The "leak" of 91,000 US/NATO and Australian intelligence documents on July 25, 2010 appears to have been a passively authorised leak by the Obama Administration (if my theory is correct). While Obama professes outrage at the "leak" and demands an international legal response this is but a political facade of a newby signifying nothing. US IT security passively and intentionally watched as the documents cache was downloaded by the main suspect, Bradley Manning in one of the US Department of Defence (DoDs) highly protected and monitored data security establishments. I'm not saying Manning is bad - just helpful to Obama. Hopefully Manning is not nailed by the system.
First some political motivations - on Obama's part. With this fortuitous Wiki "leak" the accelerated US withdrawal from Afghanistan can be justified and facilitated downstream with minimal political damage to Obama's battered image. The many journalists and commentators round the world who advocate withdrawal now have a comprehensive database on which to put up a case to gradually turn US public opinion against the war. Meanwhile the "leak" allows Obama not to be seen as another "Jimmy Carter", that is a US Presidential "wimp". A wimp who pursued a less aggressive, less expansionist US foreign/defence policy than his Republican predecessor and the American public demanded. Carter was preceded by Republican Presidents Ford but mainly Nixon (of Vietnam fame). Obama has been politically unable to rein in the expansionist Bush Doctrine as it relates to (and destroys) Afghanistan.
Obama has calculated that great political danger lies in being seen to “decide” to withdraw from Afghanistan. It is far better to be seen to accede to US public will for an accelerated withdrawal prior to the all-important 2012 Presidential Election. Obama, of course, is not only a highly intelligent President, but also the front man for a whole army of creative US Democrat foreign policy and electoral strategists whose cunning and amorality can be surprisingly effective. With Obama's low standing in the polls some seriously creative spin doctoring is required - which is where Wikileaks comes in. A little support theorising is here.
US technical security is probably the second best in the world, after China's of course. This means that Manning, who telegraphed his displeasure about his DoD employer on Facebook, months before July's "leak" would have been collared by US security - unless the plan was to overlook his activities. This is in contrast to the FBI's post event vigilance in interrogating Manning's ailing mother on Welsh soil.
If an "authorised leak" can be achieved by security neglect ("turning a blind eye") then this Wiki "leak" qualifies. This assumes that the Obama White House is a political competitor rather than effective boss of the well entrenched US military-industrial complex (MIC - new acronym). This competitor status means that Obama needs to use strategies of stealth and surprise to undermine the pro-Afghan War position of the MIC (complete with its politicised Generals and transnational defence companies that are all powerful in the US).
Means of turning a blind eye include a quiet word to the FBI (IT and human security) and the usually civilian, likable even cuddly, NSA to selectively tone down standard security surveillance of Manning, who was notionally a marked man due to previous run-ins with authority. Some selective pressure on some figures in US Defence Security Service must also have been essential. With Manning being intentionally ignored he (or another naughty person) would have had little technical trouble according to this IT security expert in fiendishly forwarding the Wiki "leak" from the US DoD database to Wikileaks.
Content of the "leak"
While there is little dramatically new in the "leak" itself, its value lies in long term analysis and "exposes" of the information in the run-up to the 2012 Presidential Election. The leaked material highlighting Pakistani intelligence (ISI) or even the Iranian covert involvement in Afghanistan is also old news but useful for Obama's ultimate intention to withdraw and then to shift US focus to Iran (a new, shiny, mission for the US DoD).
The sheer size of the "leak" reinforces the probability that it was an authorised "blind eye" leak. Like any covert and deniable action finding proof to back the theory may be near impossible (at present) however the passage of time frequently loosens the lips, keyboards and USBs of those who wish penance and therefore salvation.
As Wikileaks said, much was apparently edited out of the documents even before the US DoD got wind of the "leak". Editing of 91,000 documents takes long experience, considerable manpower and a set of criteria acceptable to the US Government. I therefore suspect the US Government actively assisted in editing out the most dangerous (anti-US) details. This would have taken several weeks at least. Expressions of Obama outrage, which handily keeps the issue in the public eye, must therefore be tempered by the probability of US clerical co-operation in this withdrawal enhancing “leak”.
Many believers in the sincerity of the White House and the US Defence Department may see this “Wikileak Re-Elects The Chief Honcho” (WRETCH) theory as somewhat farfetched. But this misses the point that intricate conspiracy triumphs over dull, pathetic, reality, any time, any where. Is it not more plausible than the belief that Mr Abbott has dropped his True Religious Agenda or that Ms Gillard has a skerrick of natural charisma? Compared to the activities of Watergate's Committee to Re-elect the President (CREEP) and homegrown attempts to use national security for re-election (Howard/Haneef) WRETCH speaks truth.
Conspiracy must be harnessed to light up our own electoral lives. Mr Assange (Wikileak's top bwana) can and should engineer a few high level Australian leaks before young Julia's inevitable re-election. Out of sheer patriotism Mr Assange owes it to the country that he left to bring a little lustre to this pathetic, knuckle dragging contest of Abbott's Speedos and Gillard's "nighzals".
Discuss in our Forums
See what other readers are saying about this article!
Click here to read & post comments.
2 posts so far.