- Image via Wikipedia
One rather important moral concern about WikiLeak’s leak of information about the war in Afghanistan is whether this leak will result in people being killed. The main concern is that the Taliban has made it clear that it will be going through all the documents looking for the names of those who have helped Americans. They intend, of course, to kill those people.
The most obvious and probably the most plausible view regarding the ethics of the situation is that it would be morally wrong for WikiLeaks to leak documents containing such names. This can be argued for on the grounds that the actions of the folks at WikiLeaks would play a role in the death of other people and playing a role in the deaths of other seems to be clearly wrong. It can also be argued for on the grounds that the folks at WikiLeaks made it clear that they regard themselves as obligated to not cause such deaths. As such, a fatal leak of this sort would violate their own apparent moral standards.
Of course, there are cases in which leaking information that causes deaths is seen as not being bad. For example, the United States is rather busy trying to get information about terrorists, the Taliban and other enemies in order to kill them. Obviously, folks in the government and the military would be fine with such leaks.
Naturally, the folks in the Taliban regard the leaks that help them in the same way. This then pushes the moral debate back a bit, from the ethics of leaking to the moral status of those who use such leaks to their advantage.
As I see it, the United States has a clear moral edge over the Taliban. This is not so say that the United States is morally pure. Far from it. However, a comparison between the United States and the Taliban will show that the Taliban is considerably more evil. To use but one area of concern, one has but to consider how the Taliban treats women to get a clear picture of the evil committed by the Taliban. In contrast, the United States advocates the view that women are people and should be treated accordingly.
It must be noted that from the perspective of the Taliban, they are in the right (and on God’s side) and the United States is in the wrong. As such, the folks in the Taliban no doubt would regard any leaking of such names to be a good action. They, no doubt, would also regard the murder of those they regard as collaborators as just actions. In this they would be mistaken.
It’s never right vs. wrong. It’s always wrong vs. greater wrong. See Hegel’s theory of tragedy.
Ok, I’m working here in a field where I get to read all the reports and I get a pretty good idea of what’s going on. Without getting specific, I can say that people are terrified to make their country a better place through cooperation with us. They want to cooperate, they know it’s for their best. But the Taliban controls them through fear. That’s why we’ll never get around the fact that we must kill the incorigibles. And we must win hearts and minds, not just “go kinetic” or win hearts and minds. We must do both.
Julian Assange helped the Taliban. Even if names are not in the reports–which they actually are–he still helped the Taliban. People now know that at any time, information can just be spread to the four winds.
And Mike, you must address that this man broke US law. We have systems to deal with bad things that go on behind closed doors. This man Assange circumvented all of that, all for his own selfish reasons. He put himself above our laws and above our security. It’s a classic hacker mentality. Assange is a hacker.
It’s just like in the military: You can disobey an order if you think it’s unlawful. But you better be right. When those above you consider your actions, they better come to the same conclusions you did, or you’re hosed. If Assange found documents that shgowed Americans wiped out whole villages for the fun of it, or that battle commanders were endorsing the mass raping of women, then he’d have a case.
But there’s little in these docs besides intel that will embolden our enemies, scare our friends, and further deepen national cynicism.
Thanks, Julian.
I’m over here working 12-14 hour days , seven days a week. Many other soldiers are putting their lives on the line–daily. I mean they go outside our bases, walk on patrols just waiting to get shot at. And this idiot, the psuedo patriot, Assange, is just throwing info into the laps of the people who are trying to kill me. The Afghans don’t even know you can’t take a crap near water you drink, and we’re trying to show them different.
But somehow, there’s a portion of our population that applauds what he’s doing. He out-did The Man. Wow. Now these poor dirt farmers are scared to come to us so that we can show them how to rotate crops. What a damn hero he is.
“As more detail of the information contained in the ‘Afghan war logs’ emerges it appears clear to me that, despite his protests otherwise, Julian Assange has seriously endangered the lives of Afghan civilians. The logs contain detailed personal information regarding Afghan civilians who have approached NATO soldiers with information. It is inevitable that the Taliban will now seek violent retribution on those who have co-operated with NATO. Their families and tribes will also be in danger. That danger should not be underestimated”~Daniel Yates, former British Intel officer
I’m of the opinion that the latest WikiLeaks info leak is intended to impress US citizens with the need to crack-down on such organizations/websites.
If the leaked documents do contain the names of informants, aren’t such informants routinely given pseudonyms by their handlers? In which case their real names shouldn’t be “out there” anyway.
As for the US and moral evil, the CIA has been in Afghanistan for many years now . . . al Qaeda and the Taliban being some its own handiwork.
al-qaeda and the Taliban are not the handiwork of the CIA.
Who’s the greater evil?
The Taliban, once our friends when they were fighting our enemies, trained, armed & funded by us? They didn’t change, WE did. When we found we couldn’t do business with them (re: meetings with the Taliban in Texas in 1997 I think) we wanted to remove/replace them. A small group using fear & murder to get a population to do as it wants.
The U.S., that has killed more civilians than the Taliban has since 2001. Though less fundamentalist than the Taliban the U.S. has a massive military forcing a small country to do as it wants, using fear (a foreign army ‘allowed’ in by a puppet leader installed by the U.S.)
The irony? That the Taliban, Al Queda (if it formally existed) & Bin Laden were all funded, trained & backed by…the U.S.
‘Evil’ & ‘bad guys’ are rather useless words in conflicts like this, your history may make you as bad as them, just in a different way.
Is ‘evil’ based on motives or bodies?
What are your motives based on, your needs or the supposed needs of others?
Why has it taken so long to take action if the motives are purely for the people of that country?
Is your country is going to benefit most from its invasion of that country, i.e. is the stablisation you’re supposedly bringing to the region mainly for the conduct of your own business there?
What’s the difference between a Taliban soldier shooting down a helicopter belonging to forces occupying the country in the 1980’s & now?
W
People do tend to regard as evil what goes against what they like and good what serves what they think is in their interest. So, the Taliban killing Soviets was “good” for us then. Taliban killing Americans is bad for us now.
You are both wrong. Study history and stop thinking CNN gives you everything you need. We were never friends with the Taliban. In fact, the Taliban was established as an answer to the post-Soviet incasion Mujihadeen.
Mike, you really, really should know better. The Taliban did not exist as an instrument for fighting the Soviets. It was established in 1996 when Mullah Omar claimed the cloak of Muhammed. The Soviet–Afghan war ended in 1989. The Taliban was created to fight the factionalism that ensued in a civil war and to establish a “purer” form of Islam based on former Muslim radical Sayyid Qutb’s view of things. Just because both groups involve Islam and Afghans doesn’t make themm the same. On fact, Omar and bin Laden had very little influance in the Soviet war. Omar gained power becuase he was brave enough to don the Prophet’s cloak in Kandahar. Bin laden gained power because he had lots of money from his family.
We never funded the Taliban.
We knew they were dangerous long before this war.
You both need to get your facts straight. Sorry, this is my job. Argue about something else with me.
Will said:
“The U.S., that has killed more civilians than the Taliban has since 2001”
And because you think you can throw lies like this out there, I’m calling you a damn fool. I promise you we are not killing more civilians than the Taliban.
Oh–and Will, we didn’t fund al-Qaeda either. That, too was established well after the Soviet war.
Sorry, got a bit sloppy due to lack of sleep and way too much work. I should have said “when the Afghani groups that gave rise to the Taliban were killing Soviets we saw that as good. Now that there are Afghans killing Americans, we see that as bad.”
The Taliban grew out of the the Mujahadeen, it’s a fundamentalist Wahhabist sect believing the same things as Usama Bin Laden. Al Queda was actually formed in 1987-88, DURING the Afghan Civil War, by Bin Laden WHILST he was a CIA asset. & yes, the CIA funded Bin Laden & helped channel funds from Saudi Arabia via Pakistan.
& yes, the Coalition Forces in Afghanistan HAVE killed more civilians than the Taliban. Funny you should resort to name calling when you tried to answer at the beginning with facts. There are various human rights groups (probably communists to you) that make those figures available. How do you “promise” such bullshit when you are in absolutely no position of power?
The U.S. DID fund the Taliban, remember when they gave them something like $42 Million to destroy the opium trade. & that was open news, or does that not count?
I say we’ve been lied about the reasons for the invasion, based on proof we’ve never been privy to. & the reasons used for invading Iraq are just embaressing, then & now.
If facts are your job you should really try harder.
Besides, this is meant to be a Philosopher’s Blog isn’t it? I argue the ethics & motives of killing, in the name of ‘good’ or ‘evil’. Patriotism should be something to examine here rather than wrap oneself in it.
W
Like I said, it is never right vs. wrong but wrong vs. greater wrong. We are never given the choice of supporting the side who is completely pure.
Will, are you just pointing out that the U.S. is wrong, or do you believe the U.S. is the greater wrong?
Exactly TJ.
I urge anyone willing to read about facts, and not just listen to what Mrs. Huffington has to say, to read two books, if they wish to know about our situation in Afghanistan.
First would be Ghost Wars, by Steven Coll. Don’t worry, he’s no right wing war hawk. He’s a Pulitzer Prize winner. I learned form Ghost wars that there was a series of choices balanced on a razor’s edge during the Carter, Reagan, Bush and Clinton years. Most of the important choices were not obvious. Basically we were forced to make the choice that produced the least harm, not the one that produced no harm–there was no such choice.
Then I’d recommend, In the Graveyard of Empires, by Seth Jones, a RAND analyst.
Don’t go off blurbs you hear in the news.
Off the subject a bit: I don’t think we can win here in Afghanistan. It will be the same–somewhat worse actually– in 10 years. But we’re not making things worse now. Things will get worse when we leave. Of this I have no doubt.
“Besides, this is meant to be a Philosopher’s Blog isn’t it? I argue the ethics & motives of killing, in the name of ‘good’ or ‘evil’. Patriotism should be something to examine here rather than wrap oneself in it.”
It’s one thing to cherry-pick facts to prove your point. It’s quite another to present false facts, which you and the doctor have done.
It’s a leftist’s wet dream that we’re making things worse in Afghanistan.
I don’t think that is a correct generalization. I think most people (left or right) want things to go well in Afghanistan. However, they do disagree about how to make this so. True, there are some folks who delight in disaster that they can exploit or that seems to vindicate their agenda. Such a person might even hope for failure. Such people are, of course, morally misguided at best.
I would love to wake up someday to the news that Afghanistan is a stable, functional democracy. Hell, I would love the whole world to be that way.
I have so little time, and yet I guess I still have to sit here and show you that wikipedia isn’t giving all of the info.
1)”The Taliban grew out of the the Mujahadeen”
Virtually every Afghan male who could pick up a weapon was a member of the mujihadeen. Again, the taliban was formed in response to out of control mujihadeen commanders after the war. They (the Muj) became gangsters and weren’t all the Islamic.
2) “& yes, the Coalition Forces in Afghanistan HAVE killed more civilians than the Taliban.”
Where are yoiu getting those numbers?
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/asia/taliban-killing-thousands-of-civilians-1867267.html
http://www.lasvegassun.com/news/2010/aug/13/taliban-blamed-for-sharp-rise-in-afghan-casualties/
3) “There are various human rights groups (probably communists to you) that make those figures available. How do you “promise” such bullshit when you are in absolutely no position of power?”
References please. I have no doubt that human rights groups show lots of casualties from NATO. But thoise same groups tend to ignore the Taliban numbers. They don’t track them. And many of the deatrhs a re result of anarchy, not NATO or Taliban. But it’s the Taliban that wants anarchy to erode support for NATO. The insurgents and rebeols are killing civilians everyday. But that’s not big news. A NATO airstrike that kills 4 people is big news.
4) “I say we’ve been lied about the reasons for the invasion, based on proof we’ve never been privy to. & the reasons used for invading Iraq are just embaressing, then & now.”
Well, please enlighten us as to the REAL reason, Will.
5) “Al Queda was actually formed in 1987-88, DURING the Afghan Civil War”
I’ll give you this one. However, it gained primary relevance when the group moved to the Sudan, in the 90s and they did not start a world-wide jihad until the late 90s. But yes, bin laden gathered Arabs to form his gropup in the late 80s.
I guess I don’t understand what your argument is. It seems that it’s all part of the tired old liberal mantra: America deserves whatever bad she gets.
Just a quibble. You’ve done a creditable job of referencing 2 and the references there support your 3.
But, going against your own demands, you provide no reference for your response to 1.
“Again, the taliban was formed in response to out of control mujihadeen commanders after the war” Was this an internal rebellion, or an external response to the”out of control . . . commanders”? The unanswered issue for me is whether the taliban (a)”grew out of the mujahideen” or whether it was (b) a result of the mujahideen. Western responsibility would be more direct if (a) since more mujahideen would become taliban and we were heavily invested in the mujahideen, but more of an unintended consequence if (b) where it’s somewhat less likely to me that large numbers of the mujahideen would become taliban members.
“The U.S. DID fund the Taliban, remember when they gave them something like $42 Million to destroy the opium trade. & that was open news, or does that not count?”
Again, Will, reference that.
Is this the same Will that I used to go ’round with? The one that teaches at USC?
Am I missing something in the Cato reference “I” supplied you with yesterday? (8/13 2:17pm)
Would someone please straighten out this Mujahideen, Talliban, Al Queda thing for me? http://www.differencebetween.net/miscellaneous/difference-between-taliban-and-mujahideen/
Is there a hard and clear line to draw between the Mujahideen and the Taliban?
Did we and a few other nations support through money and training and likely arms, the mujahideen vs the Soviets? Is it possible that, as the US was assisting certain Afghan groups against the Soviets that, in making their ‘razor’s edge’ decisions they trained some of the very people who have killed our soldiers since 9/11? Is or has money flowed, trickled, dripped or seeped to the Taliban from the US? Has the funding come directly from the US or indirectly through Pakistan? Re the claim by Will about givnig money to the Taliban and the counter-claim that we never did : “The Bush Administration gave the Taliban $43 million in May 2001 for their destruction of Afghan opium crops in February.” This from “wikimir” whatever that is . . .
or from this source? http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=3556
Who is correct?
Yes or no: Money been made available by our government to certain unsavory types who could have used that money for nefarious purposes counter to our best interests?
Simple yeses and noes to all the above questions would suffice. Which is the morally correct side is debatable ad nauseum, but I doubt that the choice between US and the Taliban hinges on the answers to the above . The recent Time Magazine cover should prove more convincing for most than a few questions and answers. To bring it closer to home. Would you side with the religion that condemns bigotry to the high heavens or one that goes out of its way to find passages in the Bible that ostensibly support bigotry and preaches bigotry as part of God’s way?