The last few days have seen a fury of debate about Wikileaks’ latest disclosures. To my mind, Wikileaks’ release of the Iraq and earlier Afghanistan documents is a public service—throwing critical light on the way in which America has pursued its wars at ground level.
Some have dismissed the documents as nothing “new.” Of course, it is true that we have had information about the wars, human rights violations, and civilian casualties in everyday stories by the media. But much of that, among reporters “embedded” by the military, has been carefully screened. Moreover, what has been written is also of course filtered through the eyes of journalists, with their own biases.
I think it is extremely useful for the public to have the opportunity to see ordinary soldiers’ day-to-day experience of the wars in any number of incidents that have not in fact received attention. This in my view makes the information “new”—and clearly worthwhile. That is why the world’s headlines over the last few days have been full of stories about civilian casualties, torture, and the role of military contractors–based on the Wikileaks disclosures.
As to the argument that the releases put civilians and soldiers at risk,
I of course believe those risks should be minimized. It certainly cannot be denied that these documents could put some civilian informants in the two countries “at risk”—or more precisely at greater risk than they have already placed themselves. And, as Charli Carpenter and others have argued previously, it does seem that Wikileaks might have done more to reduce that risk, particularly in the Afghanistan release. But it is probably impossible to eliminate the risk of harm—other than not to have released the documents in the first place. With regard to the actual level of risk from the Afghanistan disclosure, however, we do have some information. Secretary of Defense Robert Gates, hardly someone to underestimate the peril, wrote in August that the Pentagon’s “review to date has not revealed any sensitive intelligence sources and methods compromised by the disclosure.” Days ago, CNN also reported that “a senior NATO official in Kabul told [the network] there has not been a single case of Afghans needing protection or to be moved because of the leak.” (h/t Vikash Yadav)
Charli’s older idea that Wikileaks should do targeted document releases of potential war crimes may have some merit–but such an approach would essentially turn Wikileaks into a human rights NGO. Admittedly, the world could use more of them, particularly in war zones. But I see no value in Wikileaks transforming itself into something it is not, nor do I see anything wrong with Wikileaks’ continuing the mass data releases that it specializes in, albeit with some enhanced protections that it appears to be implementing already.
Nor do I have a problem with lack of transparency about the organization’s internal operations—or, if you will, a lack of symmetry with its efforts to illuminate government activities. Wikileaks, as a private entity, is under no obligation to disclose its internal operations, funding, and decisionmaking, beyond that required by law of other private concerns. As a matter of organizational strategy, I would argue for Wikileaks to tell more—because failing to do so raises legitimate questions about the group. But I would not dismiss its activities or discount its disclosures for this reason. Nor would I focus attention on this side issue, rather than the main one–the information’s substance.
By contrast, democratic governments do have an obligation to disclose information to their citizens, except in rare and particular circumstances. Yet from the U.S. to South Africa, governments’ knee jerk approach, especially when officials solemnly intone the magic word “security,” is exactly the opposite–with dire costs to citizens who are paying the bills and soldiers who are doing the dying.
In any case, all of the worry about Wikileaks possibly putting civilians and soldiers at risk must be placed in context. The Afghanistan and Iraq wars, which the U.S. started with so little justification and so little vision, have put millions of civilians and soldiers at actual risk. Of course, it is far worse than “risk.” Hundreds of thousands of Afghans and Iraqi civilians have actually died as a result of our wars, with far larger numbers gravely wounded. Thousands of American soldiers have actually been killed, and tens of thousands have had their lives shattered by injuries.
The wars have also put our nation as a whole at greater “risk”—although it is critical to realize that the danger to individual Americans and certainly to our “national security” remains small and easily manageable. Certainly, it does not justify the vast and wasteful expenditures we are making in the “GWOT.” (This does not even take into account the huge direct and indirect monetary costs of the wars—or the costs in civil liberties eroded.)
A major reason that the Bush administration was able to start these wars was lack of information. The evidentiary “basis” for them—and certainly against them–was not fully analyzed, the rationale for them not fully debated, and the exit strategies not wisely considered. In this, many of our key “watchdogs”—journalists, “opposition” politicians, and academics—blindly bought the Bush administration’s line on the “threat.” More information does not of course mean that misguided politicians will avoid doing stupid things. Nor does it stop journalists from becoming handmaidens of power. But it probably makes it more difficult for these things to happen.
In this context, the more information we have today about these misbegotten wars, the better. In the past, much of what we have had came from government or military sources, with a clear incentive to paint a rosy or incomplete picture. Journalists often ignored their obligation to be skeptical of officialdom. A vast “top security” industry has grown up in the wake of these wars, full of private contractors and government employees only too happy to keep information from the public. Because of the Pentagon’s strategic decision not to report civilian casualties, the human costs to the Iraqi and Afghan people can be found only through third parties. Through clever accounting practices, the government has been able to hide and postpone payment of the war’s monetary costs. And because of our volunteer army, the human costs to Americans have been confined to a tiny minority of our population.
In other words, these wars have been conducted with the American people—who pay their costs and in whose name they were started—very much in the dark. The mantra from our leaders is, “Trust us.” And the furious response to the disclosures is to attack Wikileaks and, most pathetically, Julian Assange–for his personal life.
Wikileaks is fighting against this self-servingly secretive mindset and may help bring these wars to an end sooner. In that, the group will help our country be stronger, more secure, and more responsible. I applaud the disclosures!
I also recommend Steve Walt’s blog and especially Glenn Greenwald’s recent posts which get to the heart of the story: what Wikileaks is doing; and how it is being attacked by government officials and much of the U.S. (but not foreign) press.
Good to see someone standing up for Wikileaks!
The US punditry response seems to be “this is old hat non-news- and they should be heavily prosecuted for divulging non-news”
Cliff,
Thanks for this post. It's definitely nice to have some balanced discussion of the topic on the same blog, and it's great to have you writing here.
We seem mostly in agreement: redaction policies are important, and they've improved this time around which is a good thing. Wikileaks is powerful and it can use its power for good or use it irresponsibly. Those who run it seem to be learning. And it's true that my proposal for “targeted releases” would require a shift in Wikileaks' modus operandi that some would oppose. (To be fair, my FP article didn't actually argue Wikileaks should itself become a human rights NGO, but for some NGO to borrow the Wikileaks model and architecture for that purpose.)
One thing I think is very positive about what Wikileaks is doing is the release of photographic evidence of civilian deaths. We are quite averse in this country to looking directly at the results of our weaponry, whereas this imagery is commonplace in the international and particularly the Arab press. I think this may still pose some ethical issues with how we represent human rights victims but on balance it's probably a good thing.
One place I still disagree with you, however, is the idea that Wikileaks shouldn't be held accountable for some transparency. I think this is completely wrong particularly insofar as they are disseminating facts and numbers that are likely to be regurgitated in the press as fact and it's not entirely clear what their numbers mean. For example, I've looked at some of the data and it's not obvious to me how they have coded different categories of deaths or how to interpret the data. I also want to know more about their redaction process and what tools they're using. I want to know how their search engine works and what it implies about the way we make use of this data. Etc. I may write more on this by and by…
Charli,
I see Wikileaks’ transparency as a side issue. It’s true that WL can use its power responsibly or not. But it has far less power than militaries and governments—and our own have shown themselves highly irresponsible in recent years, especially regarding Iraq and Afghanistan. I wonder, for instance, what would have happened in 2003 if a group like Wikileaks had “irresponsibly” leaked some of the underlying documents that supposedly made the case for Iraq having WMD and otherwise supported the “case for war.”
It’s true that the press may “regurgitate” Wikileaks' figures. But then reporters on the defense beat do that all the time with figures from the Pentagon, somehow believing, despite all the evidence to the contrary that the military always tells the truth. Perhaps they don’t realize that the military, like all organizations, has an interest in making itself look good and increasing its own budget. Or maybe the reporters are just being “patriotic,” narrowly defined as “my military, right or wrong.“
In any case, does the Pentagon provide info on how it codes and categorizes the data it releases–both publicly and through its own highly strategic leak-machine? Correct me if I’m wrong, but I doubt it. More likely this material is classified—or perhaps shown to a few select congresspeople. Yet of course the military and the government are paid for by us citizens, who surely have a right to know this.
As I said in my post, I favor Wikileaks providing more info on its operations, primarily to enhance the credibility of its releases. But I don’t think this should divert us from the substance of the disclosures.
Thanks for your comment—and it’s great to be writing for the Duck!