RSS Feed MenuThe WikiLeaks website, founded by Julian Assange, released approximately 90,000 classified Pentagon intelligence documents. Both Admiral Mullen and Secretary of Defense Gates have stated that in releasing these documents both the leaker and publisher “have on their hands the blood of some young solider or that of an Afghan family.” FrumForum interviewed former military and intelligence officials to get their opinion on the damage done by these leaks.
Michael Hayden, former CIA Director, commented that “Mike Mullen is straight on. This is the kind of stuff that gets people killed. They are identifying people who cooperated with us, even marginally. I can’t imagine how this won’t lead either directly or indirectly to a loss of life.”
The leaks also gave away the operational playbook. Hayden again: “this is the stuff armies train against. Information is revealed and the system is revealed. You can derive information about response time, reporting changes, rules of engagement, and a whole variety of strategy that the enemy can now pick up on and use to their advantage.” A former CIA operative stated that “the bad guys are already good at modifying their m.o. to counter our moves; this just makes it easier for them.”
Hayden also had a question for Assange, “these leaks make it easier for us to work with the Pakistanis because…?” He explained that other intelligence organizations with sources and information will not want to work with Americans because “they believe we can’t keep secrets and will question the confidentiality of their exchanges with us.”
Former CIA Director James Woolsey warned that this disclosure might deter Afghans from cooperating in the future with the U.S. against the Taliban. In referring to Assange’s recent quote in a German newspaper that “I enjoy crushing bastards,” he pointed out that “the question that Mr. Assange should be asked is whether little Afghan girls walking to school are bastards? Is acid being thrown in their faces the type of crushing he is supporting?”
Woolsey summed it up when he stated that the release of these classified documents had dire consequences to America’s national security. Furthermore, he sarcastically noted that “if you release documents that have people’s names in them you have to be really, really stupid not to realize that you are participating in getting these people killed. If Assange didn’t intend for soldiers and Afghans getting killed then he is completely incapable of reasoning about the consequences of his actions.”
Watusie // Aug 6, 2010 at 2:24 pm
Elise, could you also talk to former members of the intelligence community about the incalculable damage caused by the Bush Administration?
TerryF98 // Aug 6, 2010 at 3:19 pm
Elise,
You are so very funny! you make me
jreb // Aug 6, 2010 at 3:31 pm
Good article Elise, I hope the Army private and his associates who assisted in the release of these classified documents are prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.
busboy33 // Aug 6, 2010 at 5:49 pm
So the “incalculable” damage is “incalculable” not because the dameage is so astromically large . . . but because you can’t find any actual evidence of damage? I don’t mean to be pendantic, but that’s not incalculable. It is very easily calculatable. The answer is ZERO. Nothing is very calculatable.
If releasing information “makes it easier for the enemy to learn our response times and m.o.” just as a general proposition and not based on the actual information released, how is ANY news about the war efforts not doing the same thing? When the embedded CBS reporter says “the platoon brought up the .50cal to lay supressing fire” . . . isn’t that giving away our tactics and strategy?
Look . . . I’m all for protecting the troops, and if anybody can give me ONE SINGLE release that can be credibly explained as a threat out of almost one hundred thousand different documents, I’m all ears. Until then, lose the skirt Shirley!
Have Conservatives completely abdicated the whole “information and evidence” modality to getting thru the day? Obama is a Socialist . . . because. Gay marriage threatens Western Civilization . . . because. Obama isn’t a citizen . . . because. Healthcare reform is a plot to kill grandma . . . because. Wikileaks endangers soldiers . . . because.
It’s embarassing.
CO Independent // Aug 6, 2010 at 6:05 pm
@ Busboy:
You didn’t look too hard, did you. That right-wing rag, the New York Times, is reporting that the documents provide the names of over 100 informants. Does that count as a credible threat in your world?
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503543_162-20011886-503543.html
And the Taliban are busy reviewing documents to get the names of the informants so they can punish them:
http://thelede.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/07/30/taliban-study-wikileaks-to-hunt-informants/
Do you support the leaking of informants’ names to the enemy?
baw1064 // Aug 6, 2010 at 8:33 pm
Do you support the leaking of informants’ names to the enemy?
The ISI probably already knew their names.
Assessing the WikiLeaks Damage | FrumForum | The Daily Conservative // Aug 8, 2010 at 11:34 am
[...] the original post: Assessing the WikiLeaks Damage | FrumForum Share and [...]
thijsvn // Aug 9, 2010 at 9:13 am
At first I figured Wikileaks was a healthy initiative for whistleblowers. But it seems to have degenerated into some sort of twisted pissing contest between Wikileaks and the U.S. government.
busboy33 // Aug 11, 2010 at 4:24 am
@CO Independent:
Names of informants would qualify as something to rail against. On that, I absolutely agree.
The “just generally reading reports of actions in inherently dangerous in and of itself”? No. That I’m not seeing any evidence of.
I can’t get to the NYTimes story because its behind a pay wall, and I’ll be damned if they’re getting any of my cash. The documents I’ve seen have sensitive info like names and identifying data like that scrubbed out.