liberators.

[soggy]

Ummah, Oh Ummah.....

[gringoman]

Again, what makes our leaders think we can achieve victory in Afghanistan?

Posted by: DJ | July 26, 2010 at 05:46 PM

DJ,

The answer: They don't think that, not privately anyway. No one in a non-drugged or non-drunken state believes that "victory," in any traditional sense of "victory," is possible. The only exceptions are some right-wingers in their nuttier "bomb 'em" rants, desperate for emotional gratification. Lefties, who are not always just devious little devils, do have a point here, i.e. jihadis in general, and now Afghanistan in particular, are payback for Ronald Reagan letting himself be talked into building up the muslim fanatics, the mujahadeen, against the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan. Arguably, this US support, and the ensuing defeat of the Russians, catapulted Al Quaeda and the like onto the world stage. It gave them confidence to take on the greatest infidel of them all, the USA, and pull off the Terror Spectacular of 9.11. (Personally, at the time, I keenly felt it was a pyrrhic victory for the US.)

So now the stage is set in Afghanistan for either (1) what the Left and Islam wants---an abject and humiliating withdrawal of the US or (2)something the jihadis can accept too-- an endless drain of US blood and treasure, as the sick patient in Kabul shows intermittent signs of "improvement," always followed by relapses.

These are essentially the only two alternatives offered today by the Demopublican eliteniks.

They're not ready for the Gringo Advisory Board's plan, i.e. the "victory" of strategic stalemate, a US presence that is drastically reduced, gives up the chimera of "nation-building", can't do everything, but can do the most important thing: prevent a take-over by the muslim fanatics.

They're not ready for this GAB plan just yet.

[gringoman]

The people and organizations that are able to put in place laws and government policies that go against the will of the people eg The Hart-Cellar Immigration Act of 1965.

Posted by: DJ | July 26, 2010 at 12:06 PM

DJ,

It's easy to savage the "Ruling Class" for its border-busting and Third World immigration policies of the past 40 years. I've done it more than once. Unfortunately, there's more to it than just "we're victimized by the elites." The Ruling Class may be stupid, often, but it's not always irrational.

The fact is that Americans are also "victimized" by their own prosperity. Anyone who looks at real life in the real world can see how native-born Americans have changed. There was a time when they would do the dirtiest jobs or the most servile jobs. That time is long gone. What white will work in a vile, stinking, suffocating meat-processing plant? What black will? There was a time when they would because they had to. That time is gone. Long gone.

Ruling class? Sure. But there's a bit more to it than just that.

[borderbriar]

Actually nobody including Wikileaks really stands to gain from these. Unlike the Pentagon Papers which supplied proof that the government was lying about Vietnam, these so-called leaks don't seem to reveal anything that hasn't already been known. How right George Will is, but do we dare back out of nation building in Afghanistan? As pointed out in one of the columns on desmailesviews.com we need a department of nation building if we are going to attempt it. Military force can be only one tool and needs to be greatly restricted.

How right Gringoman is about the changed attitude toward work. The most pernicious idea ever sold in this country is that some kinds of work are beneath a person's dignity. I guess some southern whites always believed that. As one who was raised in the North I can't even imagine what my father's reaction would have been if I had suggested some task however dirty or unpleasant was beneath my dignity. My "dignity" wouldn't have lasted long.

[Dgscol]

The Mamma Grizzlies appear to the public to be a group of gun-toting women. It would do the Tea Party good, to feature men also in their ranks as spokes-people.

[DJ]

The fact is that Americans are also "victimized" by their own prosperity. Anyone who looks at real life in the real world can see how native-born Americans have changed. There was a time when they would do the dirtiest jobs or the most servile jobs. That time is long gone. What white will work in a vile, stinking, suffocating meat-processing plant? What black will? There was a time when they would because they had to. That time is gone. Long gone.

Ruling class? Sure. But there's a bit more to it than just that.

Posted by: gringoman | July 27, 2010 at 11:48 AM

Gringoman,

I respectfully diagree. I have a different take on the issue than. I contend if a decent wage is offered, Americans WILL work in meat packing plants. The key component here is a decent wage.

In too many cases owners of meat packing plants are unscrupulous criminals. The owners take advantage of illegals and newly arrived immigrants --some under-aged -- desperate for money. The immigrants are willing to accept meager wages of say five dollars and hour. The criminal employers are only too happy to exploit this situation. So they pay them much less than a living wage. On the other hand, Americans refuse to physically bust their butts in unpleasant working conditions for a meager wage; I don't blame them one bit. Here is an example of which I'm sure you are familiar with: the Agriprocessors meat packing raid in Postville, Iowa.

http://frontpage.americandaughter.com/?p=1707

[DJ]

They're not ready for this GAB plan just yet.

Posted by: gringoman | July 27, 2010 at 11:15 AM

I agree 100% with GAB. I just wish it was put in place right after the Taliban was routed and El Qaeda decimated in Afghanistan That would have been around six months after the initial invasion.

[Dgscol]

Hands off Al Gore

Is Al Gore being massaged to death? Witness this :

1. Vote manipulation and the removal of hanging chads in Florida.
2. Indirect massaging of climate data by socialist scientists, influencing Al's public policies
3. Direct bodily massaging, possibly by members of the right or even by the Tea Party.

[Ree]

This wikileaks guy is showing up on Larry King CNN. Who thinks if the powers that be wanted to reach out and touch this guy, they wouldn’t have done it already, and rolled up his website? We have people in our government that’s only mission is cyber security.

This is serving someones purpose…..

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LVGwGB0-i-o

[jay]

Guess now, Obama is the scapegoat.

[sorow ebi]

Monica you are the best one question about the interview of obama with the View why obama did not answered the truth about why he and BP sold a terrorist to Kadaffy and let him go to Lybia and the documents that both signed are not allowed to display by the Brittish or Scottish government what a pitty that way we the people we see obama like he is a simple traitor and hypocrite that is taken everyone for a ride and not only that he said he is not complete american he is a mutt or mozzul I wonder if he said he was part of and animal may ask a brand of a dog?

[sorow ebi]

Monica you are an genius you see obama like i do just a simple traitor who lie to all of us he lie to our children family friends and we all believe him he try to sell our own country and he did too much damage sell our land destroy our land and arrange meeting with our terrorist enemy and get paid also with BP for billions what a monster he did not care for the well in the Gulf of Mexico and took 89 days to help and let the fishermen down and polluted the waters he destroy our military with his orders his scam to destroy our own military even a blind person can see him thru and now in the VIEW what a guy just showing his face like he is a great man he is just far from the truth now where is from he is not an American he is hiden his long form of birth certificate who will finally display the real truth i wonder if he and his pals will all go to Guantanamo jails where all belongs guess what there is not going to be caviar?