WikiLeaks Crocodile Tears

WikiLeaks Crocodile Tears

By Vasko


In recent days we have heard much complaining from the
administration and assorted politicians about how the WikiLeaks disclosures pose
a threat to our troops on the ground. By this they primarily mean our soldiers
in Afghanistan, which is presently this country’s main theater of military

This apparent concern on the part of the political class is for the most
part only a ploy designed to save their own skins. Here is why.
On July 25, 2010, WikiLeaks posted on its website a vast tranche of
documents concerning our military activity in Afghanistan. Containing more than
75,000 military logs, it was the largest military leak up to that time.
WikiLeaks published these documents under the name of Afghan War Diaries.
Please notice the release date. The documents which now supposedly present
such a dire threat to our soldiers were released this past summer. To put it
another way, they were made public four and a half months ago.
Now ask yourself: Did we hear anything from the administration — or,
indeed, from our political establishment — immediately after the release of
these documents? Did we hear anything from them on this subject in August or
September? Did we hear any complaining in the run up to the elections in
October? Did you we anything about it after the elections?
The answer is no. They only began crying foul about ten days ago. Why only
ten days ago? Here is a clue: On October 28, WikiLeaks began releasing the
infamous State Department cables.
As it happens those cables contained no information that would have direct
bearing on the conduct of day-to-day military operations in Afghanistan or in
Iraq. But they did contain something else: They revealed information that deeply
humiliated and compromised this administration. And it was precisely at that
time when they suddenly started to be concerned about the safety our troops.
Don’t you find this coincidence a little suspicious?
It is, indeed, very suspicious for several reasons. To begin with, their
sudden concern for our troops is out of character for the types who run the
present administration. After all, many of them have long records of criticism
and dislike of the military. This is not surprising, since the military is not
particularly partial to their politically correct agendas such as having openly
gay men serving in its ranks.
Why — let us ask again — are these people showing their concern so late
in the game, months after the documents were made public?
The answer is obvious. Their concern for the troops is simply a gambit to
divert attention from the information that threatens their own careers. Knowing
how much most people in this country care for our armed forces, they want us to
get us angry at WikiLeaks under false pretenses. They want us to support their
efforts to silence the source that imperils their positions.
If they were sincere in their concern for the troops, they would have
protested the moment the Afghan tranche was made public. But they were silent
then. They were silent until their own skins were exposed. Only then they began
lamenting about the troops. They are using the troops — the very people about
whom they could care less under normal circumstances — as a cover to save
The last four and a half months present a classic study in political
hypocrisy. The release of the Afghan diaries by WikiLeaks should have been a
major blow to this administration. Had it happened under Bush, he would have
likely had to leave office. The left and the media would have gone into a frenzy
and ask how we can conduct a war if internal information about it appears on the
internet. The left wanted Bush to resign over Abu Ghraib. It turns that under
Obama some rogue servicemen were using Afghans for target practice. Can you
imagine the pandemonium that would have ensued had such information come to
light under Bush?
Because it posed such a potential threat to the administration, up until
recently we heard very little about the Afghan War Diaries. The politicians’
concern for the troops was nowhere to be seen or heard. In fact, they tried to
keep the whole affair under the radar. They only became “concerned” about the
troops when they found themselves in hot water with the release of the State
Department cables.
A few words also need to be said about the Republicans. Even though they
are now seething and indignant about the supposed dangers to our military, they
were for the most part silent during all that time after the release of the
Afghan cache. They only began calling for Assange’s execution when Mrs.
Clinton’s backside came on the line. Is this not completely absurd?
But let us now ask whether the Afghan dump did indeed pose a direct danger
to our troops. The documents it contained covered the period from January 2004
and December 2009. Please keep in mind that their release occurred in July of
2010. At that time even the most recent of the documents would have been more
than six months old. The vast majority of the papers were several years old.
Because of their being so dated, their value as a source of actionable
battlefield intelligence was for all practical purposes zero. For an enemy to be
able to take tactical advantage of other side’s information, it has to be fresh.
Anything which is more than few weeks old is usually not very helpful.
Despite the craze stirred up by the politicians, it would appear that the
leaks have caused no direct damage to our troops or those who work with us. In
August, for example, a Pentagon spokesman stated that “we have yet to see any
harm come to anyone in Afghanistan that we can directly tie to exposure in the
WikiLeaks documents.” In October Pentagon concluded that the release “did not
disclose any sensitive intelligence sources or methods” and that “there has not
been a single case of Afghans needing protection or to be moved because of the
This is not to say no damage has been inflicted or that no damage will be
inflicted in the future. But it should be obvious that the claims of damage have
been greatly exaggerated by the very politicians who are now frantically trying
to save their jobs.
What about the damage to this country’s reputation? In the grip of the
hysteria, most people have failed to notice that the Afghan dump also contained
information that is favorable and vindicating. For one thing, it shows the
cruelty and ruthlessness of the enemy. It also documents America’s efforts to
improve the lot of the Afghanis.
The damage from WikiLeaks’ Afghan logs is far less than that caused by the
Abu Ghraib scandal whose flames the left kept fanning for months in their effort
to bring down the Bush administration. Do you believe for a minute that the same
people who were so willing and eager to drag out military through the mud then
are now suddenly concerned about its well being? Their concern for the troops is
suspiciously new and glaringly out of line with their past actions and
statements. It only dates from the day their own activities came under
It has been remarked by many that the liberal elitists who are currently in
charge — the Obamas, the Clintons and their friends — seem to harbor scorn for
common people like us. It is hard to say whether this is true or not, but there
is one thing that can be said with certainty: they know how to pluck on our
patriotic string when things get too hot for them. Many have fallen for the
trick. What should have been the day of reckoning for an arrogant and
dysfunctional political class has been turned into the lynching of an Australian
programmer who helped to expose its incompetence.

Page Printed

at December 08, 2010 – 11:16:38 AM CST

// <![CDATA[//