British Broadcasting Corporation
BBC
23 October 2010 Last updated at 03:33 GMT
Tidal wave of secret files raises new questions on Iraq
By Nick Childs, BBC defence and security correspondent
US soldiers take cover behind a wall in Diyala province (19 March 2008) The
leaked documents are by and large low-level reports from the field in Iraq
Continue reading the main story
Wikileaks War Files
* Key issues in Iraq documents release
* Excerpts: Iraq war logs
* Pressure for openness
* Iraqis unimpressed by Wikileaks deluge
This is not so much a leak as a tidal wave of secret documents.
It dwarfs the previous disclosure by Wikileaks of US army field logs from the
war in Afghanistan.
And it will take time to sift through, and to draw conclusions about just what
it changes in terms of public perceptions of a conflict that is already widely
seen as grim and costly.
The documents certainly raise new questions about the behaviour of the new
Iraqi security forces, and about the US military's approach to dealing with
them.
There are truly grisly reports of torture of detainees, of attacks with acid
and electric drills, of beatings, and mutilations.
There is a report from as recently as December of US forces obtaining video
footage of an execution of an Iraqi detainee.
Many of the documents - certainly until more recently - involve an initial
report, and then include the phrase "no further investigation".
But the Pentagon has rejected the charge that it turned a blind eye.
It insists that it has acted in accordance with international law, with reports
being passed to superiors and, at the appropriate level, to the Iraqis.
Unclear resonance
As with the Afghanistan documents, these are by and large low-level reports
from the field.
As such, they raise as many questions as they answer.
People look at a news ticker in New York's Times Square (22 October 2010)
Afghanistan, not Iraq, is the concern of the moment for most Americans
They certainly raise new questions about such issues as the level of
casualties, the Pentagon's policy on counting them, and deaths at US
checkpoints.
The debate raged over whether the Afghanistan leaks offered a fundamentally
different picture to the public than the one that had been presented officially
up till then.
Or did they just provide additional detail and ammunition to back up known
issues and suspicions?
That may well be the case here. There is, for example, new fuel for already
well-established suspicions of Iranian support for the insurgency.
But, in terms of reaction in the United States and elsewhere, to some extent
public opinion has moved on.
Afghanistan, not Iraq, is the concern of the moment.
This leak will add to the uncertainties perhaps of what kind of country and
what kind of legacy the US-led intervention has left up to now.
Just what resonance it will have, though is unclear.
The debate over the fact of the leaks, though, and its security implications or
lack of them, has already been joined, as the Pentagon and the rest of the US
government establishment was condemning the leaks even before they happened.
And the fact that so much more of the documents have been censored, to hide
individual identities and details, is unlikely to defuse the debate over what
risks such leaks pose, as well as what service they offer.
------------------------------------
Post message: [email protected]
Subscribe : [email protected]
Unsubscribe : [email protected]
List owner : [email protected]
Homepage : http://proletar.8m.com/Yahoo! Groups Links
<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/proletar/
<*> Your email settings:
Individual Email | Traditional
<*> To change settings online go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/proletar/join
(Yahoo! ID required)
<*> To change settings via email:
[email protected]
[email protected]
<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[email protected]
<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
