The WikiLeaks: Anything new?

The New York Times and two other newspapers on Sunday published summaries and excerpts of tens of thousands of documents relating to Afghanistan that had been leaked to the WikiLeaks website.

Despite the hype surrounding the massive intelligence leak, the documents exposed thus far reveal little new about the fundamental reality of the war in Afghanistan. As the Wall Street Journal points out (July 26),

That the war isn’t going as well as advertised is already painfully evident—last week alone, the Taliban kidnapped two American sailors and killed five soldiers. Allegations of Pakistani double-dealing—of accepting a torrent of American dollars with one hand while arming and sheltering the Taliban with the other—are hardly new. Nor are revelations that the country’s Directorate of Inter-Services Intelligence (isi) has apparently perfected its own version of don’t ask, don’t tell. Don’t ask your clandestine operatives too many questions about their ties with Islamist militants, and don’t tell the Americans more than the minimum required to keep the aid faucet open.

Perhaps the most critical information relates to Pakistan’s support of the Taliban. The leaked documents accuse Pakistan of providing both supplies and sanctuary for Taliban fighters. The Wall Street Journal writes that “they show how the gaggle of Islamist groups fighting nato in Afghanistan … have an advantage that more than makes up for their inferior equipment and training. The militants wage war in Afghanistan while using Pakistan as a sanctuary for rest, recuperation and recruitment” (ibid.).

The secret military field reports detail how Pakistan’s intelligence service has guided the Afghan insurgency, even while Islamabad receives more than $1 billion a year from Washington for its help fighting the Taliban.

Stratfor points out that (July 27),

Though startling, the charge that Islamabad is protecting and sustaining forces fighting and killing Americans is not a new one. When the United States halted operations in Afghanistan after the defeat of the Soviets in 1989, U.S. policy was to turn over operations in Afghanistan to Pakistan. U.S. strategy was to use Islamist militants to fight the Soviets and to use Pakistani liaisons through the isi to supply and coordinate with them. When the Soviets and Americans left Afghanistan, the isi struggled to install a government composed of its allies until the Taliban took over Kabul in 1996. The isi’s relationship with the Taliban—which in many ways are the heirs to the anti-Soviet mujahideen—is widely known. … The leaks on this score are interesting, but they will shock only those who didn’t pay attention or who want to be shocked.

It appears the WikiLeaks merely provide additional detail of a war that is not going well for the U.S., and of Pakistan’s double-dealing.

TheTrumpet.com has long pointed out the duplicity of Pakistan as a U.S. ally in the war in Afghanistan. “The fact that Washington must take the ‘friends’ and ‘allies’ it can—even if they fuel the passions (and the apparatus) of the very enemy the U.S. is fighting—demonstrates the compromised nature of America’s power on the world scene,” we wrote on Aug. 1, 2005.

And from Islamabad’s point of view, it is covering its bases, knowing that the U.S. is not in Afghanistan for the long haul. Why would it want to make an enemy of the up-and-coming power right across its border?

As for the WikiLeaks, their shock value will inevitably provide massive support for America’s early withdrawal from Afghanistan.