TagUS politics

Wikileaks, Afghanistan & The New Rules Of Engagement


As of two days ago Wikileaks has released 92.000 documents about the war in Afghanistan, leaked (most likely) from within the US military. After discussing this with quite a few folks, we all agreed that this will be one of the biggest – if not the single biggest – story of 2010.

As a former media and political science major, as well as a former editor, this stuff is pure gold to me.

First, what I am not going to go into: the Afghanistan conflict, its sense or legitimation or political implications; or the legalities of this kind of thing: does a leak like this break US law, and would that even be applicable? That’s for US lawyers to decide.

The basics first: What happened? Wikileaks got hold of some 91.000 military documents regarding the Afghanistan conflict, from analyst papers to ground reports. (What is Wikileaks?) Before releasing these documents themselves, they gave them in advance to three traditional news media: New York Times (US), The Guardian (UK) and Der Spiegel (Germany). (All of the links go directly to the Wikileaks specials.) After these media ran their exclusives, Wikileaks went public with the leaked documents, called the Afghan War Diaries:

The reports, while written by soldiers and intelligence officers, and mainly describing lethal military actions involving the United States military, also include intelligence information, reports of meetings with political figures, and related details. (…) The reports cover most units from the US Army with the exception of most US Special Forces’ activities. The reports do not generally cover top secret operations or European and other ISAF Forces operations.

So why is the Wikileaks story so big? It’s big not just because it’s something new and a huge scoop, but because it touches on so many complex and highly relevant issues:

  • the issue at hand, the conflict in Afghanistan
  • the way the US government handles information
  • … and by extension, the bigger questions of truth & trust
  • the relationship between governments and their citizens
  • the relationship between US government and their allies, and how information flows between them
  • the way media work today
  • the (new?) role that media play today (trust center verifying information scoops rather than gathering them)
  • the way the internet changes politics and media (and how news media not bound to nation states operate under different circumstances than we are used to)
  • Is it irresponsible to leak documents?

For some great background and discussion, I recommend you jump straight to Jay Rosen and Jeff Jarvis, both who have great write-ups.

Trying not to repeat to many of Rosen’s and Jarvis’ points, there are a few things I find worth considering.

Truth & trust, governments & citizens The White House was clearly pissed off after seeing the Afghan War Logs emerge. Understandably so, after all those documents will clearly make a dent in the war effort, so to speak. However, legalities aside and assuming the documents are the real thing – the documents leaked are internal military documents. While it’s always painful to be called out on your own mistakes, it’s not job of the media to support certain policies; and it’s most certainly not the job of a whistleblower site like Wikileaks to support any policies. It’s their job to get out information so folks can make informed decisions.

It’s probably part of winning a military conflict to occasionally bluff and put a game face on. But it’s fair game to call that bluff; I’m guessing here, but I’d say that this can happen to a government just like to any poker player. These war reports seem to be such a case where the bluff (“the war is going kinda alright”) is called. The question is: Could the US government – instead of trying to clamp down on Wikileaks and the internal military source – try to make the best of the situation, for example by trying a crowdsourced effort to analyze the patterns of what has been going wrong in the conflict? (Might not work, but should be looked into by some of the smart folks within or around the US government.)

The new role of media What I found particularly interesting is the new role that media played in this case. This is not a case of investigative journalism by the media, but by a third (non-journalistic) party. We are talking about three of the most distinguished media outlets world wide. Yet, they did not get the scoop here, they did not have the sources inside. They were not the address the military sources wanted to talk to. (Why might be a moot question, but an interesting one still. Get back to that in a minute.) Instead, the media were there to a) spread the news and b) verify the information, to lend credibility. They served as a trust center for another organization’s scoop. Once they got the information, the media then did what they do best: sift through the material and make it more accessible, as well as spread the information.

As Jay Rosen put it, referring to a New York Times editor’s note:

“At the request of the White House, The Times also urged WikiLeaks to withhold any harmful material from its Web site.” There’s the new balance of power, right there. In the revised picture we find the state, which holds the secrets but is powerless to prevent their release; the stateless news organization, deciding how to release them; and the national newspaper in the middle, negotiating the terms of legitimacy between these two actors.

So, why Wikileaks not New York Times? We can only speculate why the internal source leaked the documents to Wikileaks and not to one of the major newspapers. But there are a number of considerations at play here: First, Wikileaks is much harder to subpoena than any traditional news organization that operates under US (or European) law. Second, Wikileaks is by nature very much distributed. They are a true internet-based, decentralized organization, making it harder to suppress information. Third, Wikileaks is independent, donation-funded, without anyone to report to. This can be good or bad, of course. And on certain topics, a political biased can be assumed. But again, it makes it harder to believe there could be a reason for Wikileaks to withhold this kind of information, much unlike the news organizations that also want to send their reporters into war zones as embedded journalists along the military. Fourth, Wikileaks knows about secure communications. Maybe Guardian, Spiegel and New York Times do too, but a source wouldn’t want to take any risks. Wikileaks are strong on anonymity. They are strong on crypto. They really know how to keep communication channels secure and anonymous. All of these combined make them a more secure place to go to than any single newsroom.

Is Wikileaks acting irresponsibly? One could make the case for either the value of keeping information secret, or for absolute transparency. In a military conflict, that’s a tough one. But it seems to be like Wikileaks is going to great lengths to be as careful and responsible as the overall context allows (once it’s decided to publish leaked info, that is). They are holding back a significant number of documents until further review and clean up (think removing names etc):

We have delayed the release of some 15,000 reports from the total archive as part of a harm minimization process demanded by our source. After further review, these reports will be released, with occasional redactions, and eventually in full, as the security situation in Afghanistan permits.

Giving the documents to some trusted traditional newspapers of making sure the information is getting a decent journalistic treatment, followed by full disclosure of all the source material for extra vetting.

In other words, it’s a perfect example of getting it all right: Responsible dealing with the information as well as working the media right.

Jeff Jarvis raises an interesting point in his post: Will leaks like this incentivize organisations not to write down as much because they fear leaks, leading in the long run to less transparency? I certainly hope not, but it’s not a fear I share. Large-scale organizations need documentation, and where there is documentation there is a chance of leaks.

What I’d hope for instead is that the mere chance of leaks alone will lead to more transparency up front. After all, if an organization is more transparent the chance of getting called out on grounds of hiding information is a lot lower.

We’ll have to wait and see. Until then, if you do appreciate this kind of document leak, I do recommend you consider donating for Wikileaks.

How to work The Internets (not!) #1


No 1 of my new series How to work The Internets (not!).

Under the unflattering title “Webtards: Mc Cain And Obama Reps Hold Worst Presidential Debate Ever On Twitter“, Gawker describes John McCain’s campaign video game:

McCain’s game is a sad imitation of Space Invaders, a pixelated smash hit c. 1983, but with pigs in place of the aliens, since it’s about how McCain shoots lasers at pork barrel politics, or something. You just know Obama’s game will be better…

What can I say, they’re right. Here’s the probably lamest campaign video game in U.S. politics:


The Daily Show loves the game, too – jump to ca. 4:17 for the relevant part:


Lesson learned? Assume your potential voters are dumb and/or easily wooed by some cheap-ass video game. (Not!)

ePolitics: What’s happening right now?


I’d like to give an overview over the whole ePolitics space, from online campaigning to e-participation. Of course, that’s hardly possible, so I’m not even going to try. (If you have such an overview, please share in the comments!) Instead, I’ll just point out some things, projects & news that have struck me as interesting lately.

Pew Internet: The Internet and the 2008 Election The Pew Internet & American Life Project has published a new report on The Internet and the 2008 Election (PDF here) which shows that video is gaining traction, and that Americans gather a fair amount of politics-related information online:

A record-breaking 46% of Americans have used the internet, email or cell phone text messaging to get news about the campaign, share their views and mobilize others. And Barack Obama’s backers have an edge in the online political environment.

In other words: The web is getting more important for political campaigns. Expect more to see during the U.S. elections. Personally, I’m interested in seeing the development from here to the next German federal elections in 2009.

Google: Public Policy Talks Google, too, is getting more and more into politics and how they’re changed by the internet. On their Public Policy Blog and in a corresponding series of talks (YouTube channel) they discuss the first 21st century campaign.

Transparency tools online A whole bunch of tools and web projects aimed at increasing transparency and fostering online dialog is being developed as I’m typing this. Ameritocracy (my review here) is one of them that has already launched, it’s a platform for collaborative fact-checking. Zilino is still in the making (launch probably this summer), but judging from what maker Tim has been telling me, it’s going to be pretty awesome. Zilino is on twitter and of course there’s a blog, too. Same goes for the Partnership for Public Participation (PfPP), that will develop a toolkit for e-participation. Simon has updates on the project’s progress and e-participation in general. (Full disclosure: Simon and I share an office.)

Mashups and other fun projects Different players, different approaches: A YouTube channel covers the role of Social Media and the 2008 US Presidential Election, a Google Maps mashup visualizes the 2008 US Primary Results. All the big players have their extra U.S. election pages, like Pageflakes, YouTube’s YouChoose 08 or Digg’s Digg The Candidates. SexyPolitics is proof that politics can be smart, yet sexy.

What else should be on this list? Please share, I’m curious!

Ameritocracy: Beta invites for you


AmeritrocrazyA few days ago I wrote a brief post about Ameritocracy, a collaborative fact-checking platform with a focus on U.S. politics.

The Ameritrocracy team got back to me and was so nice to provide my readers with a bunch of invites to the close beta so you can check it out yourself.

With the invite code “wavingcat” (one word, all lower case) you can sign up here.