Nine Game-Changers of 2010 So Far

The secret files on Afghanistan exposed dishonesty even among allies, and the paradox of modern warfare and insurgency.

The WikiLeaks exposure of 91,000 secret military documents is one of those “black swan” events in the 24-hour news cycle. It may disappear from cable news headlines in the next few weeks, but its legacy will linger at the “Jungian” level of our collective unconscious as a major historic event, not only in 2010, but for much longer.

Paradoxically, this will not be because the documents reveal anything substantially new (other than the disputed friendly fire deaths of four Canadian soldiers). It will be because the disclosure brought to the attention of the general and voting public, in such vivid fashion, what was generally known only to elites: the brutal paradox of modern warfare and insurgency and the absence of honesty and truth even among so-called allies.

Among the same general public – in the U.S., in Canada, and elsewhere – the revelations will also trigger some debate about the other growing paradox of democratic societies, namely the tug-of-war between the interests of national security and the interests of democratic accountability and truth-telling by elites.

In a direct and public plea, the White House, the Pentagon, and NATO allies such as Canada have stated that the leaks are putting NATO soldiers and Afghan allies’ lives at risk and that the Taliban is combing the documents to identify Afghans working with the ISAF forces.

On the other hand, WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange has also engaged in a world-wide public debate over the whether the leaks were justified, considering that, in his view, the files revealed the occurrence of war crimes. According to Assange, the documents show that coalition forces have killed hundreds of civilians in unreported incidents and that Special Forces carried out assassinations and detentions without trial. This critical debate over national security, transparency, and democratic accountability will continue in many parts of the body politic long after the 24-hour news cycle forgets it.

For Canada, the legal implications that could arise from the leaks may be tied into the as-yet undisclosed extent of any Canadian involvement or complicity in any U.S. and other NATO military actions that may have contravened the Geneva Conventions. Such suspicions are part of what fuelled the recent controversy over the Afghan detainee documents.

Perhaps the greatest lasting impact of the leaks will be the greater public dissemination of the claim that Pakistan – ostensibly an ally – and its intelligence service (the ISI) were aiding and fuelling the insurgency. This was not news to many in governmental, expert, and academic circles in the countries involved in Afghanistan. However, the more the general public gets to know the extent of the duplicity – which involved not only the ISI but also the present and former heads of the Pakistani military in collaboration with the ISI – the more that citizens of the coalition countries fighting under the ISAF banner may realize that the war, as it is being fought, may not be sustainable even beyond next year’s termination of Canada’s combat role.

This will not mean the Afghan operations weren’t justified. As President Obama and the Canadian parliamentary resolutions have asserted, the war against the Taliban and al-Qaeda, at its initiation, was a war of necessity in the wake of September 11, 2001. As a NATO ally, Canada had a legal obligation to engage with the coalition forces in operations against the Taliban and al-Qaeda. Later, the UN agreement with the Karzai government legitimated the Canadian involvement further. But it is now generally acknowledged, even by senior U.S. military commanders, that there is not going to be an easy victory in or even a clear outcome to this nine-year insurgency operation.

What the leaks may accomplish beyond this year is to make a growing number of Americans and members of Congress (along with similar publics and elected members of other ISAF countries) demand a paradigm shift in the way the war is conducted, to prevent the unsustainable loss of blood and treasure. Already more than 100 Democrats voted in Congress against the $97 billion budget for continuing operations in Iraq and Afghanistan in the wake of the leaks.

This growing pressure may see, in the coming months, the U.S. and other ISAF countries pushing Pakistan to deal a crushing blow against the most radical Taliban networks and al-Qaeda operating in the Pakistani tribal areas, even if this means these jihadists also train their sights on Pakistani targets, as they have savagely done so recently. It may well be that the leaks could lead to the majority of moderate citizens in Pakistan demanding that their military’s duplicity cease in order to resolve not only Afghans’ problems but also their own growing jihadist threats.

Likewise, similar pressures will be brought to bear on the need for Pakistan and other regional players such as India, China, Russia, the Central Asian Republics, Saudi Arabia, and perhaps even Iran to develop a regional solution that does not depend on continuing the duplicity that is claiming the lives of thousands of Afghans, Pakistanis, and ISAF soldiers in order to seek advantages over foes near and wide. If the recent leaks can force democratic publics to demand a sustainable regional peace that can only be achieved with enhanced truth, transparency, and justice while vital national security interests and those citizens’ lives are protected, its impact as a “black swan” event will reverberate for many years to come.