Wikileaks just released 90,000 pages of classified documents from the Afghanistan War that chronicle six years (for more information on Wikileaks and this specific leak, click here. The documents were sent to The New York Times, the British newspaper The Guardian and the German magazine Der Spiegel, likely for maximum exposure. The documents show that we have been mislead (click this link for loads of information and pieces of the leaks) about the progress being made, which is no surprise. From the New York Times:

The documents — some 92,000 reports spanning parts of two administrations from January 2004 through December 2009 — illustrate in mosaic detail why, after the United States has spent almost $300 billion on the war in Afghanistan, the Taliban are stronger than at any time since 2001.

As the new American commander in Afghanistan, Gen. David H. Petraeus, tries to reverse the lagging war effort, the documents sketch a war hamstrung by an Afghan government, police force and army of questionable loyalty and competence, and by a Pakistani military that appears at best uncooperative and at worst to work from the shadows as an unspoken ally of the very insurgent forces the American-led coalition is trying to defeat.

The fact that Pakistan is suspected of aiding the insurgency is one of the biggest revelations of the documents. Ostensibly an ally in the War on Terror, this could be a crushing blow and lead to more instability in the region.

Another thing made evident in the documents (and something that pretty much everyone already knew) is that Afghanistan took a back seat to Iraq, making progress difficult and helping the Taliban grow.

Reports of civilian deaths that occur are especially devastating. This is because civilian deaths lead to civilians picking up guns, increasing Taliban strength while fewer casualties hurt the insurgency. From the New York Times:

From the war’s outset, airstrikes that killed civilians in large numbers seized international attention, including the aerial bombardment of a convoy on its way to attend President Karzai’s inauguration in 2001. An airstrike in Azizabad, in western Afghanistan, killed as many as 92 people in August 2008. In May 2009, another strike killed 147 Afghan civilians.

SEPT. 3, 2009 | KUNDUZ PROVINCE
Incident Report: Mistaken Airstrike
This report, filed about the activities of a Joint Terminal Attack Controller team, which is responsible for communication from the ground and guiding pilots during surveillance missions and airstrikes, offers a glimpse into one of the bloodiest mistakes in 2009.

It began with a report from the police command saying that “2X FUEL TRUCKS WERE STOLEN BY UNK NUMBER OF INS” and that the insurgents planned to cross the Kunduz River with their prizes. It was nighttime, and the river crossing was not illuminated. Soon, the report noted, the “JTAC OBSERVED KDZ RIVER AND REPORTED THAT IT DISCOVERED THE TRUCKS AS WELL AS UP TO 70 INS” at “THE FORD ON THE RIVER. THE TRUCKS WERE STUCK IN THE MUD.” How the JTAC team was observing the trucks was not clear, but many aircraft have infrared video cameras that can send a live feed to a computer monitor on the ground.

According to the report, a German commander of the provincial reconstruction team “LINKED UP WITH JTAC AND, AFTER ENSURING THAT NO CIVILIANS WERE IN THE VICINITY,” he “AUTHORIZED AN AIRSTRIKE.” An F-15 then dropped two 500-pound guided bombs. The initial report said that “56X INS KIA [insurgents killed in action] (CONFIRMED) AND 14X INS FLEEING IN NE DIRECTION. THE 2X FUEL TRUCKS WERE ALSO DESTROYED.”

The initial report was wrong. The trucks had been abandoned, and a crowd of civilians milled around them, removing fuel. How the commander and the JTAC had ensured “that no civilians were in the area,” as the report said, was not explained.

The first sign of the mistake documented in the initial report appeared the next day, when another report said that at “0900 hrs International Media reported that US airstrike had killed 60 civilians in Kunduz. The media are reporting that Taliban did steal the trucks and had invited civilians in the area to take fuel.” Read the Document »

I put that snippet up because it provides an example of why things are going wrong. It isn’t easy to determine which people are civilians, so a lot of them end up being killed. This in turn makes more civilians taking up guns, which only makes it more difficult to differentiate civilians and insurgents, leading to more civilians deaths. And on and on.

The Obama administration, of course, didn’t like the release. They were upset they weren’t contacted (which is silly, since they are trying to find they guy responsible). They claim it harms national security, but also say it isn’t anything new (which doesn’t make any sense). They also say that since the leaks predate Obama’s new direction, the information is no longer salient (again, not sure why it hurts national security if this is the case), but this would just mean we get to see the information he did when making his decision. I don’t think this is a bad thing.

For all the people that want more transparency in government, this should be a win. Wikileaks is a stateless entity that helps reveal the truth, and if there is one thing we should have learned centuries ago it’s that we should not accept lies about war. We should not accept them about the justifications for war or for reports of progress during a war. We are sinking hundreds of billions of dollars into what is looking like a war that cannot be won. Shouldn’t all the deficit hawks look at this information before they start cutting unemployment benefits? Civilian deaths shouldn’t be overlooked. We need to know the consequences of our actions. (For a great defense of Wikileaks, check out Glenn Greenwald’s article.)

This should be huge news, and no doubt the main question the press brings up will be: Should they have published these documents? I hope not. I hope the media takes this opportunity to explore whether or not we are or can succeed, what succeeding means, and whether or not we should continue putting money and lives into this effort.

Enjoy some horrible coverage.

Adam Feser