Wikileaks - More Smoke than Fire?

For those opposed to the war in Afghanistan the Wikileak release of classified military reports must have seemed like a red-letter day that would fuel a widespread and accelerated opposition to the conflict. However, ten days on and the truth is somewhat less potent. The obvious immediate impact of such a vast disclosure was quickly weakened by the hollow character of the ‘revelations’ contained therein. Apart from a confirmation that heat-seeking missiles have been fired at coalition aircraft the topics covered in the leaked reports were not new but familiar to journalists, analysts, academics and commentators who have watched the Afghan war for years. Consequently, whilst the anti-war lobby and others such as Gerry Adams (in the Guardian) made much of the release observers with more than a cursory view of the war were overwhelmingly underwhelmed. Within a few days Wikileaks was attracting growing criticism, not because it contained little substantial revelation but because the detailed nature of the disclosure could endanger both coalition forces and Afghans who had provided intelligence on the insurgents. Pentagon officials adopted a moral position suggesting Wikileaks might have blood on its hands, with Wikileaks’ Julian Assange retorting that Wikileaks was better at protecting sources than the US Army was. Soon the substance of the leaked reports was less newsworthy than debates on the role of Wikileaks in today’s world, on whether the leak will cause harm in Afghanistan and on the motives of key personalities involved in the leak. As the week progressed it became clear that the Wikileaks release was not having the effect its perpetrators may have expected. In the UK, one lawyer’s letter to the Ministry of Defence suggesting potential war crimes action, a widening of a Parliamentary Select Committee’s report scope and a flurry of supportive comments from citizens on the Guardian’s web site does not amount to a watershed in support for or opposition to the war. Neither has the Wikileaks disclosure led to a sea-change in the conduct of the war as General McChrystal had already instigated changes to ISAF operational procedures which addressed problems highlighted in the leaked reports. Indeed, President Obama took the opportunity to suggest that his Afghan strategy had been implemented to correct some of the criticisms Wikileaks was now trumpeting. Rather than a spate of negative mass reactions to the leak, beyond the understandable baying from expected quarters, popular responses across coalition nations seem to have been muted. Whilst there may yet be some political consequence in Germany, where significant parliamentary opposition to the war existed already, other ISAF governments appear to be untroubled by the Wikileaks episode. There may be a number of reasons why there appears little wind in the Wikileaks sails: First, ‘Joe public’ may be influenced by the chorus of criticism from military analysts and commentators whose general assessment of the substance of the leaked material has been negative. Second, media coverage of the leak has been far from universally favourable (witness the question session at the Wikileaks press conference at the London Frontline Club) and has reinforced the message that the leak is a detailed regurgitation of known issues. The selective release of information using The Guardian, The New York Times (NYT) and Der Spiegel may have been counter-productive potentially alienating other media organizations. Third, even citizens who have not been following the war closely can see that the exposure of so much military data during a conflict might be of use to an enemy. This suspicion is reinforced by the repeated statements by retired military officers that this is the case, despite Wikileaks assertion that ‘harm reduction’ measures have been applied to the material before release. Fourth, shock at the number of Afghan civilians killed by coalition forces may be tempered by sympathy for troops acting in fear of a suicide attack, and by a recognition that ISAF has taken perilous action to reduce collateral casualties while the insurgents have continued to blatantly ignore civilian casualties. Fifth, a general apathy exists regarding the war and for many people in ISAF nations Afghanistan remains an issue of little concrete or personal interest. Perhaps the most unexpected development in the past week has been the shift in the position of the NYT which has gone from being a member of the select triad that Wikileaks used to enact the release of information to an organization which attracts opprobrium from Julian Assange. Whatever the theoretical support mainstream media companies may have for organizations like Wikileaks, burgeoning unease about the very real consequences for Afghans and troops in Afghanistan cannot be ignored. The magnitude of the Wikileaks disclosure is truly historic, but thus far its impact has been strategically insignificant. The release of such a vast amount of classified data has not achieved the momentous effect many may have expected or wished for. Whilst adding huge amounts of detail to topics which were familiar to commentators, it has revealed more about the level of understanding of the war among coalition publics - highlighting how so many people could observe a war for so long and be so unaware of what it entails. Unfortunately, the greatest impact of the leaks may be on the lives of those who provided some of the information which is now in the public domain. For them, ‘our’ right to transparency may come at a very heavy price.

Wikileaks - More Smoke than Fire?

Upcoming Events

Homeland Security Week

Wildfire Technology Summit

Air Dominance Summit

Armored Vehicles USA Conference

Next Generation UAS

Veterans Healthcare 2026

Follow Us

Latest Webinars

Responsible and Transparent Approaches to AI in Biometric Algorithm

Securing the Defence Industrial Base: Mitigating Risk and Delivering Resiliency in Physical and Digital Supply Chains

Treatment Option for Two Subsets of Challenging to Treat Major Depressive Disorder in Adults

Recommended

Facial Recognition: Art or Science?

Facial Recognition: Art or Science?

NORAD’s Perspective on Radar: Interview with Lieutenant General Pierre St-Amand...

OBIM's View On Biometrics

Controlling the Waters Biometric Security at Port Everglades

Trump and Tricare: How will the new administration affect Military Healthcare?

Trump and Tricare: How will the new administration affect Military Healthcare?

How Will the New Administration Affect Military Healthcare?

Unmanned Solutions for Ground Combat Systems: with Johns Hopkins University

CERDEC On Energy Storage Solutions

The Future of Biometric Technology With U.S. Citizenship & Immigration Services...

Military Healthcare: Presentation Case Study

FIND CONTENT BY TYPE

IDGA COMMUNITY

ADVERTISE WITH US

JOIN THE IDGA COMMUNITY

Wikileaks - More Smoke than Fire?

Upcoming Events

Follow Us

Subscribe to our Free Newsletter

Latest Webinars

Recommended

FIND CONTENT BY TYPE

IDGA COMMUNITY

ADVERTISE WITH US

JOIN THE IDGA COMMUNITY