4 ms·

The most interesting thing about reading these cables is how the US comes out well - reasonable, rational, and analytical - not the nefarious evil satan that it

by aneth 16y ago

The most interesting thing about reading these cables is how the US comes out well - reasonable, rational, and analytical - not the nefarious evil satan that it is portrayed by our enemies and domestic extremists. This snapshot of the inner workings of American diplomacy actually make me feel much better about how things are being managed, and should undermine efforts to portray some nasty plot to dominate the world. I don't expect our government to act in international affairs with complete transparency or without ulterior motives, but I do expect that they try to act ultimately for good and that there be minimal self-enrichment. I so far see little evidence of serious breaches here.

whynow 16y ago
The best part about reading these cables is seeing that the USG uses Google to search for information before anything else and references searches in Classified cables.... "(S) Note: A quick google check revealed several companies with the name INSULTEC in the title - these may or not be affiliated. Based on the information provided by source (currently in Iran, where he frequently travels), one possible candidate could be "INSULTEC Chitral Ltd." " http://cablegate.wikileaks.org/cable/2009/03/09BAKU179.html http://cablegate.wikileaks.org/cable/2009/03/09BAKU179.html
- Natsu 16y ago
  For a moment, I thought you were going to say that someone was using Google trends to see if there were any interesting trends in people searching for information about how the leaks had spread and which of them were interesting to whom. Of course, someone is probably doing that now....
bcroesch 16y ago
I was struck by a pretty similar sentiment (and was somewhat surprised by it). Maybe more negative pieces will subsequently come out, but I was surprised to find myself thinking that some of the leaks may actually be helpful in producing a unified, multi-state agreement on how to approach the situation in Iran. I couldn't believe that it was actually other countries asking the US to bomb Iran.
- aneth 16y ago
  And the fact that some of our most secret communications support that we are not out to destroy Ahmadinejad could be the most powerful weapon we have to actually undermine him. I expect in the future, there will be calculated "secret leaks" to Wikileaks - who knows - these may be just that.
  - mechanical_fish 16y ago
    And here is where we must put the obligatory link to Malcolm Gladwell's New Yorker review of Operation Mincemeat: http://www.newyorker.com/arts/critics/atlarge/2010/05/10/100510crat_atlarge_gladwell#ixzz16doHjaZy http://www.newyorker.com/arts/critics/atlarge/2010/05/10/100... ...in Peter Ustinov’s 1956 play, “Romanoff and Juliet.”... a crafty general is the head of a tiny European country being squabbled over by the United States and the Soviet Union, and is determined to play one off against the other. He tells the U.S. Ambassador that the Soviets have broken the Americans’ secret code. “We know they know our code,” the Ambassador, Moulsworth, replies, beaming. “We only give them things we want them to know.” The general pauses, during which, the play’s stage directions say, “he tries to make head or tail of this intelligence.” Then he crosses the street to the Russian Embassy, where he tells the Soviet Ambassador, Romanoff, “They know you know their code.” Romanoff is unfazed: “We have known for some time that they knew we knew their code. We have acted accordingly—by pretending to be duped.” The general returns to the American Embassy and confronts Moulsworth: “They know you know they know you know.” Moulsworth (genuinely alarmed): “What? Are you sure?” ... At one point, the British discovered that a French officer in Algiers was spying for the Germans. They “turned” him, keeping him in place but feeding him a steady diet of false and misleading information. Then, before D Day—when the Allies were desperate to convince Germany that they would be invading the Calais sector in July—they used the French officer to tell the Germans that the real invasion would be in Normandy on June 5th, 6th, or 7th. The British theory was that using someone the Germans strongly suspected was a double agent to tell the truth was preferable to using someone the Germans didn’t realize was a double agent to tell a lie. Or perhaps there wasn’t any theory at all. Perhaps the spy game has such an inherent opacity that it doesn’t really matter what you tell your enemy so long as your enemy is aware that you are trying to tell him something.
  - 16y ago
glenstein 16y ago
I don't think telling German officials to "consider the implications" of enforcing an arrest warrant against C.I.A. officers implicated in the kidnapping of a German citizen makes the U.S. look good.
- aneth 16y ago
  It was an honest mistake and arresting CIA officers for making a mistake in their job, one which they corrected and admitted to, would hardly be without implications.
  - glenstein 16y ago
    Being kidnapped, flown to a prison for five months and possibly tortured, possibly sodomized is more than a "mistake." And merely admitting to having committed a human rights violation is not a substitute for following due process of law. Threatening a country with "implications" for wanting to bring the people to justice who wrongfully detained one of their citizens does not make the United States look good. Plus there are other examples, like Hilary Clinton ordering diplomats to collect private information on the U.N. Secretary General, which was likely a violation of international law. This does not make the U.S. look good.
    - aneth 16y ago
      As helium said, my point is not that there is a perfect record. What is not there - a sinister plot to monopolize the world's oil, destroy Muslim society, or assassinate world leaders - is more important. That said, a broader point is in order - I don't think anyone expects perfect adherence to "international law" by the USA. Despite the weight of the phrase "international law," the actual concept is deeply ambiguous. There is no fully baked world government, so "international law" is not a direct moral parallel to domestic law in a sovereign state. As much as the UN can do for the world, it is not a proper law making body, it's not accountable to it's constituents or fairly representative of the world, and some of its most powerful members don't even represent their own constituents. It's a rough hack at providing a venue for diplomacy and world order - not a supremely powerful entity as many people would wish it to be. The phrase "violation of international law" tastes meaty, but it's just tofu.
xsltuser2010 16y ago
I'm german, and that was my impression too, the rational style is great. I'm looking forward to read analysis on differences between those reports and official statements (in particular Bush era). It feels like reading a history book almost in real time - This is the kind of stuff i would expect journalism to deliver as their daily work. If it was a newspaper, I would subscribe for that.
misterm 16y ago
If you think the United States "try to act ultimately for good and that there be minimal self-enrichment", then I am just going to have to frown. American foreign policy has a very rich history of being very abusive to other countries when their agenda is at odds with ours. The irony of us going after Saddam Hussein recently was thick enough to cut with a knife, after all, we did in fact forcefully put him into power. I welcome the release of the diplomatic wires personally, because right now all we get is a facade of fake transparency. We only know what they want us to know after all.
- misterm 16y ago
  What is really the saddest thing, is that wikileaks is absolutely the only oversight/resistance that we have towards abusive American foreign policy, or abusive policy in general around the globe. The average citizen has absolutely no say in anything.

by aneth 16y ago

whynow 16y ago

The best part about reading these cables is seeing that the USG uses Google to search for information before anything else and references searches in Classified cables.... "(S) Note: A quick google check revealed several companies with the name INSULTEC in the title - these may or not be affiliated. Based on the information provided by source (currently in Iran, where he frequently travels), one possible candidate could be "INSULTEC Chitral Ltd." " http://cablegate.wikileaks.org/cable/2009/03/09BAKU179.html http://cablegate.wikileaks.org/cable/2009/03/09BAKU179.html

Natsu 16y ago
For a moment, I thought you were going to say that someone was using Google trends to see if there were any interesting trends in people searching for information about how the leaks had spread and which of them were interesting to whom. Of course, someone is probably doing that now....

bcroesch 16y ago

I was struck by a pretty similar sentiment (and was somewhat surprised by it). Maybe more negative pieces will subsequently come out, but I was surprised to find myself thinking that some of the leaks may actually be helpful in producing a unified, multi-state agreement on how to approach the situation in Iran. I couldn't believe that it was actually other countries asking the US to bomb Iran.

aneth 16y ago
And the fact that some of our most secret communications support that we are not out to destroy Ahmadinejad could be the most powerful weapon we have to actually undermine him. I expect in the future, there will be calculated "secret leaks" to Wikileaks - who knows - these may be just that.
- mechanical_fish 16y ago
  And here is where we must put the obligatory link to Malcolm Gladwell's New Yorker review of Operation Mincemeat: http://www.newyorker.com/arts/critics/atlarge/2010/05/10/100510crat_atlarge_gladwell#ixzz16doHjaZy http://www.newyorker.com/arts/critics/atlarge/2010/05/10/100... ...in Peter Ustinov’s 1956 play, “Romanoff and Juliet.”... a crafty general is the head of a tiny European country being squabbled over by the United States and the Soviet Union, and is determined to play one off against the other. He tells the U.S. Ambassador that the Soviets have broken the Americans’ secret code. “We know they know our code,” the Ambassador, Moulsworth, replies, beaming. “We only give them things we want them to know.” The general pauses, during which, the play’s stage directions say, “he tries to make head or tail of this intelligence.” Then he crosses the street to the Russian Embassy, where he tells the Soviet Ambassador, Romanoff, “They know you know their code.” Romanoff is unfazed: “We have known for some time that they knew we knew their code. We have acted accordingly—by pretending to be duped.” The general returns to the American Embassy and confronts Moulsworth: “They know you know they know you know.” Moulsworth (genuinely alarmed): “What? Are you sure?” ... At one point, the British discovered that a French officer in Algiers was spying for the Germans. They “turned” him, keeping him in place but feeding him a steady diet of false and misleading information. Then, before D Day—when the Allies were desperate to convince Germany that they would be invading the Calais sector in July—they used the French officer to tell the Germans that the real invasion would be in Normandy on June 5th, 6th, or 7th. The British theory was that using someone the Germans strongly suspected was a double agent to tell the truth was preferable to using someone the Germans didn’t realize was a double agent to tell a lie. Or perhaps there wasn’t any theory at all. Perhaps the spy game has such an inherent opacity that it doesn’t really matter what you tell your enemy so long as your enemy is aware that you are trying to tell him something.
- 16y ago

glenstein 16y ago

I don't think telling German officials to "consider the implications" of enforcing an arrest warrant against C.I.A. officers implicated in the kidnapping of a German citizen makes the U.S. look good.

aneth 16y ago
It was an honest mistake and arresting CIA officers for making a mistake in their job, one which they corrected and admitted to, would hardly be without implications.
- glenstein 16y ago
  Being kidnapped, flown to a prison for five months and possibly tortured, possibly sodomized is more than a "mistake." And merely admitting to having committed a human rights violation is not a substitute for following due process of law. Threatening a country with "implications" for wanting to bring the people to justice who wrongfully detained one of their citizens does not make the United States look good. Plus there are other examples, like Hilary Clinton ordering diplomats to collect private information on the U.N. Secretary General, which was likely a violation of international law. This does not make the U.S. look good.
  - aneth 16y ago
    As helium said, my point is not that there is a perfect record. What is not there - a sinister plot to monopolize the world's oil, destroy Muslim society, or assassinate world leaders - is more important. That said, a broader point is in order - I don't think anyone expects perfect adherence to "international law" by the USA. Despite the weight of the phrase "international law," the actual concept is deeply ambiguous. There is no fully baked world government, so "international law" is not a direct moral parallel to domestic law in a sovereign state. As much as the UN can do for the world, it is not a proper law making body, it's not accountable to it's constituents or fairly representative of the world, and some of its most powerful members don't even represent their own constituents. It's a rough hack at providing a venue for diplomacy and world order - not a supremely powerful entity as many people would wish it to be. The phrase "violation of international law" tastes meaty, but it's just tofu.

xsltuser2010 16y ago

I'm german, and that was my impression too, the rational style is great. I'm looking forward to read analysis on differences between those reports and official statements (in particular Bush era). It feels like reading a history book almost in real time - This is the kind of stuff i would expect journalism to deliver as their daily work. If it was a newspaper, I would subscribe for that.

misterm 16y ago

If you think the United States "try to act ultimately for good and that there be minimal self-enrichment", then I am just going to have to frown. American foreign policy has a very rich history of being very abusive to other countries when their agenda is at odds with ours. The irony of us going after Saddam Hussein recently was thick enough to cut with a knife, after all, we did in fact forcefully put him into power. I welcome the release of the diplomatic wires personally, because right now all we get is a facade of fake transparency. We only know what they want us to know after all.

misterm 16y ago
What is really the saddest thing, is that wikileaks is absolutely the only oversight/resistance that we have towards abusive American foreign policy, or abusive policy in general around the globe. The average citizen has absolutely no say in anything.