WikiLeaks' Spoiler and Sponger

By Alan Caruba

Julian Assange first came to public notice when he was caught hacking into the computer networks, including that of Nortel, a Canadian communications firm. In 1995 he escaped prison time after admitting to twenty-five charges. He was fined and released.

He has since made headlines worldwide as the spokesperson for Wikileaks, the Internet site that dumped 79,000 pages of classified data related to the conflict in Afghanistan. As this is written, the Taliban is going through it to find the names of informers who assisted U.S. and NATO forces deployed there.

As noted in a commentary in the August 2nd Wall Street Journal by L. Gordon Crovitz, “Taliban leaders have since told Britain’s Channel Four they are using WikiLeaks data to hunt down Afghans who helped NATO. Taliban ‘justice’ including hanging, beheading and strapping people to explosives and detonating them in public.”

WikiLeaks was founded in 2006 and Assange is a member of its nine-member advisory board. He comes from what I call the Daniel Ellsberg School of Treachery, named after the man who released the “Pentagon Papers” to The New York Times in 1971. The Vietnam War was already winding down. Nixon’s response was to enjoin the Times from publishing, but a 6-to-3 Supreme Court decision cleared the way.

The Pentagon Papers confirmed what Americans already knew by then. The Vietnam War had begun in earnest with a lie by President Lyndon Johnson and had failed thanks to various corrupt South Vietnamese governments despite having 537,000 U.S. troops there by 1968. By 1971, troop levels had fallen to 213,000. The war was over but for the complete withdrawal.

The leaked information was offered to The New York Times, Britain’s The Guardian, and Germany’s Der Spiegel. Drawing a lesson from the Pentagon Papers, the White House and Pentagon offered a very muted response to the WikiLeak posting. The news was met with a public shrug.

Eventually, but never soon enough, our troops and those of our NATO allies will leave Afghanistan. The bloodletting in Afghanistan and elsewhere throughout the Middle East will continue because it is enslaved by a seventh century religion intent on imposing its will on the world. Do not doubt we shall have to return at some point.

Reportedly, U.S. officials want to apprehend Assange so it is no surprise he has not made any recent appearances here, although I saw him on television when he granted an interview to the BBC. Being anti-war is a reflexive and fashionable liberal preference, but I don’t know many people who are actively pro-war. Remember, though, U.S. military operations in Afghanistan and later Iraq were initially popular.

The Telegraph, a London newspaper, reported “(Assange) has already said he would ‘deeply regret’ any lives being lost as the result of the leak, but stood firm in his conviction that it was a risk worth taking because of its importance ‘to the history of the war’.”

The Afghan war has been going on now since 2001 and, other than the Taliban, there are few people, including those charged with waging it, who want it to continue.

The data Assange received is widely believed to have come from a young American intelligence analyst, Pfc. Bradley Manning. If he is found guilty by a military court, it constitutes an egregious act of treason.

Assange’s receiving and disseminating classified information should merit putting his name on an Interpol most wanted list, but I doubt that the current administration will pursue him. At the very least he has aided and given comfort to our nation’s enemies.

Aside from his obvious skills as a hacker and an inventor of free software, Assange’s life would likely be described as a loser. Born in Townsville, Queensland, Australia in 1971, his parents ran a touring theatre company. He has said that was enrolled in 37 schools and six universities during his early years. He appears to have no real roots.

An article in The New Yorker reported that he was married to his girlfriend in “an unofficial ceremony” at the age of 18 and they had a son. She left him when the Australian Federal Police came knocking on the door to charge him with hacking.

Hackers are, by definition, a loathsome and dangerous group. They are the digital version of break-and-entry criminals.

WikiLeak is funded by the Berlin-based Wau Holland Foundation. Given Assange’s work history, it should come as no surprise that he lives off the donations of those who think making war against the enemies of the West is a bad thing.

In the meantime, Assange continues to travel the world pretending to be a crusader seeking only the truth.

The truth is that he is a spoiler, an intruder, and a sponge off of mushy liberals who members of the Taliban and al Qaeda would gladly behead.

When U.S. and NATO troops do finally leave Afghanistan, a massacre will ensue.

© Alan Caruba, 2010

A General Revolt

By Alan Caruba

He hasn’t been “the decider” very long, but the general outline of Obama’s governing philosophy so far as military and international affairs has already emerged. He’s all for talking to Iran, the Taliban, the Cubans, and any other known enemy of the nation.

I had serious doubts about Bush’s conduct of the war in Iraq. I was wrong. He not only saw it through to success, but he has given America a strong ally in a part of the world that is coming apart in places like Pakistan.

Why would the United States ever want to pull out any more troops from Iraq beyond that agreed to? Why would the United States commit more troops to the internal, external, and endless warfare of Afghanistan? And what the heck is the rush to leave all about?

That, however, is Obama’s game plan. Largely unnoticed by the public, however, is the unhappiness of our generals. Consider that the nation expended considerable treasure and the blood of our troops to produce a result few, including myself, predicted; an Iraq that just held its second, successful and peaceful election, and an Iraqi military that is increasingly taking over the duties of our troops.

In a report by Gareth Porter, a foreign policy analyst and author of several books on the warfare, he noted that CENTCOM commander, Gen. David Petraeus and Secretary of Defense, Robert Gates, along with Joint Chiefs Chairman, Adm. Mike Mullen, met with Obama on January 21st and were unsuccessful in convincing him to reconsider his campaign pledge to withdraw all U.S. troops in 16 months.

As we have clearly seen, Obama’s campaign promises exist to be broken and the signing of a huge “stimulus” bill filled with thousands of earmarks is just the latest example.

“Obama’s decision to override Petraeus’s recommendation has not ended the conflict between the president and senior military officers over troop withdrawal, however,” said Porter. The generals are continuing to pressure Obama to change his policy and Obama is going to discover that dismissing the advice of senior generals is usually a bad idea.

Americans, historically, have almost always resisted going to war, but once engaged, they do not want to lose. Abandoning Iraq at this early and crucial stage of a hard won peace is a very bad idea.

Among other nations, Iraq borders Iran and Syria, as well as Kuwait and Saudi Arabia for whom it serves as a buffer against Iranian expansionist ambitions. Nearby, Turkey is sliding toward an increasing Islamist future unless its generals secure its secular government against such a prospect.

Porter reports that “A network of senior military officers is also reported to be preparing to support Petraeus (and Gen. Ray Ordierno, the top commander in Iraq) by mobilizing public opinion against Obama’s decision.”

In sum, President Obama is facing a potential revolt among his senior military advisers. Iraq is an essential U.S. bulwark in the Middle East and leaving it at a time when Pakistan is coming apart in the face of an insurgent Taliban effort to grasp control of its government is a very bad idea.

Add to this Iran’s bellicosity, complete with demonstrations of its offensive missile capacity and potential nuclear capability and you have an extremely dangerous situation brewing.

Obama has sent any number of signals to our enemies in the Middle East that he favors their point of view. Closing down the detention facilities of hardcore terrorists in Guantanamo by next year catered to the limp leftists that support him, but it demonstrated a lack of judgment, particularly since he has no idea what to do with the detainees. Some of those released have long since returned to the battlefield.

Offering nearly a billion dollars to rebuild Gaza when Hamas remains a terrorist organization also calls into question his judgment. This is further exacerbated by the fact that such funding could do a lot more good here at home. It ignores the estimated 6,000 rockets fired into Israel since it unilaterally withdrew from Gaza in 2005.

Americans have a long tradition of electing generals to serve in the White House. Jackson, Grant, and Eisenhower come quickly to mind. If Petraeus whose successful “surge” put an end to al Qaeda ambitions in Iraq were to be forced out by the Obama administration, he could emerge as a candidate for President in 2012.

For now, however, the prospect of a quiet, but persistent revolt of the generals against Obama is very much in the cards.

Remember, military officers take an oath similar to federal civilians to “defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic.”