Here in Canada they are know as loyalists and many an monument was erected in their honor :)

Their descendants are entitled to use a Loyalist coronet in their coat of arms and the honorific "United Empire Loyalist". Although entirely without consequence - is the only heraldic title unique to North America that I am aware off.

the humble Chickadee, UE, whose several ancestors stuck with the British paymasters in the way back times. Mind you, the very same ancestors also put in good time in Patriot militias so today their efforts are equally heralded by the DAR in the US. I guess whose side you aligned yourself with on any given day may have had something to do with whose soldiers were riding through town intent on torching the farms of those unwilling to switch sides. Basically, think Afghanistan.

there is the unredacted name of a guy who is informing against the Taleban. The Taleban isn't stupid. What happens when they put a bullet in this guy's head? Do you want that blood on your hand?

^{"Sí che dal fatto il dir non sia diverso."}

-Dante

Welcome to the Great Game (TM)! How much blood from how many innocents does the average American have on their hands? Everyone who thinks you can take Shock and Awe back, take one step forward. Whoops! Not so fast, bud . . .

What kind of assurances should any Afghan have about the duration or seriousness of our involvement there? The current president will sell even his political allies down the river. Do you really think anybody doing business with the Americans don't have a plan B? They've all been through this with the Soviets before. Why do you think most of them are wary of dealing with Americans in the first place? I would be too unless I was getting one of those shipments of $billions in cash on a loading pallet.

The thing is that it is not a game for the people who live there. It is their lives. What was their alternative to dealing with the Americans? The Taliban? Not much of a choice.

excellent point!

Terms and definitions.

are not "just trying to feed his family". It's a risky thing to do.

If the tables were turned, I would not want the identity of the collaborators and spies in my neighborhood concealed.

The trouble with some folks deciding what information the public does and does not have a right to know is that it creates a cover of secrecy leading us straight to the pervasive treachery we have now. In my opinion, the public should be fully informed about any activities undertaken on behalf of the public, with public money. Classified/secret cloak-and-dagger bullshit always works against us by and by. The government should not be in the business of doing anything that must be kept secret. That's organized crime, not governance.

moral obligation to disclose who the leakers were, as well.

^{"Sí che dal fatto il dir non sia diverso."}

-Dante

and stealing our money to do what it does. That is the difference. We don't have an intrinsic right to your granny's cookie recipe, or Apple's new product lineup, or the inventory report from the local convenience store. But when we the public are paying the costs, both financially and politically, we deserve to know what is happening in our names-- all of it. How can we consent or object to things that are kept secret from us?

Ultimately, the costs of having official secrecy are much higher than the costs of not having it.

Would that include revealing evidence used in a public trial ?

How about the identity of our double agents in Al-Queda ?

How about revealing the fact you have genital herpes if you use Medicare ? After all, we wouldnt want you to spread that would we ?

Are you really this fucking naive ? THe world doesnt revolve around your bullshit conspiracy theories.

I can only imagine Chalo in 1944. "Mr. President, its in the public interest that we reveal that we broke the German codes." (publicly funded and all.....) ***

The fact of the matter that no individual is smart enough to be able to absorb and make rational decisions on every matter of public policy. You _dont_ need to know everything.

No, really, you dont.

Mad Dog

*** if you cant see the problem with this, you probably smoke too much pot.

all the terrible stuff that happens because there is official secrecy. Think about it. It's worse to have it than not to have it-- and most of the ill effects you can imagine for opening up official secrets are really just aftereffects from having it in the first place.

No Chalo, "terrible things" are not all the result of secrecy.

Everyday crime is not caused by secret wire-taps, and so forth.

Secrets are important. You are qualified or capable to know everything.

Take our WW2 Ultra case.... would you have been in favor of exposing this state secret during the war ?

Mad Dog

grave misstatement of what Chalo wrote here -

"all the terrible stuff that happens because there is official secrecy"

- which pretty clearly means "all the terrible things that are caused by secrecy", as opposed to your apparent interpretation as "... all terrible things are caused by secrecy".

I don't believe, for example, that Chalo is arguing that colo-rectal cancer is caused by secrecy.

Why do you think these people have not already been found out?

The Taliban are not stupid. They probably already know about the informant. He took his life in his own hands when he decided to become an informer, collaborator and traitor.

Do you sincerely believe that the Taliban do not know about Engineer Kareem negotiating about the dams? Or that they cannot see them being built? Same with Bakwa Mafia, et al.

Joshua Foust may be someone you trust, but I am not sure why he believes UK Maj. "John Reynolds cannot travel to Pakistan again, ever, because of Wikileaks." He strikes me as a drama queen.

As for wikileaks having a moral obligation to disclose the identities of the whistle blowers, that is not a valid argument and you know it. Chalo said it was about the public being fully informed by the government about activities taken on behalf of the public, with public money. That is a culture of secrecy. Wikileaks is not the government. They exist solely for the purpose of exposing secrecy. Moreover, wikileaks promised the whistle blowers confidentiality. Championing confidentiality for something you are happy has been disclosed by wikileaks and criticizing it from something you do not want to disclosed is a double standard. They serve a purpose, and I appreciate that purpose.

Why have you not criticized the whistle blowers for not redacting the names? If blood is on anyone's hands, then it would be theirs. Lest we not forget the blood on our hands for all the innocent civilians that die at the hands of the coalition forces ... oh ... that's right ... collateral damage.

Well, for starters he's been to Afghanistan and worked there. On these very issues.

Fuck man, even the Mafia does what is can to protect its assets. Even the fucking Mafia recognizes that kind of morality. Why is this so hard to understand?

^{"Sí che dal fatto il dir non sia diverso."}

-Dante

... Taliban's side. If you have followed their rise to power and conduct in the least you should know that they are truly heinous and very much a creation of Pakistan's ISS and Saudi Arabia sponsored Wahhabism brain washing.

Afghan civilians caught in the cross fire simply have no good choices. There are no good guys in this story.

IMHO SPK is absolutely correct in his criticism.

quax: How does calling him a traitor essentially imply I am taking the Taliban's side? What are you princess drama queen? I was stating a fact as opposed to an implication. Learn the difference. Learn to read.

Anyone that takes sides with an occupational force in their country, provides them with information is and will always be considered an informant, a collaborator and/or a traitor. They pay the consequences of their decisions.

I suspect you will be the first to look for an economic gain should your country be occupied. Somehow, you will rationalize that it is a good thing and you are not an informant, a collaborator and/or a traitor. You were only caught in the crossfire.

Have you ever been in a war zone quax? I have. Several. There are choices. Those choices keep you alive and out of harm's way. Decisions vs. Consequences. it is no different for civilians, military personnel and/or intel officers.

SP: Foust? I read his stuff. Yawn. I have been there too. I know people there now. I know people that fought there in the 1980's on both sides, and afterward. He does not have a clue.

You know SP, if this was about protecting the people there, then you should read all the documents about the killing of innocent civilians there caught in the crossfire. You know the ones our media does not report about, which were killed by us and/or coalition forces. Where is your outrage about that?

Amazing that you fail to respond to the questions I propounded. Hmmm ... not really amazing ... but evasive. Really, the Mafia? How does that compare with a government that does not protect the treasure? It does not. I know, you think it is a nuance, but it is not. They protect their profits. We protect what? The military industrial complex, Wall Street ... blah, blah, blah ... oh, right, we protect our profits. What about the people?

So, are you essentially championing the military industrial complex and the protection of their assets?

I guess the next time wikileaks posts some documents about the targeting of Americans living abroad for assassination will be met with an "how can they post that" overreaction from you?

======

I would love to stay and chat about it, but it is morning here. I want to get some photos of Ukrainian skinheads protesting the Patriarch of Russia and freedom of religion.

... a homogeneous country doesn't make sense and the Taleban are anything but a purely indiginous force. Which is why I read your choice of words as a moral judgment. No offense intended. My understanding is that Afghanistan is a conglomerate of tribes and power mostly rests with local war lords. The Northern Alliance held of the Taleban before the US made it their war e.g. labeling such Afghans working with the US against their long established enemies "traitors" is just non-nonsensical to me.

In fact you may recall that SPK met such an Afghan in Istanbul. To me the retelling of this encounter was the most moving of SPK travel diaries I've read so far.

1) As I am sure you will have noted, the war has not being going "well". This means that a goodly portion of the folks contained in those files who "collaborated" (things like taking the rich white folks up on their offer to dig wells or build schools) did so when the Taliban had no counter-intelligence capability in their district or even their province (i.e., they were far from knowingly taking their lives in their hands - more like holding their hands out for their due piece of the pie, actually). This source, however, provides a ready made CI roadmap of past behaviour - if I, in the circumstances of moving into a new area, having limited resources, want to know exactly which heads to "trim" this is very handy.

2) While there's a lot of pious commentary regarding the "goodness" of bringing this out into the public eye, the public's understanding of things would not be hindered at all were it Engineer [redacted] doing things. Additionally, I'd have a lot more tolerance for the idea of these as public good were I to actually think that the public will read them. I'm not going to hold my breath - shit, folks can't even manage to read the Times.

“Bring brother Redacted into my presence so that I may explain to him the error of his ways." ~ not-Richard Haass, in touch with inner his white mice, Taliban edition

I agree, same thing with Valerie Plame. I mean, did you really think she wasnt already found out ? So whats the big deal ?
.
.

For those of you really dim bulbs out there, that is sarcasm. Any douchebags out there who screamed bloody murder about Valerie Plame sure as hell better not rationalize the WikiLeaks "outings" in terms of "oh, I bet the Taliban already knows".

At least Valerie Plame wasnt in danger of having her head cut off on a jihadi videotape.

The wikileaks turd really fucked up when he didnt properly redact the names. Talk about entering "maximum fucktard" mode.

Mad Dog

I'm sure he would never exagerrate things or seek to spin how they're depicted for gain.

"Sarcasm. Hurts your cheek from the force of the tongue and tastes just like chicken." ~ not-Richard Haass

remember Assange starting the stuff about the U. S. killing or torturing him. He keeps a really low profile. The first prominent posting I remember on that subject was by Ellsberg.

If anything happens to us, you know why: it is our Apr 5 film. And you know who is responsible. 12:33 AM Mar 24th

WikiLeaks is currently under an aggressive US and Icelandic surveillance operation. Following/photographing/filming/detaining. 12:31 AM Mar 24th

“The absence of any US-Iran bilateral channel...may have the perverse effect of reinforcing Iranian interest in progressing in the nuclear realm so that the US will be forced to take it seriously and engage it directly." ~ Richard Haass

Don't watch anyone's twitter feed. Wonder why anyone might be a little paranoid about the U. S. security complex? Of course, you and I know that anyone who is suspected of thoughts which might be contrary to the proper, approved thoughts deserves anything we might happen to do them.

...having thoughts that are "contrary to the proper, approved thoughts" is little guarantee that those thoughts are, in fact, correct. You may have noticed that I'm a bit of a prick [wee understatement] about "correct".

“And before you ask, yes, it is me that makes the judgment as to whether something's correct. Forever. For everyone, everywhere. Mwuahahahaha. Oh, and I am Iron Man." ~ not-Richard Haass powerdrunk in the mid-afternoon

:)

...re-weighting surveys, serially discovering past errors and figuring out how to compensate for them (read: paper over past dumbassery while balancing the desire not to look too much like an idiot against retaining strict fidelity to the data - fidelity trumps BTW). The Tony Stark brilliant libertine fantasy is looking mighty appealing, let me tell you.

Doing a survey once is easy. Doing it more than once and producing results that are comparable is hard. If the results are the same, as a surveyor I'm heartened by how repeatable the instrument is, but as an analyst I'm bored spitless. All in all, I gotta say the tin suit sounds pretty good. Poisonous arc reactor in the chest's a bit of a downer, but hey." ~ not-Richard Haass

I'm not cheering, but I wonder why you think we should be standing by ourselves after one decade of evolving bullshit. If we were invaded for liberation without invitation I would see nothing wrong with killing our own civilians working for a foreign government.

There are legitimate grievances against the Taliban but the sides are fuzzy if not interchangeable (some of those Taliban-for-hires pick up guns to feed their families too), and the cluster fuck that is the Afghan government leaves me rooting for no one. Aside from the personal travesties that occur every day, just who am I supposed to feel sorry for? Americans don't seem to pay attention to a ROE that kills our troops in the name of COIN but I'm supposed to hold my breath for Bakwa?

although I don't see why I should have to be, the time has long since passed when our occupation of Afghanistan could have turned out successfully. The watershed moment was probably in 2003 when we took resources from AfPak to Iraq.

This isn't about whether the Taleban is bad or not, either. And it's damn sure not about feeling 'sorry' for someone. It's about making sure our assets are protected. It's about preventing people from being killed in cold blood. About contractors--not mercenaries--people from USAID who met with an Afghan tribal leader, who's trying to keep his village safe from the Uzbeks up the road, or the Hazara's down the street. Or a Pashtun is afraid of the Tajiks in the village over the hills.

As for informers, traitors, etc. . . I submit to you and Don and everyone else who has chimed in about it: it's an extremely different animal in a place like Afghanistan. Remember: Afghanistan is not a nation. Nor is it really a functioning state. So the idea of an informer, or collaborator is very different than ours. Afghan politics are tribal in nature, not national, and tribal politics and the meaning of loyalty is much more fluid to Afghans than it is Americans who have a flag, an anthem, a Congress, a president, that means the same things to all of us.

These people trust us to protect them. And that trust was betrayed by Wikileaks by not redacting their names. How hard would it be to have done that?

Again, I'm not saying Wikileaks is all bad. I'm saying they need to improve. There is a large difference. It's called nuance.

^{"Sí che dal fatto il dir non sia diverso."}

-Dante

The one dimensional idea of traitors or collaborators simply doesn't hold in a tribal country without defining nationhood.

As I tried to point out to Don's original posting it wasn't that simple for the American Revolution either or there wasn't a rather distinct nation to your north now.

I have no doubt we have much invested in believing that, but I'm extremely skeptical that it's true.

have been prevented. That is not what I am saying. I am saying that Wikileaks, if it wants to continue to be taken seriously, and I hope it does because we need Wikileaks, needs to change some of its methods. It needs to be more fucking careful with those people who are on the front lines, doing the grunt work, it needs to think about the little people it claims to represent.

^{"Sí che dal fatto il dir non sia diverso."}

-Dante

that publication should be prevented. I'm saying that it's moral outrage on the issue is a diversion that benefits the greater evil. I don't care whether Wikileaks is taken seriously or not unless it has some impact. I don't care what its claims are about representing the little people unless fewer little people die. And I worry less about changing Wikileaks than about stopping the U.S. government's military adventures. We need to be more fucking careful with people.

That would be the people of the world SP. We have a fucking right to know. Quit blaming the messenger. Why have you not placed your blame on the persons that provided the message to the messenger?

You would never violate OPSEC, even if you witnessed war crimes?

What about the moral obligation you refer to continuously in this thread?

that so far I've seen nothing but conjecture to indicate these documents contain evidence of war crimes - I agree.

It has to be said that "OpSec" would rise closer to a sacred value if its own adherents had not profaned it so many times, like citing it to obscure the circumstances of Pat Tillman's death.

release of the documents is a public good. Treason would be leaking documents pertaining to a vital national interest or vital national secret. This leak does not rise to that level. It's embarrassing to the government and it puts some lives at risk. But it ain't high treason.

However, as I have repeatedly stated, the lack of redactions leaves Wikileaks with potential blood on their hands. How hard would it have been to redact all names of non-senior personnel? Not terribly difficult, I imagine.

^{"Sí che dal fatto il dir non sia diverso."}

-Dante

...can you hold that "assassination" against a literal handful of US citizens is so beyond the pale but something like this - something that puts tens, maybe hundreds or even thousands of sources OTR (On The Run) for fear of their lives - is on balance a public good? Seriously, it's a question not a rhetorical device...

I dunno man, I got problems with all this. All that stuff in the media coverage about how they vetted things for OPSEC concerns is sounding a lot like "vetted for OPSEC concern of non brown folks". Never occurred to me that they'd have stuff like this in the narratives, but it's really a mind bender that it's still been left in when leaked - kinda goes towards the notion that most of the folks propagating the leak don't know quite what it is that they're looking at.

“The absence of any US-Iran bilateral channel...may have the perverse effect of reinforcing Iranian interest in progressing in the nuclear realm so that the US will be forced to take it seriously and engage it directly." ~ Richard Haass

You ask: "I'm trying to wrap my head around this. How on one hand can you hold that "assassination" against a literal handful of US citizens is so beyond the pale but something like this - something that puts tens, maybe hundreds or even thousands of sources OTR (On The Run) for fear of their lives - is on balance a public good? Seriously, it's a question not a rhetorical device."

In two parts. I should clarify:

I am just as appalled as you by the serious breaches of OpSec and that is in no way a public good. Full stop.

Had Wikileaks taken OpSec of ALL people, not just white, but brown, as serious as the life or death issue it is, and redacted the names (and some other important giveaways) then on the whole it would have been a public good. An aggregation of all this for the public to see, to get reported on, without the 'Official Filter' being applied, so the unvarnished truth comes out, is a public good. I'm sure you'll disagree. So be it.

But, the lack of taking OpSec seriously by Wikileaks, seriously tarnishes what they did here.

Is that better?

^{"Sí che dal fatto il dir non sia diverso."}

-Dante

...I'm not sure I would disagree. Me, I always like to see data out there - folks continue to disappoint as to what uses they put it to, but data is generally a good thing.

My reaction what we see right now is a little more severe, however - this isn't something that has "tarnished" what they've done. My view, it's a serious and ongoing moral offense. Having read though a couple of these things, I have a little better understanding of why they didn't source code them (from what I've seen thus far they wouldn't actually be considered formal HUMINT sources) but I can't think that this is something that they would have considered to be non-sensitive, either.

“The absence of any US-Iran bilateral channel...may have the perverse effect of reinforcing Iranian interest in progressing in the nuclear realm so that the US will be forced to take it seriously and engage it directly." ~ Richard Haass

agreement, then. As the day goes on and I read more about it and get more context I grow more and more appalled and disgusted. A morally responsible person just doesn't do shit like this. Full stop.

^{"Sí che dal fatto il dir non sia diverso."}

-Dante

in the misguided view of the publisher, was to maintain the purity of the information, you know uncensored in any way.
I however respectfully disagree with you, this is not journalism.
As an historian I am sure you will agree, this type of information is dispensed long after the information's intelligence value as seen in earlier periods WWII, Vietnam and the cold war. As mentioned before, this is a war. Your interpretation of deleting names is a compromise far beyond the line of national security. The mere mention of events, places, actions and operations will provide the enemy with unforeseen advantage, every period, and comma will provide the enemy with untold information. As a side bar, I will admit the information of the Taliban being in possession of portable anti aircraft missiles was not surprising to me. However it was very unsettling. We all know this is what brought the Russians down.

that what Wikileaks does is journalism. It is not journalism. Full stop.

^{"Sí che dal fatto il dir non sia diverso."}

-Dante

If someone's name is so important, it should never appear in official documents like that. The Pentagon's always screwing people wherever it goes because its intelligence arm is full of incompetents, conservative idealogues, and government gold diggers. But I repeat myself. Read Frank Snepp's "Decent Interval" about how all our allies in the Republic of South Vietnam got served up to the Vietcong on a silver platter. It's revolting.

but more like after-action reports from soldiers and officers. But WTF do I know, really? I'm relying on Johsua's expertise here. So far he's been pretty spot on.

^{"Sí che dal fatto il dir non sia diverso."}

-Dante

Of our allies in an occupied country is a death sentence for the allies. The US will not be there for ever, and has a poor track record of occupations.

If the names do not become known now, then they could become known later, very easily.

The stupidity is first invading an ungovernable country, second escalating a war in a country that has nothing, and third recording the names.

What does the US believe the wars of independence, started in 1776 and occurring on and off until a cluster of such wars, encouraged by the US is its disdain for the European empires, in the 50s and 60s mean for its ambitions?

Were a sovereign government. Currently the are a government-in-exile.

Which would make the Taliban legitimate state actors. Enough of the Afghans believe this to cause the occupying power much blood and treasure.

...of the day. By extension they are not a valid government in exile.

“The absence of any US-Iran bilateral channel...may have the perverse effect of reinforcing Iranian interest in progressing in the nuclear realm so that the US will be forced to take it seriously and engage it directly." ~ Richard Haass

Correct me if I am wrong, but if I remember correctly that was only Pakistan.

“The absence of any US-Iran bilateral channel...may have the perverse effect of reinforcing Iranian interest in progressing in the nuclear realm so that the US will be forced to take it seriously and engage it directly." ~ Richard Haass

^{"Sí che dal fatto il dir non sia diverso."}

-Dante

... much own the creation of the Taleban with the US initially involved as happy cash donor as long as the Soviets where in Afghanistan.

I'd say they clearly tipped their hand. Not clear on the role of the UAE.

The international community does not count.

Under that definition the Roman Empire was not a recognized government.

“The absence of any US-Iran bilateral channel...may have the perverse effect of reinforcing Iranian interest in progressing in the nuclear realm so that the US will be forced to take it seriously and engage it directly." ~ Richard Haass

... alliance kept holding them off.

If you want to fish in European history for an an analogy I suggest Oliver Cromwell's Commonwealth of England. Although in comparison to the Taleban he clearly was a paragon of virtue.

The Taliban are a creation of the Paranoid Saudi Princes hell bent on controlling Shiite Iran after the Iranian Revolution. The Taliban are the end result of years of radicalization of Sunni Pasthun Pakistani tribes through Wahabbi religious schools. They are not and have never been a legitimate central governmental entity. Throughout their regime, the nation waged war upon itself, they are nothing but the end result of another nation's master plan, our Saudi brothers. Which to me is fine and dandy except when you harbor, protect, hide and support the greatest threat to the western world Al-Qaeda, whose true aim is the conversion, through force, of the west to their brand of Islam.
They are not a government in exile, they are just back where they have always been Pashtuns hanging with their cousins in Pakistan. Let them stay there.

I agree. It doesn't make sense to see these people as collaborators. The Taleban was basically a reign of terror. Would anyone consider the Germans who helped the allies defeat the Nazis as collaborators? For most people, cooperating with the Americans was probably their best hope.

... falls short. The Taleban do not represent the Afghan people anymore than Pat Robertson represents the American people.

I'm sure the prison guards don't represent the interests of their prisoners.

Edit: For that matter neither does Karzai's regime. You can't have it this way and ask others to have it that way.

... in this comment further up the threat. The Afghan people have no good choices.

But the US is like the prison guards in a way. While they bring food and provide shelter, they most definitely are not concerned with the well being of the locals.

When in prison, I didn't like the fact that someone might be selling heroin or running a gambling ring. But I damn sure didn't tell on those that did.

Whoever thought the US government would stand behind them for helping the cause made a terrible mistake in judgment. We have never stood behind our snitches. We get what we want and feed them to the dogs.

I say expose it all and let the cards fall where they will.

I did inhale.

You did in post-WW2 Germany. Stalin not so much.

And it seems to be rather convincingly confirmed at this point. Of course Pakistan is not a solid entity but more a mess of constantly infighting elites. Untangling this makes the Gordian knot look trivial.

One thing is fairly certain though: The IIS created the Taleban and would like to make their neighbor a client state.

Continued employment when one is funding both sides.

read yet!

^{"Sí che dal fatto il dir non sia diverso."}

-Dante

That was incredibly well said, Fernando.

...attempt to set the scene, prior to withdrawal, for the most constrained field of play for the Taliban possible, without tipping it over into a free for all. The last time we saw the latter the casualties were in the hundreds of thousands, the former - unconstrained - is inimical to US interests. Set the scene so they are constrained, as one party among a contested whole and there is possibility - fail to do so such that they make a play for unchallenged primacy and one sets the scene for unending reprisal. Think British strategy of punitive raid with PGMs...

“The absence of any US-Iran bilateral channel...may have the perverse effect of reinforcing Iranian interest in progressing in the nuclear realm so that the US will be forced to take it seriously and engage it directly." ~ Richard Haass

This is about every F'ing war the U.S. gets into. Everyone of these wars is a lie; it is a lie about the reason; a lie about the pretense; and a lie about the goals. Now some actual news comes out and everyone is afraid that someone a few will be hurt but think of the millions; yes, millions who have died under U.S. bombs in Vietnam; in Iraq 1, in Iraq 2, in Serbia, in Afghanistan, all lies, lies, lies, lies and more lies.

few don't give a shit at all. Franky, there really isn't all that much 'new' in the story.