Political Spinning of the WikiLeaks Release: Anti-war Whistleblowing or War Propaganda?
The following commentary is reprinted with permission from Global Research.
The Political Spinning of the WikiLeaks Release: Anti-war Whistleblowing or War Propaganda?
© Larry Chin
Source: Global Research
July 29, 2010
Since the release of classified U.S. military papers by WikiLeaks, the material has been aggressively spun by various political factions. Meanwhile, virtually no attention has been devoted to investigating the source of this “leak”, or questioning the agenda behind it.
According to the Associated Press, a U.S. official who spoke on condition of anonymity stated that the U.S. government is not certain who “leaked” the 91,000 documents to the online whistle blowing web site.
The White House has expressed no intense concern. It did not block the release or deny the material. Government officials, led by President Obama, have almost casually dismissed the exposé as nothing new.
The major mainstream newspapers that had full early access to the material — The New York Times, Der Spiegel and the Guardian — also had ample time to frame and steer the discourse surrounding it, and (particularly in the case of the White House-friendly New York Times) conduct damage control.
Leak as anti-war fodder
The new material obviously adds to what is already known for years: U.S. forces are mired in a dirty and horrific war, and committing atrocities and war crimes. Corruption is rampant, allies are despicable and untrustworthy, and there appears no end in sight.
For critics of U.S. policy, the exposé reinforces their tired call for the war to end. However, the value of these particular papers (in terms of turning public opinion against the war) is questionable. This is not a potent high-level Pentagon Papers-type leak, and today’s society is a far cry from the 1970s.
Today’s acquiescent, ignorant and grossly manipulated mass populace — one that fully embraces and supports the manufactured “war on terrorism” –wholeheartedly supports any and all means to “prevent another 9/11”. A decade of Bush-Cheney criminality and mass murder failed to trigger any interest from a general U.S. population that has been shocked into servitude, and further brain-addled by ubiquitous corporate right-wing media. Another day, another massacre.
Leak as imperial war propaganda
Where the WikiLeaks papers gain significance is in the detail revealed about the operations of Pakistan’s Inter-Services Intelligence directorate (ISI) and, more specifically, the manner in which leading government figures and the media have interpreted these items.
The ISI is being accused of “undercutting” U.S. operations, “conspiring with” and aiding the “powerfully resurgent” Taliban and Al-Qaeda in Afghanistan, aiding the killing of U.S. forces, and organizing “networks of militants” across the region. An all-out propaganda attack against Pakistan led by the White House is underway.
Essentially, Pakistan is being branded as a terrorist state and a worthy target of military attack, along with Iran, which is also fingered by the WikiLeak for backing Taliban militants within Afghanistan.
Hamid Gul, former ISI chief and major regional player, accuses the U.S. of orchestrating the exposé to shift attention away from the U.S. government’s “own failings”, in order to “force Pakistan’s hand on policy in Afghanistan”.
According to Gul “they [the Americans] want to bash Pakistan, at this time to come up with this leak. I refuse to believe it is not on purpose.”
The Obama administration, eager for a pretext to escalate the Central Asia/Middle East (resource) war into Pakistan and Iran, has certainly found ammunition with the WikiLeak exposé.
Perhaps not coincidentally, the “leak” occurred just prior to a new $33 billion/30,000 troop surge for Afghanistan was signed in the U.S. Congress, and ahead of a possible military attack on Iran, which former CIA Director Michael Hayden says is “inexorable”.
The glaring omission
As accusations and attacks on Pakistan and its “terrorist ISI” rise in intensity, not one mainstream media report mentions the fact that the ISI is a virtual branch of the CIA, and one that operates on behalf of Anglo-American policy.
It is fact that the ISI, with full Anglo-American direction, has long been a driving force behind “Islamic militants” and “terrorists” throughout the world, including “Al-Qaeda”. The CIA and ISI have cooperatively fomented instability and tension throughout Central Asia and the Middle East, playing all sides for geostrategic gain. This “strategy of tension” is one of the hallmarks of the “war on terrorism”. The ISI was also directly involved with the false flag operation of 9/11.
According to Michel Chossudovsky
“The ISI actively collaborates with the CIA. It continues to perform the role of a ‘go-between’ in numerous intelligence operations on behalf of the CIA. The ISI directly supports and finances a number of terrorist organizations, including Al Qaeda.”
If the ISI is responsible for terrorism, the funding and aiding of “Islamic militants”, and the killing of U.S. forces, logic dictates that its big brethren — the CIA and officials in Washington — are also guilty and involved.
The manner in which the ISI is under fire, while omitting any mention of the ISI’s guiding superiors in Washington speaks to a deliberate anti-Pakistan/pro-U.S. bias.
Whose political weapon?
Until the source of this WikiLeak is revealed, along with the motive for the “leak”, all that remains is a political Rohrschach Test, open to interpretation.
The ultimate beneficiary is whatever faction controls the interpretation.
In the end, only Pakistan and Iran have been politically damaged, while the Obama administration has a new pretext to escalate and intensify its continuing resource war.
Larry Chin is a frequent contributor to Global Research.
[Blogmaster note: Michel Chossudovsky, who is mentioned in this report, is Professor of Economics at the University of Ottawa and Director of the Center for Research on Globalization. He is a published author and contributor to Encyclopaedia Britannica.]