3 ms·

I apologize for my hyperbole in the choice of words "mass slaughter" to describe the war. The intent was to describe the war only in terms of its casualties ra

I apologize for my hyperbole in the choice of words "mass slaughter" to describe the war. The intent was to describe the war only in terms of its casualties rather than in terms of its stated or unstated political goals (since this is the nerve that Wikileaks touches). I don't disagree with your points, and I think you articulate some aspects quite well. True Assange is a political figure. He is also the founder of an institution. To date we have not seen the rise of a virtual institution with this sort of political significance, nor have we seen one that exists independently of a state or party. We seem to disagree on the issue of supporting Wikileaks as an act of civil disobedience. In my opinion, we are not morally obligated to obey unjust laws. Of course, we may be made to suffer the consequences of disobedience, but I do not (as you seem to) imbue the law with any special moral significance just because it's the law. Let me remind you that it is illegal for the US to propagandize Americans. I'd argue that some of the information that is being declared "secret" is simply information that the government wants withheld for propaganda purposes. So without Wikileaks, what check or balance exists to prevent this misuse of secrecy for propaganda? I'm curious if you think this is a reasonable question to ask and what you think the answer is. To address your broader critique of Wikileaks, I'd argue that Assange is building a very ambitious institution, and it's currently imperfect. Some of your critiques apply only to the young incarnation of Wikileaks and (I'd expect) will go away once/if the institution manages to gain additional credibility, experience, and stability. One quote of yours really intrigues me: Getting folks thinking about the particulars of the information distracts them from the larger picture by making them emotionally, well, irrational. This suggests that you think that a member of the public judging the appropriateness/worth of the war would be more rational if he/she ignored all the messy noise offered by the leaks and focused only on the government's official story of how/why the war should continue. If not, then I'm curious how you'd advise the rational citizen to assess the status/progress/worth of a war effort such as the current US involvement in Afghanistan.

DanielBMarkham 16y ago
I figured you were using "mass slaughter" as a way to describe the general situation in a war in terms that resonate. We are on the same page. We have not seen the rise of the institution like this, and I predict that the nation-states will go to war with these institutions, and quickly. Not sure if it will be a shooting war -- but these things usually turn out that way. Are we morally obligated to obey unjust laws? Woof. That's a can of worms. If I had to cook up an answer, I'd start with "Declaration of Independence" and throw in a little "Letter from a Birmingham Jail" to the mix. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Declaration_of_Independence http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Declaration_of_In... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Letter_from_Birmingham_Jail http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Letter_from_Birmingham_Jail Jefferson makes the case that we owe the state our obedience as long as the state keeps its end of the bargain. I think it's reasonable to say two things here. 1) Jefferson's time was simpler, with tremendously fewer laws, and 2) disobedience that may involve the death of someone is of a different nature than that which may not. (see earlier comment) MLK begins with this more complex world and addresses your question -- unjust laws. Key quote here: One who breaks an unjust law must do so openly, lovingly, and with a willingness to accept the penalty. Both are great examples of great men thinking through difficult problems. I side with Jefferson a bit more than MLK, simply because I think you can moralize yourself into a snit over just about anything. But MLK is saying that even if you're right, there's no free pass: you still owe the larger society something. As to your final point, I should have been clearer. I have no problem at all with war in all its messiness being displayed all over the place. This is the way it should be. What I object to is the selective use of images -- coffins coming off planes, no information for months and then a dump of collateral damage videos -- any one of a dozen "dirty tricks" that involve manipulating the viewer. During the American Civil War, we had photography for the first time. There were some god-awful battlefield images shown to the public. But oddly enough, nothing much happened. People are very capable of understanding the brutality of war. I don't think it's much of a secret. I'm very conflicted on Afghanistan. From the half-dozen COIN books I've read, we're going to have to make peace with the Taliban. But Karzai is something of a cross between a rabid badger and a skunk -- he's selling us out as we speak. I don't have an opinion right now, frankly. I supported Iraq and Afghanistan because I honestly felt that in the 10-20 year time period, less lives would be lost by taking action. I also felt from a personal perspective that it was better to give nation-building a shot rather than carpet-bombing from afar. I still feel that was a good call. But I feel that strategically, in Afghanistan at least, the scales are tipping. The military we have -- few boots with lots of cool high tech and a tendency towards kinetic fighting -- simply doesn't match the terrain or battle in Afghanistan, no matter how hard we try to patch it up. I think the average citizen, especially when it comes to fighting, should read. A lot. I understand what Karzai is doing and why. I understand what we're doing. I understand why civilians get killed. Wikileaks is just data. Data presented for the shock of impact. Understanding always beats data.
- grandalf 16y ago
  Interesting thoughts. I have a few thoughts in reply. Ill try to be careful not to expand the scope of our discussion too broadly. I'm inclined to disagree that Americans are aware of the awfulness of war. War is imagined as safe and hygienic, fought with GPS smart bombs and laser guided munitions. I think that going into Afghanistan/Iraq post-911, most Americans anticipated fewer than 500 American casualties. Gulf War I had about 35 US casualties, as I recall. We are now in a war that has created thousands of US military casualties and many more limbs lost. Soldiers on the ground deal with hidden IEDs that may send shrapnel through the side of their humvee and kill/maim in very small doses, but the suffering grows little by little as the timeframe increases. (Here I'll be very careful to avoid expanding the scope): Winning a war is (by definition) breaking the will of the enemy. The distaste of the US populace for the horrors of war necessitated the narrative of smart bombs and technologically-driven victory. The reality of nation building is far less glamorous, and the stress of war often brings out an ugly side of human nature. Suppose the American public sees American soldiers laying waste to journalists, striking deals with the ISI, renditioning captives to Syria, conducting political assassinations, and generally undertaking all of the ugly tradeoffs of a protracted nation building exercise... this isn't exactly the stuff of Top Gun. A few close up shots of blown off limbs, stories about cruelty, and lack of measurable success may turn the tide of support for the war, thus breaking our will to keep fighting and leading to defeat. All this assumes that the stated goals of the conflict (defeating the Taliban and ushering in an era of tolerance and women's rights in Afghanistan) match the actual goals. What are the actual goals? The geopolitics of the conflict are ancient, and George Friedman has written about them extensively, and I'm sympathetic to his explanation. Rather than (in the newspeak of our conflict) "stabilizing" Afganistan and Iraq, it is the US goal to destabilize them (by preventing the natural accretion of a major local power). So how do you get a populace of comfortable Americans to support a protracted nation building exercise intended to destabilize an entire region? Simple: Come up with a good story. This is, I think, why Wikileaks poses such a threat (and why I think it's so important). There has been a decades long effort to build the propaganda story behind these wars, and they are necessary for the US's continued domination. I think it follows from this, incidentally, that terrorism (asymmetrical warfare with a focus on symbolic targets) will be an increasing reality for the US as it becomes increasingly impossible to engage in a traditional war with the US due to its power. It's a much broader question whether the actions of the US in Afghanistan and Iraq will decrease terrorism (I think they are bound to increase it). I also think it's appropriate to question the policy of the US of being involved in the middle east whatsoever. We (as US voters) are all responsible for the totalitarian regimes sponsored by the US and for the loss of life our destabilization effort has caused. Thus, I think Wikileaks provides a truly valuable resource as it helps weaken the extremely grand story we've been told for decades about US involvement in the middle east. I view the US reliance upon secrecy and propaganda as a very substantial cog in the war machine, and I do not by default consider our middle east involvement remotely moral (thought admittedly I am not prepared to say I consider it all utterly immoral). I realize I've brought in a few other concepts, and you may deem them insufficiently related to warrant reply, but I'd be curious about your thoughts nonetheless.

DanielBMarkham 16y ago

I figured you were using "mass slaughter" as a way to describe the general situation in a war in terms that resonate. We are on the same page. We have not seen the rise of the institution like this, and I predict that the nation-states will go to war with these institutions, and quickly. Not sure if it will be a shooting war -- but these things usually turn out that way. Are we morally obligated to obey unjust laws? Woof. That's a can of worms. If I had to cook up an answer, I'd start with "Declaration of Independence" and throw in a little "Letter from a Birmingham Jail" to the mix. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Declaration_of_Independence http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Declaration_of_In... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Letter_from_Birmingham_Jail http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Letter_from_Birmingham_Jail Jefferson makes the case that we owe the state our obedience as long as the state keeps its end of the bargain. I think it's reasonable to say two things here. 1) Jefferson's time was simpler, with tremendously fewer laws, and 2) disobedience that may involve the death of someone is of a different nature than that which may not. (see earlier comment) MLK begins with this more complex world and addresses your question -- unjust laws. Key quote here: One who breaks an unjust law must do so openly, lovingly, and with a willingness to accept the penalty. Both are great examples of great men thinking through difficult problems. I side with Jefferson a bit more than MLK, simply because I think you can moralize yourself into a snit over just about anything. But MLK is saying that even if you're right, there's no free pass: you still owe the larger society something. As to your final point, I should have been clearer. I have no problem at all with war in all its messiness being displayed all over the place. This is the way it should be. What I object to is the selective use of images -- coffins coming off planes, no information for months and then a dump of collateral damage videos -- any one of a dozen "dirty tricks" that involve manipulating the viewer. During the American Civil War, we had photography for the first time. There were some god-awful battlefield images shown to the public. But oddly enough, nothing much happened. People are very capable of understanding the brutality of war. I don't think it's much of a secret. I'm very conflicted on Afghanistan. From the half-dozen COIN books I've read, we're going to have to make peace with the Taliban. But Karzai is something of a cross between a rabid badger and a skunk -- he's selling us out as we speak. I don't have an opinion right now, frankly. I supported Iraq and Afghanistan because I honestly felt that in the 10-20 year time period, less lives would be lost by taking action. I also felt from a personal perspective that it was better to give nation-building a shot rather than carpet-bombing from afar. I still feel that was a good call. But I feel that strategically, in Afghanistan at least, the scales are tipping. The military we have -- few boots with lots of cool high tech and a tendency towards kinetic fighting -- simply doesn't match the terrain or battle in Afghanistan, no matter how hard we try to patch it up. I think the average citizen, especially when it comes to fighting, should read. A lot. I understand what Karzai is doing and why. I understand what we're doing. I understand why civilians get killed. Wikileaks is just data. Data presented for the shock of impact. Understanding always beats data.

grandalf 16y ago
Interesting thoughts. I have a few thoughts in reply. Ill try to be careful not to expand the scope of our discussion too broadly. I'm inclined to disagree that Americans are aware of the awfulness of war. War is imagined as safe and hygienic, fought with GPS smart bombs and laser guided munitions. I think that going into Afghanistan/Iraq post-911, most Americans anticipated fewer than 500 American casualties. Gulf War I had about 35 US casualties, as I recall. We are now in a war that has created thousands of US military casualties and many more limbs lost. Soldiers on the ground deal with hidden IEDs that may send shrapnel through the side of their humvee and kill/maim in very small doses, but the suffering grows little by little as the timeframe increases. (Here I'll be very careful to avoid expanding the scope): Winning a war is (by definition) breaking the will of the enemy. The distaste of the US populace for the horrors of war necessitated the narrative of smart bombs and technologically-driven victory. The reality of nation building is far less glamorous, and the stress of war often brings out an ugly side of human nature. Suppose the American public sees American soldiers laying waste to journalists, striking deals with the ISI, renditioning captives to Syria, conducting political assassinations, and generally undertaking all of the ugly tradeoffs of a protracted nation building exercise... this isn't exactly the stuff of Top Gun. A few close up shots of blown off limbs, stories about cruelty, and lack of measurable success may turn the tide of support for the war, thus breaking our will to keep fighting and leading to defeat. All this assumes that the stated goals of the conflict (defeating the Taliban and ushering in an era of tolerance and women's rights in Afghanistan) match the actual goals. What are the actual goals? The geopolitics of the conflict are ancient, and George Friedman has written about them extensively, and I'm sympathetic to his explanation. Rather than (in the newspeak of our conflict) "stabilizing" Afganistan and Iraq, it is the US goal to destabilize them (by preventing the natural accretion of a major local power). So how do you get a populace of comfortable Americans to support a protracted nation building exercise intended to destabilize an entire region? Simple: Come up with a good story. This is, I think, why Wikileaks poses such a threat (and why I think it's so important). There has been a decades long effort to build the propaganda story behind these wars, and they are necessary for the US's continued domination. I think it follows from this, incidentally, that terrorism (asymmetrical warfare with a focus on symbolic targets) will be an increasing reality for the US as it becomes increasingly impossible to engage in a traditional war with the US due to its power. It's a much broader question whether the actions of the US in Afghanistan and Iraq will decrease terrorism (I think they are bound to increase it). I also think it's appropriate to question the policy of the US of being involved in the middle east whatsoever. We (as US voters) are all responsible for the totalitarian regimes sponsored by the US and for the loss of life our destabilization effort has caused. Thus, I think Wikileaks provides a truly valuable resource as it helps weaken the extremely grand story we've been told for decades about US involvement in the middle east. I view the US reliance upon secrecy and propaganda as a very substantial cog in the war machine, and I do not by default consider our middle east involvement remotely moral (thought admittedly I am not prepared to say I consider it all utterly immoral). I realize I've brought in a few other concepts, and you may deem them insufficiently related to warrant reply, but I'd be curious about your thoughts nonetheless.