Secrets about Afghanistan

Published in El Tiempo
(Colombia) on 28 July 2010
by Editorial Staff (link to originallink to original)
Translated from by Joseph Locatelli. Edited by Sam Carter.
In 1971, a pacifist named Daniel Ellsberg, who had obtained secret documents about the war in Vietnam, took a year to get The New York Times to publish the information. The articles showed both that the United States was losing the confrontation and that the White House had committed and covered up numerous mistakes. The leak of what were called “The Pentagon Papers” marked a turn in the war and provoked a deep legal debate.

Now, nearly 40 years later, another pacifist, Australian Julian Assange, recently divulged 90,000 documents about the war in Afghanistan that would mark a point of inflection in some aspects of the conflict. This time, however, a year is not necessary to convince anyone to publish them. The reason is that the Internet now exists, and Assange has a website, Wikileaks, which just dropped the bomb. Prudently, however, he offered to share it exclusively with three internationally respected periodicals: The New York Times, the British newspaper The Guardian, and the German weekly Der Speigel.

The importance of the revelation is twofold. On one hand, there is the uncovering of a series of facts that show the collusion between the Pakistani secret services and the Taliban terrorists and certain grave errors committed by the United States and its allies in Afghanistan. On the other hand, there is the formidable capacity of the Internet to spread news in minimal time and over maximal space.

The Internet thus renders a service to transparency while simultaneously accommodating alarmist lies, truthful works and offenses such as crimes against children. Its immediate effects overwhelm the possibility of legal debates, contextualization and clarifications. But, for all that, the traditional press maintains a key role, as demonstrated by the fact that Wikileaks went to the three pillars of journalism mentioned above.

Regarding the content of the documents, the general impression they leave is that the citizens have not been sufficiently informed about the war. The period that is covered by the papers goes from January 2004 to December 2009 — i.e., from the government of George W. Bush to the eve of Barack Obama’s. According to the experts, there are important episodes missing in the publicized archives, and the majority of what they reveal is no longer of any military significance. But it obliges one to think that there have been many more civilian casualties than have been officially recorded, and it raises doubts about the help of Pakistan, an Afghan neighbor that has always been under suspicion.


En 1971, un pacifista llamado Daniel Ellsberg, que había obtenido documentos secretos sobre la guerra en Vietnam, tardó un año en lograr que The New York Times publicara los archivos. En ellos se demostraba que Estados Unidos estaba perdiendo la confrontación y que la Casa Blanca había cometido y ocultado numerosos errores. La filtración de los que se denominaron "los papeles del Pentágono" marcó un giro en la guerra y provocó un hondo debate jurídico.

Ahora, casi 40 años después, otro pacifista, el australiano Julian Assange, acaba de divulgar 90.000 documentos sobre la guerra de Afganistán que podrían marcar un punto de inflexión en algunos aspectos del conflicto. Esta vez, sin embargo, no se necesitó un año para convencer a nadie de publicarlos. La razón es que ahora existe Internet, y Assange tiene una página web, Wikileaks (Wikifiltraciones), que acaba de soltar la bomba. Prudentemente, sin embargo, quiso compartirla con tres respetables periódicos internacionales -The New York Times, el británico The Guardian y el semanario alemán Der Spiegel- a los que ofreció su exclusiva.

La importancia de la revelación es doble. Por una parte, el destape de una serie de hechos que muestran la connivencia entre los servicios secretos paquistaníes y los terroristas talibanes y ciertos graves errores cometidos por Estados Unidos y sus aliados en Afganistán. Por otra, la formidable capacidad de Internet para esparcir noticias en un mínimo de tiempo y un máximo de espacio.
La red global presta así un servicio a la transparencia, aun cuando sabemos bien que también puede alojar mentiras alarmistas, medias verdades y delitos como la pederastia. Sus efectos inmediatos desbordan la posibilidad de debates jurídicos, contextualizaciones y precisiones. Para todo ello la prensa tradicional sigue siendo clave, como lo demuestra el hecho de que Wikileaks hubiera acudido a esos tres pilares que son los periódicos mencionados.

En cuanto al contenido de los documentos, la sensación general que dejan es la de una guerra sobre la cual los ciudadanos no han sido suficientemente enterados. El período que cubren los papeles va de enero del 2004 a diciembre del 2009, es decir, el gobierno de George W. Bush hasta la antesala del de Barack Obama. Según los expertos, en los archivos propagados faltan episodios importantes y la mayoría de lo que se revela carece ya de trascendencia militar. Pero obliga a creer que ha habido muchas más bajas civiles que las que oficialmente se registran y aumenta las dudas sobre la ayuda de Pakistán, un vecino afgano que siempre ha estado bajo sospecha.
This post appeared on the front page as a direct link to the original article with the above link .

Hot this week

Germany: Trump’s Words and Putin’s Calculus

Australia: Donald Trump Is Not the Only Moving Part When It Comes to Global Trade

Spain: A NATO Tailor-Made for Trump

OPD 26th June 2025, edited by Michelle Bisson Proofer: See...

Ireland: As Genocide Proceeds, Netanyahu Is Yet Again Being Feted in Washington

Topics

Canada: Canada Must Match the Tax Incentives in Trump’s ‘Big Beautiful Bill’

Germany: Big Tech Wants a Say in EU Law: More Might for the Mighty

Germany: Trump’s Disappointment Will Have No Adverse Consequences for Putin*

             

Spain: Global Aid without the US

Spain: Not a Good Time for Solidarity

India: Trump’s Tariffs Have Hit South Korea and Japan: India Has Been Wise in Charting a Cautious Path

Related Articles

Colombia: The End of the Dollar’s Reign?

Colombia : Trump’s Strategy against Maduro

Colombia: The ‘Toy’ Trump Gave to Musk

India: Will Fallout at Home, Abroad Restrain Trump Disruption?

Australia: Trump’s Tariff Tango Will Only Reinforce His View that Bullying Works