Classified Pentagon powerpoint leaked

[Rach3]

Enjoy!

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/11/01/w...&en=ae294d1d13aed188&ei=5094&partner=homepage

Military Charts Movement of Conflict in Iraq Toward Chaos

A one-page slide shown at the Oct. 18 briefing provides a rare glimpse into how the military command that oversees the war is trying to track its trajectory, particularly in terms of sectarian fighting...

There's really nothing unexpected or influential here, the real discussion will of course be, why does NYT enjoy publishing military secrets so much?

 

[turbo]

Certainly, there's nothing in that slide that surprises anybody who hasn't been in a coma for the last few years. The problem is that a large portion of the US populace doesn't pay attention to details of this conflict, and may actually believe Bush when he gets on the 'tube and says that we are "making progress" in Iraq. The NYT is absolutely justified in telling the US public how the military measures this "progress" Bush tells us about, so it can be contrasted with the rosy view of the administration. Given the fact that powerpoint "slides" can be transmitted anywhere with a few seconds of Internet access, I am surprised that the NYT hasn't been getting a steady stream of these. There must be people in the military who are sick of feeding our children into that meat-grinder and would like us to find a way out.

 

[matthew baird]

There's really nothing unexpected or influential here, the real discussion will of course be, why does NYT enjoy publishing military secrets so much?

You know, I have been asking myself the same question since this conflict has been going on. Why does the media find it necessary to give strategic information over national tv? They say that "the public has a right to know what's going on", I say bs, at least not when it is happening. CNN has been a major intelligence source for the enemy, that is just plain wrong. I don't want to argue about whether the conflict is right/wrong, that is irrelevant, can we all agree that the general public has no buisiness knowing every detail of any war as it is happening?

 

[Astronuc]

You know, I have been asking myself the same question since this conflict has been going on. Why does the media find it necessary to give strategic information over national tv? They say that "the public has a right to know what's going on", I say bs, at least not when it is happening. CNN has been a major intelligence source for the enemy, that is just plain wrong. I don't want to argue about whether the conflict is right/wrong, that is irrelevant, can we all agree that the general public has no buisiness knowing every detail of any war as it is happening?

Because the information is known already to the enemy, but its news only to the American public which the Bush administration wants to keep in the dark.

CNN is not a major source of intelligence for the enemy.

The American public is the last to know.

Besides, the really good stuff is still classified.

And there is stuff that the US/UK/NATO/Israeli intelligence services don't know about anyway.

 

[matthew baird]

True Astronuc, the good stuff is kept secret. When I saw CNN on the Israel/Lebannon border counting tanks and telling positions, it just makes me upset. Why does it matter if we know?

 

[Office_Shredder]

What this proves is that the government really isn't capable of creating a warning index better than green yellow red. If our traffic engineers can plan a war as well as our generals, we're screwed

:D

 

[Astronuc]

What this proves is that the government really isn't capable of creating a warning index better than green yellow red. If our traffic engineers can plan a war as well as our generals, we're screwed

Most of the generals were over-ruled by Rumsfeld. The Joint Chiefs of Staff have been shutout by Rumsfeld. Then Gen. Garner's plan to involve former Baathists (30,000-50,000) and Iraqi military (~350,000) excluding the top two or three layers was ignored. Garner warned if those people were excluded then they would go underground and start fighting the US. Well, that's exactly what happened.

Within the last year, various people in the administration (NSC, Pentagon, State Dept, . . . .) have conceded that they screwed up early in the war, i.e. they should have done what Garner had suggested, or something similar.

The military never got control of the entire country, and certainly, did not secure the borders. We know that since the advanced IED's are coming into Iraq from Iran and elsewhere.

Meanwhile, the attacks on US military and Iraqi security and population have steadily increased, even though Bush says the US is winning and that the 'terrorists' are on the run, and he will 'stay the course'.

 

[devil-fire]

True Astronuc, the good stuff is kept secret. When I saw CNN on the Israel/Lebannon border counting tanks and telling positions, it just makes me upset. Why does it matter if we know?

a lot of the reports that start with "my name is joe blow reporter and I am standing next to 4 abram tanks in a vally just north of bagdad" are usually reports that are not live and that have the expressed permission of the service people they are with. its rare that CNN will broadcast usable intelligence. the more common 'leaks' are things like the CIA using secret prisons around the world for people who were formally considered missing persons and things like this that are official classified documents that contain information that contrast with the information given to the public for the basis of their voting. if bush says "vote for us, we've brought iraq back from the brink of total destruction and in doing so we have gained a friendly ally in the middle east whereas my opposition would have us leave now and discard these gains" when in reality there seems to be more damage done to american security interests the longer american soldiers are there, then this is something the public should really be aware of in a democracy (not to imply this is specific tone of this document, but just that this would be a case where classified materials might be of better use to a country if they are made public)

 

[turbo]

if bush says "vote for us, we've brought iraq back from the brink of total destruction and in doing so we have gained a friendly ally in the middle east whereas my opposition would have us leave now and discard these gains" when in reality there seems to be more damage done to american security interests the longer american soldiers are there, then this is something the public should really be aware of in a democracy (not to imply this is specific tone of this document, but just that this would be a case where classified materials might be of better use to a country if they are made public)

Right on the money. Another thing is that this administration (and the military that is controlled by them) classifies EVERYTHING they want to hide from the US public regardless of whether it has any intelligence value. That stupid slide was a case in point. Everybody who watches the news and watches the news stories carried on the web by news bureaus that are not kowtowing to the Bush administration already knows everything that was on that slide. Not a bit of it was secret or of any intelligence value. The only reason that such a slide would be classified is to prevent its dissemination to the voters and to provide a means to punish anybody who leaked it.