Sinfest

[Mr Gary]

[Mizike]

But that's not who we are talking about. as mouse so accurately said, we're talking about consumers of news.
_________________
Scire aliquid laus est, pudor est non discere velle
"It is laudable to know something, it is disgraceful to not want to learn"
~Seneca

[nathan]

[nathan]

[ShadowCell]

I also should say, Willem, I really don't think this is going to change anything as far as people who aren't paying attention to the war go. People who are indifferent enough to not have a clue what's going on in the Afghanistan war aren't going to care about these documents, anymore than they care about the war already.

What this does is pile hard evidence onto the side of the war's critics that this war is a hopeless mess and not worth its costs.

[Willem]

True enough. But are those war critics enough to change the US' policy in Afghanistan (and Iraq)?
_________________
attitude of a street punk, only cutting selected words out of context to get onself excuse to let one's dirty mouth loose

[kame]

[nathan]

No... time will not settle it. It's a logical distinction, not a factual assertion.

I don't suspect the White House will acknowledge that the military cannot police itself, for two reasons. First, "following the advice of the generals" provides political cover for military missteps as well as distasteful policy decisions from on-high that are best kept off the proverbial books, so impugning the trustworthiness of the military is inherently self-defeating (not to mention the gargantuan public relations fallout of actually saying "I don't trust our soldiers, or the army as an institution"). It's electoral seppuku. Second, there is a legitimate claim that the military educates itself on the intricacies of armed conflict for a reason, according to which there would be a serious strategic danger in allowing ex-comedian senators to second guess a general's every move in the middle of a conflict.

And how is the notion that you can be for the troops and against the operation intellectually bankrupt?
_________________
All our final decisions are made in a state of mind that is not going to last. - Marky Mark Proust

[Sam]

These documents will most definitely cause harm, and will likely result in soldier casualties. A minor example: those logs also contain the MGRS coordinates for what the CP at the COP thought were enemy positions. That can be illuminating for two reasons. One, the Taliban in the area can figure out how accurate sightings are, and since they know what positions were where they can also figure out how fire is prioritized. That in turn impacts how they lay out their troops.

It's not a 'mega intelligence coup' for the taliban, no matter who suggests what, though. Because most of this information has been leaking like a sieve through our afghani allies in the first place.

What I want to know is the overall 'moral weighing' that takes form over the next week or so. Factoring in everything including the demonstration of the concealment of civilian casualties in ops.

[andrew]

[nathan]

[Sam]

One I consider nearly indecipherable at this point in time. Though that hasn't stopped plenty of people from making their conclusions in advance.

[Him]

Well, the foreign minister of Sweden (who also has tropps stationed in afghanisatn as part of the ISAF) doesn't seem to think it will do any harm to present military operations in Afdghanistan
_________________
"Moderation in temper, is always a virtue; but moderation in principle, is a species of vice. " - Thomas Paine

[Thy Brilliance]

[Sam]