War is hell. It didn’t take WikiLeaks to tell us that. Nonetheless, the on-line
publication of some 91,000 classified US military records – including previously
unreported incidents of Afghan civilians killed by coalition forces, covert
operations against Taliban terrorists and cooperation between Pakistan and the
Taliban leadership – has put the spotlight on just how desperate warfare can
Dead children, slain guests at weddings, blown-up buses. Your heart
has to go out to the Afghanis, who, as Robin Shepherd noted in an analysis in
The Jerusalem Post last week, were “ordinary people going about their daily
business who tragically found themselves in the wrong place at the wrong
All is fair in love and war, goes the saying from long, long
before Israelis became familiar with the name Richard Goldstone.
course, not everything goes. No decent person wants to think of soldiers – even
accidentally – killing innocent farmers and kids. Just how to avoid such deaths
when the Taliban, like their close allies in Gaza and Lebanon, deliberately use
the civilian population as a human shield is not clear, however.
Shepherd pointed out, the recent exposure that the Taliban has been using the
same tactics as Hamas, with the same results, might boomerang on the British and
other coalition countries who cheered the Goldstone report through the UN. No
wonder the UK’s new prime minister, David Cameron, seems to be serious about
changing the universal jurisdiction law. He is as likely to find himself in the
dock as, say, Israel’s opposition leader and former foreign minister Tzipi
There is something ironic about a guerrilla war being waged
simultaneously from hideouts in caves and in cyberspace. Israelis over the last
few years have frequently sighed that wars are now fought as much in the virtual
world as on the battlefield. The WikiLeaks exposure reinforces that
While attention was focused primarily on the details of the
reports, among the questions which should be asked are: Just who is waging the
war via WikiLeaks and why? President Barack Obama said last week that the
documents could endanger soldiers serving in Afghanistan. He’s right. But only
up to a point. These documents weren’t published to describe the whereabouts of
coalition forces or even their mode of operation (not much of a secret to the
Taliban in any case). They are not even particularly up-to-date.
JPOST VIDEOS THAT MIGHT INTEREST YOU:
were published to embarrass the coalition forces and their governments, Nobel
Peace Prize winner Obama among them. The huge amount of material published is
contemporary war materiel. This is psychological warfare. The publication was
aimed at Western public opinion. The reports were not an attempt to reveal the
evils of the Taliban regime or al- Qaida. The leaks were aimed at showing US and
British mistakes, and, yes, under Goldstone’s criteria, war crimes. Just a week
ago, NATO had to admit to accidentally killing 45 Afghani civilians, after
WikiLeaks wanted the American public to feel betrayed not by
double-dealing Pakistani leaders but by its own leadership, which has been shown
to be keeping some of the truth from it.
From a media viewpoint, it is
fascinating to see the cooperation between the on-line exposé and the
simultaneous print follow-ups published in Britain’s The Guardian (“Massive leak
of secret files exposes true Afghan war”), The New York Times (“The Afghan
Struggle: A Secret Archive”) and Germany’s Der Spiegel (“Task Force 373, Die
Afghanistan Protokolle: Amerikas geheimer Krieg,” again “America’s secret war.”)
Let’s face it, the proverbial man on the street, anywhere in the global village,
is still more likely to read a newspaper report than plow through more than
90,000 documents on-line. The newspapers were apparently given a month’s access
to the material to prepare their stories.
THE MAN behind the affair is
WikiLeaks editor-inchief Julian Assange, a 39-year-old Australian with a
background that begs a biography. Assange, a former hacker, is a “publish and be
damned” character. He is both an award-winning writer and variously described as
an “Internet activist” and an “Internet freedom fighter.” He claims he was
acting out of a desire to reveal immoral behavior. One thing’s for sure: When he
blew the whistle, he did it with such force that the whole world
In some ways, the case is reminiscent of the Anat Kamm affair
being investigated behind closed doors.
Kamm allegedly stole some 2,000
documents during her military service, giving those that she didn’t lose to a
Haaretz reporter. “There were aspects of IDF operations which I thought should
be brought to the attention of the public,” Kamm told Shin Bet (Israel Security
Agency) investigators. Why she didn’t think alleged crimes should first be
brought to the attention of her commander or the Military Police is less
The revelation of classified material works on many levels.
Taking the most positive view, it can indeed encourage officers and soldiers in
the field – those truly fighting the battle – to act with extra
Although if you ask any soldier who has had to take the
split-second decision whether to open fire or not you will appreciate the depths
of the dilemma: So many of those who chose the “or not” option did not live to
debate the issue, while describing those who did open fire as “trigger happy”
does them an injustice.
I have yet to meet the soldier who would be
“happy” to shoot live bullets at live people.
On another level, it
demoralizes the troops who without public support can naturally ask what they
are risking their lives for. This is particularly true of those coalition forces
serving in places far, far from home. IDF soldiers serve so close to the
families they are protecting that they regularly arrive for a weekend, bringing
with them their dirty laundry (the type that needs washing, not a virtual airing
on the Web).
The public has a right to know – and in Israel’s case,
despite military censorship which appears to grow daily more anachronistic in
the world of modern communications – it usually exercises that right. It is hard
to keep a secret in a country where everybody knows a serving soldier. It was
hard even before the age of camera-equipped cellphones, Wi-Fi computers, SMSs
and YouTube. I remember as a reserve soldier many years ago that an operation
was called off in Lebanon when a reluctant soldier deliberately leaked details
via his mother.
The anonymous nature of WikiLeaks is itself a problem. I
have seen claims that it is funded by leftist NGOs (the bogeymen of the Right)
and the Mossad (the bad guys of the Left). So much for
Altogether faceless and even Facebook networking is not an
infallible means of gaining credible material.
Hence the dilemma for the
established media: In the words of an old joke, doctors bury their mistakes
while journalists publish theirs. It is not much consolation to writers that you
might not be shot for a major blunder, but you can be fired.
I have spent
this week trying to check out a story which is either particularly gruesome
evidence of human rights abuses in Iran or a well-produced fake aimed at
garnering international support.
I’m loath to just cast something into
the air à la Assange. As one of my IDF commanding officers liked to say: “If you
throw mud, your hands get dirty.”
The writer is editor of The
International Jerusalem Post.email@example.com
Join Jerusalem Post Premium Plus now for just $5 and upgrade your experience with an ads-free website and exclusive content. Click here>>