Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community - View Single Post - changing how you think about afghanistan: a massive leak of military documents.

roachboy · 07-29-2010, 03:15 PM

slims...i happen to be sitting around my livingroom at the moment. i mention that because there's a basic experiential split at play in the story of this leak--and it's duplicated in the way the thread is going (a little story but a story nonetheless)---in reverse order: the thread is mostly about the fact of the leak. almost all the statements concerning the documents leaked are general, press-release level. so everyone is hand-waving in terms of the actual content. speaking for myself, i'll only have the time i want to really start focusing on reading this material tomorrow, and even then i'm not so sure.

i have no idea if other folk are reading this material or not. my assumption is they aren't, and this not for any cynical reason, but just because folk have lives.

the only difference is that i've been quite clear about my relation to the actual information--where i've read i find it a disorienting experience and i've been relying inwardly on your earlier characterization of the logs to if anything destabilize the information. so i don't really feel like i have fragment of "the real picture"---i have fragments of a different picture.

there's multiple pictures in this information. the one you're keying on its the geographical grid--and i kinda understand what you're saying, but i also have reservations because---again--it's all very general what you're saying about the information. in the abstract you're point is taken. concretely, i have no idea at this point. nor i would wager does anyone reading this. at that level, at the geographical level, at the level of x type of operation in area 1 resulting in outcomes that are, say, poor to indifferent and that consistently over a long period---yeah, i can see that could pose problems. but it's also a very particular reading of that information you advance. for example, it presupposes that the taliban is reading and that it is transparent to them. i would think the chronological spread (2004-2009) and amount (92,000 file so far) get in the way of that being a dominant feature of the information, and that interpretation describing a major aspect of how this stuff is being used.

but it's complicated...."democracy" and secrets is a **really** complicated relationship.

that's one area. the other is politics.

clausewitz's famous line is correct: war is politics by other means (i paraphrase, and badly)...so of course--OF COURSE---war is political. and its naive to imagine a separation of the military from the political when the whole of the military is nothing--and i mean nothing---but an instrument for the forcible imposition of the political directives of the state. any military function you can name can be reduced to an expression of a political directive or policy or aim. i would think this obvious.

because the military is an extension of policy & its actions are expressions of policy, there is no meaningful distinction between military action and politics.

so the military IS involved politically. it is a major political actor, from war marketing to lobbying to patronage at the polling booths to decoration. all of it. and the military acts, in general, as a political institution in its own interests.

how the pentagon press office "shapes" information and infotainment (war marketing is infotainment; the press pool may get information. that's more or less the distinction i'm drawing.) is just one aspect.

so what the military does are eminently political questions. so they're open to critique as is any other political action.

i expect that for you things have to be different because your daily rounds of doing stuff is a technical and social and organization and the politics that underpin or undermine what you're doing are held as a distance. and it makes sense that things would be organized that way functionally. but the viewpoint i have, which comes from a different social position (my living room, for example) points to an alternative organization which is present for me in the way that your organization of experience is present for you----and the political conflicts around the afghanistan war can, i imagine, seem as distant for you as your everyday experience there in theater is distant from what i know about.

so far as the leaks themselves are concerned, like i said i have no problem with them because they undermine the political consent for the policy that informs the military presence in afghanistan. but i opposed the war. so its follows. the only way i can participate in this kind of discussion is to be up front.

but i can see what you're saying and believe it or not i respect it.
i don't agree with it, but there's no requirement of what, any more than there is a requirement that you accept my argument.

07-29-2010, 03:15 PM	#46 (permalink)
roachboy Super Moderator Location: essex ma	slims...i happen to be sitting around my livingroom at the moment. i mention that because there's a basic experiential split at play in the story of this leak--and it's duplicated in the way the thread is going (a little story but a story nonetheless)---in reverse order: the thread is mostly about the fact of the leak. almost all the statements concerning the documents leaked are general, press-release level. so everyone is hand-waving in terms of the actual content. speaking for myself, i'll only have the time i want to really start focusing on reading this material tomorrow, and even then i'm not so sure. i have no idea if other folk are reading this material or not. my assumption is they aren't, and this not for any cynical reason, but just because folk have lives. the only difference is that i've been quite clear about my relation to the actual information--where i've read i find it a disorienting experience and i've been relying inwardly on your earlier characterization of the logs to if anything destabilize the information. so i don't really feel like i have fragment of "the real picture"---i have fragments of a different picture. there's multiple pictures in this information. the one you're keying on its the geographical grid--and i kinda understand what you're saying, but i also have reservations because---again--it's all very general what you're saying about the information. in the abstract you're point is taken. concretely, i have no idea at this point. nor i would wager does anyone reading this. at that level, at the geographical level, at the level of x type of operation in area 1 resulting in outcomes that are, say, poor to indifferent and that consistently over a long period---yeah, i can see that could pose problems. but it's also a very particular reading of that information you advance. for example, it presupposes that the taliban is reading and that it is transparent to them. i would think the chronological spread (2004-2009) and amount (92,000 file so far) get in the way of that being a dominant feature of the information, and that interpretation describing a major aspect of how this stuff is being used. but it's complicated...."democracy" and secrets is a really complicated relationship. that's one area. the other is politics. clausewitz's famous line is correct: war is politics by other means (i paraphrase, and badly)...so of course--OF COURSE---war is political. and its naive to imagine a separation of the military from the political when the whole of the military is nothing--and i mean nothing---but an instrument for the forcible imposition of the political directives of the state. any military function you can name can be reduced to an expression of a political directive or policy or aim. i would think this obvious. because the military is an extension of policy & its actions are expressions of policy, there is no meaningful distinction between military action and politics. so the military IS involved politically. it is a major political actor, from war marketing to lobbying to patronage at the polling booths to decoration. all of it. and the military acts, in general, as a political institution in its own interests. how the pentagon press office "shapes" information and infotainment (war marketing is infotainment; the press pool may get information. that's more or less the distinction i'm drawing.) is just one aspect. so what the military does are eminently political questions. so they're open to critique as is any other political action. i expect that for you things have to be different because your daily rounds of doing stuff is a technical and social and organization and the politics that underpin or undermine what you're doing are held as a distance. and it makes sense that things would be organized that way functionally. but the viewpoint i have, which comes from a different social position (my living room, for example) points to an alternative organization which is present for me in the way that your organization of experience is present for you----and the political conflicts around the afghanistan war can, i imagine, seem as distant for you as your everyday experience there in theater is distant from what i know about. so far as the leaks themselves are concerned, like i said i have no problem with them because they undermine the political consent for the policy that informs the military presence in afghanistan. but i opposed the war. so its follows. the only way i can participate in this kind of discussion is to be up front. but i can see what you're saying and believe it or not i respect it. i don't agree with it, but there's no requirement of what, any more than there is a requirement that you accept my argument. __________________ a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear it make you sick. -kamau brathwaite Last edited by roachboy; 07-29-2010 at 03:25 PM..