We already know the hero responsible for bringing this material to the public:

Meanwhile, somewhere in Kuwait, Manning has been charged under US miitary law with improperly downloading and releasing information, including the Icelandic cable and the video of Apache helicopters shooting civilians in Baghdad. He faces trial by court martial with the promise of a heavy jail sentence.

Although I applaud the release of this information, Manning's reference to Climategate makes me suspect a Bushie mole. The Obama administration's incompetence in ferreting out these embeds is catching up with them.

Personally I still think Atrios has it right, that Obama will be brought down by a domestic surveillance scandal leaked by a Bushie mole.

If Dems had been in power during 2001-08 and fomented the mess in Afghanistan, and if Republicans were in power today, the info in these leaks would have been released months ago already in the hearings by the permanent Joint Congressional Committee to Investigate and Prosecute Treason and Malfeasance in US Foreign Policy During 2001-08.

I am coming to the conclusion that cowardice among Democrats is endemic and incurable. Spineless pushovers such as Harry Reid richly deserve to lose their seats in Congress in November, and Coward-in-chief Obama had better shape up fast, and kick some internal party ass in a hurry, or he is liable to go down with the do-nothing sinking ship of his whining wimp party.

We need a new political party, one from which neo-con hypoocrite traitors, tea party morons, and feel-good PC noodles are fundamentally excluded.

The Pentagon Papers was a thoughtful, in-depth analysis of how and why the USG took its decisions in respect to its involvement in Vietnam.

When made public that analysis provided opponents of the State's with a series of admissions, made by the State itself, that what the State had told its citizens were its reasons for actions taken were lies. At the time it was generally accepted that a democratic government was not authorized to lie to its subjects -- in theory, at least.

The current dump of raw data does not, in and by itself, impugn the State's motives or actions. Indeed, it is not clear that it contains much of anything not already reported.

There is no there there, no here here.

a thoughtful, in-depth analysis

The kind of things on internet "least popular" lists now?

Nowadays we do docudumps and invite everyone to dig in and pick and chose their favorite docs to spin. Certain favored bloggers are also enabled to pick and oollate the best doc picking and spin of the masses from their private email, and might even get journalism awards for that.

No more big picture, just pick nits and spin 'em?

I'm reminded of the Dan Rather story--attempting to muckrake Bush's National Guard service, he was brought down by "citizen journalists" picking nits out of his data, which he had gotten sloppy about, perhaps because of hubris and desire for the "get." But he wasn't really that sloppy as to big picture, as the link points out, ironically mentioning the process of publishing The Pentagon Papers as part of the argument.

What I find surprising is how unnewsworthy the wikileaks docudump has turned out to be. The Pakistani ISI engaged in some duplicitous dealings, while Pakistan remains conflicted over its relationship to the west and the Taliban? The problem of civilian causualties in Afghanistan? The evidence for some individual coverups of assassinations? A litany based mainly on Bush Administration days? It seems to me that anyone not fully aware of these items long before wikileaks has not been paying attention, because this has been thoroughly aired in the mainstream media, NPR, and other sources over the past few years. So far, the only new item I've encountered is the claim that Osama bin Laden is dead, but since most of the leaked material involves rumors and unverified reports, I'm not yet willing to believe that particular one. To be sure, the old news has been expanded in terms of details (many possibly false because they are almost all unfiltered), but not in terms of new perceptions.

I believe that wikileaks, aware that its material had little power by virtue of novelty, sought to create a media storm simply on the basis of volume and timing. Will that work? Perhaps in the short run, but I'm optimistic our Afghanistan/Pakistan policy will remain based on something more substantial than this. There is certainly a deja vu quality to revelations about Afghanistan on TPMCafe, but the arguments for and against what we are doing haven't changed. Despite the pitfalls and setbacks, I expect that we will succeed eventually in limited goals, unless we abandon our campaign prematurely. In my view, discussed previously on this site, doing that would expose us to potentially catastrophic risks from nuclear weapons in the hands of Al Qaeda, and so I'm hopeful we won't be deterred by the recent publicity. I do believe we must all be alert to developments that might truly alter our perspectives, but I don't see that happening at this point.

unless we abandon our campaign prematurely. In my view, discussed previously on this site, doing that would expose us to potentially catastrophic risks from nuclear weapons in the hands of Al Qaeda..

So our presence in Afghanistan fighting Pakistani based Haqqani Taliban and other terror groups given sanctuary, money and intelligence by the Pakistani ISI, in 'ungovernable' (Pakistani gov't BS) North Wazirastan is a stopgap to prevent al Qaeda from taking over Pakistan and its nuclear weapons?

Some think the fact that we are injecting billions in money and weapons into the region, with a large percentage of it going directly to the groups that attack us and anti-Taliban Pakistanis, are making the region less stable not more stable.

Money, weapons, infidels who bomb you, and a 'jihad' = instability in the entire region.

Historian David Greenberg, on the current analogy suggested by some between the wikileaks and the Pentagon Papers, writes:

"I'm kind of an anti-analogy historian because usually analogies get pressed into the job of political oversimplification."

Greenberg continues here(h/t Goldblog):

http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2010/07/david-greenberg-on-the-obama-johnson-analogy/60393/

Of course, to the extent that Steve Clemons is suggesting that the leak of these papers could be a "game changer", and facilitate a faster exit from Afghanistan, I guess in that sense the analogy could turn out to have merit.

Welcome Back, Mr Josh!

COOL!
Obama has fulfilled another one of his campaign promises...
to have MORE transparency...

You say

This is the "Pentagon Papers moment" in this contemporary war, and it will force President Obama and his team to go back and review first principles about the objectives of this war.

Andrew Exum says:

....I'm not into offering "big thoughts" or indulging in grand "blue sky thinking" but there does seem to be a growing trend internationally away from control and direction by organisations and governments towards impetus for action coming from groups of individuals who are somehow harnessing technology. Organisations like Wikileaks leave grand old names like Reuters, BBC and the New York Times rewriting news they didn't break. (That said, the NYT is one of a few organisations investing heavily in original reporting, which shows in their output.) At the same time, a leaked video of a girl getting beaten by the Taliban in Swat presented the Pakistani government with the political cover it needed to launch a campaign against the Pakistani Taliban last year.

What makes any difference here is whether any of this changes anything. Does public opinion get swayed? Do politicians feel the need to react? Do insurgents find a sense of justification for their actions (or fall in support when they screw up)? The answer to all of these questions is yes.

So the response here isn't, "yeah, whatever, we know this" or "OMG! why did no one tell me?!". The question to ask is how the information is being digested. That was the question I wish I had asked more thoroughly on the night of September 11, 2001, when I went out and about in Cairo to ask people what they thought.

And what comes immediately to mind for me is that maybe the Obama administration can spin this to "yeah, that was Bush's Afghanistan, and wasn't it horrible," but "we sat down and analyzed it all and convened everyone involved and got rid of everything bad and improved everything else."

Obama took how long to decide what his Afghanistan strategy would be? You really think it will be hard for him to find stuff in these papers that he objected to long ago but just didn't make public? You don't think he didn't have someone reviewing most of this info. already before he made his decisions? I bet he could come up with some stuff off the top of his head from those papers which he will argue he changed, and other things which he will say he kept and be able to argue why.

I will not be surprised if the administration can spin this leak to their political benefit, especially if righties and far lefties go off too half-cocked about it, and if so, that would mean improved public support for his program in Afghanistan (which admittedly has fallen to low levels,) not less.

These new leaks provide evidence that Pakistan, or at least its intelligence agency, is aiding the Taliban, a US enemy. This is a problem because the third leg of Obama's new Afghanistan strategy, beta version, with updated speed and performance, depends a lot upon Pakistan.

Third, we will act with the full recognition that our success in Afghanistan is inextricably linked to our partnership with Pakistan.

Anyhow, the US is three times more popular in another nearby Muslim state, Indonesia, probably because the US hasn't destabilized the country or killed anybody in that country recently.

So in the new, new, new Afghanistan strategy that will be rolling off the White House's PR presses any day now I hope they change AfPak to AfIndo. Time for a new product line - change you can believe in.

I find it odd that some people consider Afghanistan to be a war of necessity, but only for others. If a new movie came out, and I considered it necessary to see that movie, I would go to the theater and see it.

But why do people who consider Afghanistan a necessary war not participate in it, in some capacity? They need all kinds of people over there, from dishwashers to auto mechanics to security personnel. Where's the sense of obligation?

Back in the sixties I believed that Vietnam was a war of necessity, so I volunteered and I went. Nowadays I don't see the same kind of response from people who claim to be moral. Selective morality is worse than no morality at all.

I believe that how one behaves based on his or her own beliefs is a matter of character, and those that don't so behave according to their beliefs lack character. They're quite content to see others get dead and crippled, but they won't disrupt their own lives to do something that they cl;aim to believe in.

Chicken-hawks, is what they are. Worthless pieces of crap.

Good grief. Almost all the memos in the wikileaks are about fails during the Bush administration and their neglect and failure to develop and prosecute a coherent strategy in the war in Afghanistan, yet it is now Obama's Vietnam and Obama's Pentagon Papers?

What next, we going to call it Obama's Kent State if we find memo about how Nixon fucked up in responding to the anti-war movement in the spring of 1970?

A few minor points:

First, these documents cover a time period when George W. Bush was president--not Barack Obama. So it's pretty stupid to attempt to apply this to the current administration.

Second, much of what I've read so far sounds completely phony, and many of the accounts border on the absurd. The sections describing meetings between top Al Qaeda leaders are completely implausible, for instance. This would not happen. These people may be dangerous, but they're not stupid enough to gather their top generals in the same place at the same time. Much of what I've read is either unsourced, or it comes from sources that are unreliable. I'm guessing 90% of this will turn out to be hogwash.

And finally, have you read all 91,000 documents, Mr. Clemons? I doubt it. In fact, I'd be surprised if you've read 5% of them. It seems to me you began with a conclusion and made your case based on a biased view and a lack of information.

This is the sort of irresponsible, unprofessional writing I've come to expect from the blogging community. Your agenda comes first, the facts come second, right?

Even though I disagreed with the President's decision to try and finish what was started by bush in Afpakistan, I understood (as much as a lay-person can) why he did it, and was willing to give him the benefit of the doubt.

Now, it seems pretty obvious that the only way out is to just leave and let the chips fall where they may.

There is no honorable way out. There is no way to protect the citizens of the area from the wrath and domination of the Taliban, even if if we were take over Afpakistan and make it a territory of the U.S.

It is time to admit defeat and get out. It won't be pretty, but neither was our retreat from Vietnam, and we survived.

input this URL:
http://www.fashionsports.org
you can find many cheap and fashion stuff
(jor dan s-h-o-e-s)
(NBA NFL NHL MLB j-e-r-s-e-y)
( lv h-a-n-d-b-a-g)
(cha nel w-a-l-l-e-t)
(D&G s-u-n-g-l-a-s-s-e-s)
(ed har dy j-a-c-k-e-t)
(UG G b-o-o-t)

WE ACCEPT PYAPAL PAYMENT
YOU MUST NOT MISS IT!!