WikiLeaks Publishes 92,000 Military Documents, Points to Pakistan as Ally of Afghan Insurgents

BY Dan Nosowitz

WikiLeakstoday released some 92,000 mostly-classified military documentsrelating to the nine-year-old Afghan War. The documents were given tothree major publications, the New York Times, The Guardian UK, and Germany's Der Spiegel (and no web-only publications) several weeks ago, with an agreement that the information would not be published until today. The Times included a note to readersexplaining the choice to publish classified information, the type ofresearch undertaken to assure veracity of the material, and, briefly,exactly how pissed the White House is that this is all coming out.

Julian Assange, the founder of WikiLeaks, explains some of his motivation in an interview with The Guardian, saying that these war logs "show the true nature of this war."

Thematerial is largely "Secret" level, which is a fairly low level on theclassified-documents scale, and mostly consist of logs from the troopson the ground, covering the time between 2004 and late 2009. The logsare exclusively from American military, not Pakistani or Afghanistan,and cover a wide range of topics, from specific military engagements topolitical unrest to suspicions held by the soldiers. Notably, thedocuments portray the war as much bleaker than official reports.

Logslike these are called "raw intelligence," meaning individual reportsfrom lower-level soldiers. These reports are then used by analysts toadvise those who create policy. That means it's difficult to find any"smoking gun" in the reports, but they do give a more specific look atthe war on the ground level, rather than the polished big picturereleased by the Pentagon and the White House.

The major story tocome out of these logs is a more detailed view at the relationshipbetween Pakistan, especially its spy agency, the Inter-ServicesIntelligences (ISI), and the Taliban insurgency in Afghanistan. Thatrelationship has been a fairly open secret over the course of the war,not just to the higher-ups in the military but to anyone following thestory closely. But the level of detail in these logs brings thatrelationship more fully into the light, and considering the ObamaAdministration's backing of Pakistan (both with words and with aidmoney), the fact that some of these government agencies are playing adouble game is very disturbing indeed.

Many of these allegationsinclude names, and one in particular pops up over and over: Lt. GeneralHamid Gul, director of the ISI for two years in the late 1980s.According to the The New York Times,Gul developed close ties with Afghan militias, supported by the CIA, inAfghanistan's fight against the Soviet Union. Those same militiaseventually became part of the Taliban, and Gul retained his ties tothem. Gul says he is retired, but the reports explicitly say that, forexample, he was a key member of a meeting of Afghan insurgentcommanders and representatives of Al Qaeda seeking to avenge the deathof Osama al-Kini, a leader of Al Qaeda, at the hands of the CIA.

Gul spoke to the Times by telephone and asserted these claims are "absolute nonsense."
There's also a particularly wrenching accountof one small US outpost in southeastern Afghanistan, one of the mostfiercely defended Taliban areas. The story explains in painfulstep-by-step detail as the security at the outpost fell, bit by bit, toan overwhelming Taliban force. Eight were killed and two dozen injuredbefore American reinforcements arrived. By then, the fighting hadstopped. The Americans cleared out of there, leaving so fast thatammunition stores were left behind--and were quickly looted byinsurgents before being bombed by American planes in an attempt to haltthe looting.
Other important findingsindicate that the civilian death toll has been significantlyunder-reported, that the Taliban has access to heat-seekinganti-aircraft missiles, and that unmanned drone aircrafts are usedextensively even though their performance is less impressive thanreported. In addition, some secret commando groups are tasked with a"capture/kill" list of about 70 top insurgent commanders. This programhas been enlarged by the Obama administration, but while it has claimedsome successes, it has also resulted in some civilian deaths.
TheWhite House, predictably, has condemned the release and publication ofthese documents as irresponsible and dangerous. The National SecurityAdviser, Gen. James Jones, gave this statement, as reported by Politico:

TheUnited States strongly condemns the disclosure of classifiedinformation by individuals and organizations which could put the livesof Americans and our partners at risk, and threaten our nationalsecurity. Wikileaks made no effort to contact us about these documents– the United States government learned from news organizations thatthese documents would be posted. These irresponsible leaks will notimpact our ongoing commitment to deepen our partnerships withAfghanistan and Pakistan; to defeat our common enemies; and to supportthe aspirations of the Afghan and Pakistani people.

Joneswent on to reiterate the US's "partnership" with both Pakistan andAfghanistan, showing only the tiniest chink in that partnership bysaying that Pakistan (and, notably, "Pakistan's military andintelligence services") must "shift decisively" against Al Qaeda andother extremists.
WikiLeaks, as is its custom, has not revealed the source of the leaks. The independent reporting muscle of the New York Times, The Guardian UK, and Der Spiegelhave taken it upon themselves to research and verify the findings. Inaddition, WikiLeaks has withheld about 15,000 of the documents in orderto redact certain sections as part of what WikiLeaks terms a "harmminimisation" process.
The original WikiLeaks documents can be found here, while a curated selection provided by The New York Times can be found here. To find out more about WikiLeaks and its mysterious founder, Julian Assange, I highly recommend Fast Company's crib sheet, which you can read here.