A Few Positive Externalities from the Afghan War Diaries.
This is my last post on Wikileaks for a bit because I’ll be on the road with my son for a few days. So far, I’ve been making the case that the potential negative externalities of the “Wikileaks Papers” outweigh the potential value of the “revelations,” and I stand by those claims.
However for balance I’d like to acknowledge some bright sides to all this as well:
1) Researchers Can Now Better Measure The Impact of Military Operations on Civilians. My ethical qualms with its collection and dissemination aside, I’m personally and professionally very excited by the data in this archive. It may not have revealed much substantively new about the course of the war, but what’s new and important about micro-data like this is it provides is exactly what analysts have needed to accurately calculate things like the ratio of civilian to combatant deaths from drone strikes – an elusive number that may influence the debate over whether such weapons are proportional. In fact this is the perfect data source for a paper I have long wanted to work on, and thanks to Assange I and my colleagues may now be able to. How fabulous.
2) Growing Sentiment Towards a Norm of Civilian Casualty-Counting. AsI mentioned in my last post, one of the gaps in international humanitarian law is that (to my knowledge) there is no written requirement that an occupying power disclose incident reports of civilian casualties. However a growing movement of activists argues that this should indeed be considered a rule of war, and this is an argument with which I have been in whole-hearted agreement. We keep count of the number of US troops killed abroad; we should keep count of the number of local civilians who die in our wars. So should other countries. The Campaign for Innocent Victims in Conflict has asked the Pentagon to name a high-level official dedicated to the human costs of war, but so far there is no such individual tasked to collate accurate records of civilian deaths. Nor does any standardized mechanism exist at the international level. Better record-keeping is indispensable not only to helping us understand the true cost of our wars, but in evaluating and improving civilian protection measures. I’m heartened to see that so much of the positive reaction to Wikileaks centers on the value of this particular data, as it suggests we may be inching toward a wider expectation that governments include such mechanisms for tracking and reporting these numbers in their defense ministries.
3) Public attention to Afghanistan. I don’t think the attention is going to sway the US to leave Afghanistan sooner; I’m not sure it should, and in fact Julian Assange himself doesn’t argue that the US should up and leave right away. However any time the US public can be prevailed upon to drag its attention away from Chelsea, Lindsay and ViewGate long enough to consider the facts on the ground for our troops and the people whose country they’re trying to rebuild, I have to say that’s something.
It’s not enoughin my view, but it’s something.
You’ll be happy to know that Liz Cheney agrees with you. BTW, how long before your son will be old enough to join up?
http://videocafe.crooksandliars.com/node/38732
I see you speak English. You’ll be happy to know that Liz Cheney does too. BTW, when will you stop beating your wife?
You’ll be happy to know that Liz Cheney agrees with you.
I am neither happy nor unhappy. The fact that I disagree with her on many things doesn’t mean I have to disagree with her on this one.
BTW, how long before your son will be old enough to join up?
I realize that what you’re trying to do is make a rhetorical point at my expense as a mother. Rather than walking you through how silly that is, let me simply answer your question at face value:
Both my son and my daughter have a few years before they will be able to make that choice. And they will both enjoy my support for whatever career they choose – be it military service, investigative journalism, anti-war advocacy or something completely different – so long as they dispatch their professional duties responsibly and with integrity.
Silly question my ass. If, God forbid, any of your children go off to fight in an illegal and immoral war, and then come back damaged or destroyed, the question I posed won’t seem so silly or rhetorical. The secret here is to have some idea of what it’s like to have a friend or relative come home in a bag before it actually happens. If enough people understood this then it might not happen. Picking legal nits is not going to get them, us, or your children to that level of understanding.
The secret here is to have some idea of what it’s like to have a friend or relative come home in a bag before it actually happens.
It is silly of you to assume, without knowing me, that I don’t already.
I’m afraid the world is significantly more complex than you think.
Whoa, talk about assuming. And now that you’ve called me silly twice and simple-minded once, perhaps there is no point in continuing.
Hmmm.
-I’m afraid the world is significantly more complex than you think.
-Whoa, talk about assuming.
Excellent! I’ve always thought the world was a lot more black and white then everybody went on about, so one subscription to your newsletter, please.
A bag? I was a pencil pusher in the Vietnam War. What are the odds that I would have witnessed not one, not two but three separate massacres of unarmed Vietnamese.
I pulled 11.5 month in the hellhole that we created in a country of gentle human beings
and I came home a totally insane person who rejected all laws, morals, codes of ethics and carried concealed weapons constantly.
These poor bastards who are pulling multiple tours in these senseless wars have my total sympathy.
I am no fan of the Veterans Administration having both worked for it and having my life controlled by their people, but we need to give relief.
The bastards that I hate, I recognize that they are burned out. It is so much easier to drug us out than to ask what the hell happened. Give the VA front line people a way out. Retire and hire. 10,000,000 people out of work and we cannot train people to deal with the insanity of war? To deal with veterans as people that we put in the way of harm.
The Kandahar campaign has started, and Gen. Petreus has clarified the rules of engagement as follows: a house has four walls and a roof. He has also ruled out air support and artillery, with the exception of AC130 U (recently in action in the Karbala cemetery in Iraq and the border between Somalia and Kenya). Per Juan Cole, Kandahar as a population of a million. We will certainly be able to assess civilian casualty counting now.
Your Negative Externalities focus on what collaborators may suffer at the hands of the Tallies. Those locals who collaborate with an invading force often are so treated.
I don’t understand why “putting the fear of openness in elites who are relying on secret misconduct” doesn’t count as a positive externality.
Also, please note that IF we are the bad guys, your negative externality should also be counted as a positive externality? The moral and ethical basis for this invasion UNAVOIDABLY colors all these calculations.
I agree with you.
I think it’s a shame to see some people poo-pooing the lives of the Afghans that were put at risk.
I wonder if it might have been WikiLeaks intention to get them killed and stop other people from informing. It certainly would hurt the war effort and it’s not inconceivable that someone committed enough to opposing this war might see anything that sets back the war effort as positive and accept the lives lost as acceptable “collateral damage” (which, IIRC, is exactly how the founder of WikiLeaks described it).
The US Government (and the Australian government, and others) are already indubitably responsible for the deaths of tens of thousands, possibly hundreds of thousands, of Afghans, who never had any argument with our countries, or any hope of influencing our politics, way of life or anything else about our countries. The war is apparently to continue without end. Generations of Afghans will have their lives ruined by it, even if they are not killed.
In this context, it is ridiculous to concentrate on the possible but completely speculative risk to Afghans who collaborate with the invasion. It seems to me ridiculous to speculate about the possibility of illiterate Afghan villagers bringing lawsuits in American courts against an Australian. It is ridiculous to think that the Taliban don’t already have a fair idea who is collaborating without reading documents in English on the internet. It is ridiculous to think that the US military will just ‘fess up to the abuses committed by its troops in Afghanistan without being made to. It is ridiculous to think that if the war were carried out ‘legally’, that would be okay then.
This war is not okay. The Iraq war is not okay. All of us, in whose names the blood and treasure is being spent, should be deeply ashamed and do all we can to stop them both. Julian Assange has done a damn sight more than I have, and at far greater cost to himself. What are the odds that he will be captured or killed? If his name were El-Assan and he were, say, a Syrian national, rather than an Australian, he’d be in a black site right now.
The kind of pin-dancing commentary that LGM has hosted in the last few days makes that more, rather than less, likely, and I find that disgusting. And disappointing.
Sorry, that was me. Not trying to hide, just failed to post properly.
Yes, Anonymous Emma! You’ve said beautifully and powerfully the full point that’s needed making here. I never thought LGM folks, all of whom I love reading, could fit on the head of such a pin. I admire their integrity in doing so, but wonder about overlooking the big picture you describe. Well, they ARE lawyers, I suppose. That would explain part of it.
No, only Paul is a laywer, the others are political scientists/ other academic.
And it starts: Marc Thiessen in the Washington Post.
How long do you think Assange will be around to be sued by Afghan villagers?
It’s nice to see war hawks concerned with “collateral damage” in the name of ending bloodshed, when it’s always justified in the name of “National Security”.
Yes, charming isn’t it? Touching, even.
The entire article sent shivers up my spine to be honest.
I wonder if CC might begin to consider the “externalities” of Thiessen, et al. now that she’s done so much to help create the middle ground on which they can both find footing.
And for the data fetishists here, are you really contending that the “micro-data” released by WL is the most significant service to the public contained in the leaks? As if our lack of the ideal pie chart presentation is the only thing stopping our death cult from immediate extirpation from the ME?
Technocrats to right of them,
Technocrats left of them,
Technocrats in front of them
Volley’d and thunder’d!
One tiny silver lining which I expected to see when I read the article and associated data was that people would read the reports and realize that the idea that drones were the REAL problem was just a myth. But people read report after report of checkpoint guards firing “warning shots” resulting in multiple casualties, artillery rounds hitting friendly forces, mortars killing women and children, Army helis strafing civilians, special ops breaking into the wrong house and shooting the occupants, US troops firing on Afghan troops or police, and so on yet, somehow, everybody is still focused on the damn drones.
Point 1) Which is why we should not be so quick to dismiss the value of that information because it doesn’t offer anything relatively groundbreaking. I think you have good points with regard to how Wikileaks disseminated this information, and how it might possibly be reckless and result in the unnecessary deaths of informants on the ground. But the larger picture should be considered, like you are doing here, because there is no telling how this much detailed data might help “the experts” inform and shape policy decisions moving forward. Policy that may also end up saving many lives in future engagements. It could also have no positive impact, but we won’t know that for sometime.
Point 2). Once again, what these leaks may lack in short term benefit, they may more than make up for in long term impact to policy. It may be more difficult to measure, but maybe we should not be so quick to judge their overall value, especially in the longterm.
3). Your final point goes without saying. But even if what Wikileaks provided is not enough this time, let’s support their overall vision of a more transparent and accountable power base. If not Wikileaks, then maybe another organization like them, with a bit more tact. Because for organizations like these to thrive, they need the support of the citizenry, especially folks concerned with human security. They aren’t gonna have any friends in high places, that’s for sure.
Even if what Wikileaks provided is not enough this time, let’s support their overall vision of a more transparent and accountable power base. If not Wikileaks, then maybe another organization like them, with a bit more tact. Because for organizations like these to thrive, they need the support of the citizenry, especially folks concerned with human security. They aren’t gonna have any friends in high places, that’s for sure.
I am essentially in agreement with you and will elaborate further in a future post. Cheers.