IT’S THE sheer volume of leaked documents – 91,000 in all – which is staggering, rather than their contents. In truth the WikiLeaks collection of Afghanistan military reports are largely low-level “field updates”, reports on individual operations that give a flavour of the difficulties for the US in conducting its war but offer few new insights and no great secrets. The leaks, dismissed by the Pentagon as nothing new, are unlikely to cause major domestic complications for the Obama administration, though providing ammunition for anti-war Democrats in the House holding up a $33 billion war funding bill.
It has been compared to the publication in 1971 of the Pentagon Papers, but the latter did actually cause a political earthquake in revealing both the scale of the gap between President Lyndon Johnson’s public promises to wind down the Vietnam war and his real intention to widen it, and the illegal bombing of Laos and Cambodia.
On the international stage, however, the leaks have the potential to further strain relations with a key ally by appearing to confirm widely rumoured claims of collusion between Pakistan’s military intelligence service, the Inter-Services Intelligence directorate (ISI), and Taliban insurgents in Afghanistan. Many documents report claims Pakistan helped the Taliban plan attacks on US forces in Afghanistan and their Afghan government allies even as Pakistan receives more than $1 billion a year from Washington for its help combating the militants. A few reports also describe co-operation between the ISI and fighters aligned with al-Qaeda.
Late last year, President Obama warned in a letter to Pakistani president Asif Ali Zardari that the US would no longer put up with the contacts, and there have been signs of a greater willingness to take on insurgents militarily. Substantial US aid is still flowing with secretary of state Hillary Clinton in Pakistan last week with a pledge of $500 million in additional cash.
US intelligence agencies believe ISI elements maintain contact with and may even in some cases support the Taliban and its allies, but that assistance is being slowly curtailed. They believe, however, that Pakistan still sometimes uses insurgent groups to try to increase its influence in Afghanistan and to undercut arch-rival India’s interests and regional influence. Washington has also praised efforts by the ISI’s director general to clear out Taliban supporters within the organisation.
Islamabad has implausibly denied the allegations, arguing that the WikiLeaks reports simply reflect unsubstantiated gossip. It has taken the opportunity also to warn that the leaks expose deficiencies in US security that may threaten Pakistan’s future willingness to share information – a pointed rejoinder to traditional US expressions of concern about the security of the country’s nuclear weapons. But the leaks, by bringing into the open the unacknowledged sore point of the relationship, will certainly increase pressure on Pakistan to mend its ways. That, from Washington’s perspective, might even cast WikiLeaks in a somewhat positive light.