« | »

AP Crows: Leaks Sow Afghan War Doubts

From an ebullient Associated Press:

Huge leak of secret files sows new Afghan war doubts

by Jo Biddle Tue Jul 27, 2010

WASHINGTON (AFP) – The leak of 90,000 secret military files has emboldened critics of the war in Afghanistan, who raised fresh questions Tuesday about the viability of the increasingly unpopular US-led campaign.

The New York Times said in an editorial Tuesday the documents made public by the website WikiLeaks "confirm a picture of Pakistani double-dealing that has been building for years."

The Times said President Barack Obama will have to deal firmly with Islamabad in response to the most controversial files, which indicate that key ally Pakistan allows its spies to meet directly with the Taliban.

"If Mr Obama cannot persuade Islamabad to cut its ties to, and then aggressively fight, the extremists in Pakistan, there is no hope of defeating the Taliban in Afghanistan," wrote the daily.

Of course Pakistan’s involvement with the Taliban is not news – not even to the New York Times. They wrote numerous articles about this such as, ‘Afghan Strikes by Taliban Get Pakistan Help, U.S. Aides Say’ from back in March 2009.

Americans are increasingly weary of this costly war," wrote the Times, one of three media organizations, along with German magazine Der Spiegel and Britain’s Guardian, to have received the documents weeks ago from WikiLeaks.

Needless to say, The Times has been calling the US effort in Afghanistan as ‘doomed’ as the effort in Iraq since at least 2006. Indeed, the New York Times has pronounced that there is no chance for democracy anywhere in the Middle East.

Some members of Congress questioned Obama’s Afghanistan strategy, as well as an as-yet unpassed 37-billion dollar funding bill for the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, following the leaks.

Democratic Senator Russell Feingold said the disclosures "make it clear that there is no military solution in Afghanistan."

Huh. It’s almost as if these ‘leaks’ were timed to come out at this crucial juncture when the Afghan war budget is up for a vote and our suicidal ‘rules of engagement’ were about to be revised.

The bombshell revelations triggered outrage, with a top NATO general calling for increased vigilance against such leaks as the White House slammed them as "irresponsible."

Funny, we haven’t seen any ‘slamming’ from the White House. And, really, why would we? The White House couldn’t have done a better job than if they had planned it themselves. (Ahem.)

White House spokesman Robert Gibbs warned that the leaks had put the names of service personnel and military operations in the public domain, but played down the likely strategic and political impact.

"In terms of broad revelations, there aren’t any that we see in these documents," Gibbs said, pointing out that most of the period covered by the leaks was during the previous Bush administration.

Gosh, what ‘slamming’ – of the Bush administration, of course. Never mind that these leaked field reports also include a full year when Mr. Obama was (ostensibly) in charge of the Afghanistan war.

Britain, which has some 9,500 troops in Afghanistan, said Monday it regretted the leak while Pakistan has said the reports were "skewed" and not based on the reality on the ground.

In Berlin, a defense ministry spokesman said releasing the documents "could affect the national security of NATO allies and the whole NATO mission."

Of course, that is exactly what the New York Times and the America-haters at WikiLeaks want.

This article was posted by Steve on Tuesday, July 27th, 2010. Comments are currently closed.

4 Responses to “AP Crows: Leaks Sow Afghan War Doubts”

  1. Melly says:

    ……………………and Barry too Steve, Barry too.

  2. actor111 says:

    This is EXACLY what happens when politicians try to run a war.

  3. fallingpianos says:

    Indeed, the New York Times has pronounced that there is no chance for democracy anywhere in the Middle East.

    Since capitalism and democracy (or, more accurately, republics) go hand-in-hand, the New York Times has pretty much made the same pronouncement about the United States.

  4. canary says:

    Obama chose a head of intelligence with no intelligence, no experience, for the job. And he had no intelligence or experience with the war we are fighting. As a matter of fact Obama’s pick once said it was bad to change U.S. Presidents during a war, because of the lack of inside knowledge, yet accepted the job at America’s expense, rather than do the right thing & advice him to choose someone qualified.
    In Pakistan we lost more life-long career U.S. intelligence officers than ever in the history of the U.S.
    We knew Pakistan was our enemy following 9/11, because we watched them and their children dance & celebrate in their streets. But, we needed a base for our troops to be able to enter & leave Afghanistan. Our U.S. Troops needed to be kept safe, to keep America safe. We were only shelling out small amounts when Pakistan would say a supposed civilian or two were killed.
    Obama, immediately after taking office, dropped drones that spilled hitting Pakistan, because his desire to catch Bin Laden, when everyone knows that his death is not going to stop a “Holy War” and axis of evil, trying to take over the globe.
    McCain an other experts on the war, said what Obama was doing in Pakistan was dead wrong.
    Obama changed venues for our troops to die, by living in Afghanistan and serving tea & aid to our enemy.
    Obama ignored Bush’s direct advice he gave, from the onset of Obama’s presidency, which of course Obama would ignore and do it his way. and his administration’s advice. Obama’s nature is to do things his way.
    It is not ignorance that Obama thinks being nice to muslims will win them over. If any American in this country knows this is a holy war, it’s Obama.
    How strange at his wifes wedding to be the most proud of his brother who lived in America by wedding American women, to attend as a converted muslim in his new costume, and with a new name. Obama said it was easy to overlook his brother’s defensiveness towards his new found cult.
    Obama had to know this was coming out. Isn’t that the purpose of him hiring the first IT CZAR in the WH. Tundra who had his sell pitches all over the internet meeting with the Obama team, laughing how it took him 30 minutes to learns of 9/11. Obama heard the first plane struck and changed the radio channel, not learning about it til later in the day. Nothing shocks Obama because he was raised with violence, hatred, muslim friends, & anti-Americans.
    On and on Obama’s middle-eastern internet CZAR Tundra bragged his company was the expert for cyberspace technology. Sale pitch after another. So, he needs to be fired. The worst attack on a U.S. Military base in U.S. history also under Obama’s team.
    Obama wants our troops at a place that will be the most benefit for Obama. It’s all about him. It’s all about him.


« Front Page | To Top
« | »