21 August 2010

Who's Hiding What and Why?

Who's hiding what and why? More on Wikileaks. Great questions....one's not being asked by our statist media. What are Christian conservatives in the United States saying?

Here's a link to a post by Fred Reed.

Word of warning. Fred is not a Christian and can be a little borderline. What I mean is...a little crude at times. I have hesitated to post links to him before, but we're all adults here, and I think he's often worth the read.

It's another example of an unbeliever engaging in honest discussion and evaluation. He understands the world far more than the Christians writing over at American Vision or any of the other similar sites. Does he get it all right? Of course not. But as I keep saying over and over, he's willing to ask the questions those with specific agendas are unwilling to even ask. Does he have a Christian worldview? No, but the Sacralist writers don't either......
Who's hiding what and why? This is more on the Wikileaks issue. These are great questions....one's not being asked by our statist media. What are Christian conservatives in the United States saying about this issue? They want treason trials and executions....no interest in finding out the truth.

Fred's ex-military, an expatriate, very insightful and sometimes hilarious. Obviously I cannot endorse everything he says, but like I said, we shouldn't be afraid to ask questions and read things that challenge us a bit.

So, you've been warned....

I went ahead and posted his text here, but I included the link to his actual site up above.


Who's Hiding What and Why
July 30, 2010

by Fred Reed

Two ways exist of looking at Wikileaks, the site that publicizes secret military documents and videos. The first is held self-interestedly by the Pentagon and by Fox News, the voice of an angry lower-middle class without too much education. These believe that Wikileakers are traitors, haters of America, who give aid and comfort to the enemy and endanger the lives of Our Boys.

Implicit in the Foxian view is a vague idea that the leaks give away important—well, stuff. You know, maybe frequencies of something or other, or locations of ambushes or, well, things. Important things. The Taliban will use this information to kill American soldiers. The notion is vague, as are those who hold it, but emotionally potent.

The other view, held usually by people who have some experience of Washington, is that the Pentagon is worried not about the divulging of tactical secrets, but about public relations. Wikileaks doesn’t endanger soldiers, insists this way of looking at things, but the war itself, and all the juiceful contracts and promotions and so on entailed by wars.

Which is obvious if you look at what the military (the president, remember, is commander-in-chief) actually does. Remember the military’s frantic efforts to suppress the photos of torture at Abu Ghraib, photos of prisoners lying in pools of blood while grinning girl soldiers play with them? These had zero tactical importance. They did however threaten to arouse the Pentagon’s worst enemy.

The American public.

In recent decades the military has almost achieved its wettest dream, the separation of wars from the American population. The fielding of a small volunteer army prevents the riots on campus that helped to end the adventure in Asia long ago. “Embedding” reporters with combat units pretty much prevents coverage that might upset people. The media for whatever reasons are now complicit, declining to air what really happens on the ground. All of this allows ghastly behavior, which is what wars always produce, to go forward with little opposition.

Ah, but leaks, YouTube, holes in the wall of silence—these pose real threats to the flow of contracts.

If you don’t think that contracts—money—have a great deal to do with wars, reflect that all those hundreds of billions of dollars end up in pockets, and those pockets do not belong to soldiers. Makers of body armor, boots, ammunition, helicopters, on and on, are rolling in gravy. All this half-watched loot flows in cataracts at the price of at most sixty dead American kids a month (and lots of brain-damaged droolers, but what the hey). A bargain. Afghans don’t count.

Note that the Pentagon’s orchestrated screaming has not been about technical data that might in fact get GIs killed, but about revelation of the ugly things the US is doing to people. Consider the footage of an American helicopter gunship killing pedestrians in a city street, and apparently having just a swell time doing it. This didn’t reveal military secrets. But it showed the gusnip crew as the butchers they are. Bad juju for the military. PR is all.

The pattern holds. Remember when the White House furiously suppressed video of torture? The Taliban would have garnered no tactically devastating details. But men screaming, choking, crying, bleeding, begging—even the patriotic might gag.

Why are the fun and games at Guantanamo kept secret? Watching a man die under torture does not make it easier for the Taliban to ambush Marines. In no way would it endanger American forces. But it would endanger the war. The golden goose.

Then there was the photo of the hideously wounded and dying GI that was (miraculously) published in the New York Times. SAD Robert Gates (Secretary of Alleged Defense) said that the publication was “irresponsible.” Oh? How so? The Taliban could have gotten no militarily useful pointers from seeing an expanse of red gushing meat (the leg looked to have been nearly severed). But people in Kansas might look and think twice about the war.

The whole profitable circus rides on keeping things abstract. The war isn’t children looking at their entrails in brief puzzlement as they bleed to death. (Just what do you think happens when you bomb a village?) No. It is about Islamo-fascism, the Gates of Vienna, national security, the War on Terror, and it is done with precision weapons that kill only the evil ones.

Remember when Bush II forbade the photographing of coffins coming back into Dover AFB (I think it was)? That lamentable president said the prohibition was to “protect the privacy” of the dead. (The inside of an anonymous coffin isn’t private?) Those photos contained no military information—but they could have made the public think. Bad. Very bad.

The Taliban can keep the war going, which is fine for the military, but they can’t end it. The American public could. No more contracts.

Can you think of a single instance in which the information to be revealed was of military value? The detailed workings of an IED detector? The name of a Talibani secretly working with the US? The date and place of an attack by a team of Special Forces? Or is the suppression always aimed at keeping Americans in the dark?

There is of course a great deal to hide in any war, but particularly in one such as that in Afghanistan. In any guerrilla war, the soldiers quickly come to hate the locals. In Afghanistan, as in Viet Nam, virtually no American speaks the language, the “intelligence” outfits are clueless, the troops don’t really care who they kill, and pilots bomb according to their own or some intel weenie’s guess as to who they see on the ground. Atrocities, intended or not, occur daily. All of this has to be lied about, concealed, papered over. Concealed from the American public, I mean. The Afghans already know about it.

It works. A decade into the war, Fox cheerleads onward, interviewing former CIA thisses and military thats, generating a warm glow of togetherness aimed perhaps more at liberals than at the Islamo-whatevers. The Wickileakers are putting Our Boys in danger as they risk their lives for Freedom and Democracy.

Next to sex, the strongest human instinct seems to be to form groups and hate other groups. I have long suspected that the bulk of humanity has more glands than neurons. It never changes. I need a drink.


David said...

Thanks again for what you do here on this site. It's really important, but most Christians aren't willing to go down this road.

Protoprotestant said...

Thanks for the encouragement. I know there are people reading. The Google-blog program tells me that, but I'm not always sure if people are coming out of morbid curiosity or if they're genuinely interested.

I think it's important. I'm glad you do too!

John A.

Anonymous said...

Yes, it is important to bring up these issues and ask hard questions and probe assumed positions. It is uncomfortable. When I was under that sacral deception, that spirit of nationalism, I was so sensitive to the tiniest challenge of Americanism or conservatism. That spirit insulates itself behind emotional resistance and self-righteousness and pride in those under its influence. I immediately wrote off the one bringing the challenge as "liberal" or "wicked" or "not bible believing" so I would not have to think through their arguments or assertions. When Christ set me free from the powers of this world, and I dared to forsake my long-held opinions and prejudices to be taught of Him, I became able to calmly look at all things and evaluate them by the Holy Spirit in light of the Scriptures. I entered into such peace. I am free to examine all things, no longer jerked around and manipulated and worked up by issues and carnal reactions. I no longer have a stake in any "side" of an issue, so I am no longer offended and defensive, or belligerent and fighting. I am merely a follower of Jesus, Who has already overcome the world.

I hope more and more sincere seekers will leave behind the deception of sacralism and nationalism, and in that freedom become the living witnesses of another King and Kingdom, not of this world, one that is already here in our hearts, yet still to come fully over the earth at Jesus' return.

Thanks for the site.