Quote:
Originally Posted by filtherton
I don't quite understand the juxtaposition of these two arguments: 1)This information is meaningless because it is intelligence at it rawest, least vetted form. Even if it weren't meaningless, it is comprised of only things that we all already know, that the current and previous admins have been completely forthright about, so that this leak isn't a big deal. 2)This leak is a big deal and soldiers will be placed in harm's way (implicitly moreso than already) by this information, and also that the person who leaked it should, at the very least, be punched in the nuts.
How can this info be common knowledge, but still endanger our troops?
With respect to the endangerment of the troops, I hold the leaker in slightly higher regard than I do the folks who got us in this mess in the first place and now won't show the political backbone required to admit that it ain't going well.
|
To respond to this specific point: I actually think these two claims are internally consistent (or can be).
On the one hand, the claim is that the new information does not reveal any broad new trend that was not already known. (Examples: 'Pakistan is an unreliable ally.' 'Civilian deaths are high.' 'The intensity of combat is mounting.' 'The Afghan government is a weak and corrupt partner.' These were already well-established in the war narrative prior to the leaks.)
But it is possible to believe this and
also believe that the public release of nearly a hundred thousand primary source military documents reveals a lot of valuable intelligence to adversaries (in a relatively compact, clean, and unified form). It's precisely those details that would
not interest the general public that are of greatest interest to adversaries: what locations does this unit hit on its patrol? In what towns and villages do US forces have effective local allies, and who are they? Etc.
Not saying that I am fully in agreement with both of these points, but I do think they are more consistent than some detractors have claimed.