The Wikileaks and the Historian's Dilemma
I think what Wikileaks did was wrong. You cannot have diplomacy without discretion, and diplomacy is essential if you propose to have peace. Without a doubt, dumping these cables into the public realm has destroyed lives, and will probably get people killed, if it hasn't already. It has harmed our diplomats' efforts to do a job that is essential not only to American security, but to the security of everyone with whom they come into contact.
But--you knew there was a but, didn't you?--I'm a historian by training. I've spent years studying and thinking about American policy in the Middle East. This latest leak--a quarter of a million cables!--is a gift from heaven to anyone who is curious about what's going on in a region where so much is usually opaque. Generally historians have to wait a very long time to see this kind of thing and FOIA the living daylights out of the government to get it; they learn the story only long after it is all said and done.
I wrote about the pleasure of archival research in my book about Margaret Thatcher:
I bring up her handwriting because we are about to spend an afternoon in the Thatcher archives. Dull? Not at all. This is where we actually see and smell and touch the fossil record of history, the documents stamped CONFIDENTIAL and SECRET -- words that always give me a pleasurable frisson, even if the documents in question are tables of inflation statistics, long-since declassified. This is where we see her handwritten notes on speech drafts and policy memos – mostly illegible, alas, let the graphologists make of that what they will – but some of them perfectly clear and revealing indeed. This is where we snoop through the notes and memoranda passed to her by her advisors under cover of that SECRET stamp, the documents that say the things politicians wouldn’t dream of saying in public. This is the good part.
My doctoral dissertation concerned American arms transfer policy to the Arab-Israeli zone between 1967 and 1988. It was based in part on cables like the ones that have just been released. I travelled from archive to archive to look at them--the National Security Archives, the Johnson library in Austin, the Nixon library in Alexandria, the Ford library in Ann Arbor, the Carter library in Atlanta. I dragged two huge suitcases stuffed with photocopies and notes back to Oxford with me; they were so heavy that I had to pay exorbitant fees to get them on the plane.
So how could I not be fascinated by the Wikileaks?
I've been reading the cables obsessively in every spare minute I have. They are better-written, better-informed, more rigorous and more credible than 99 percent of the English-language journalism I see coming out of this region. Some of what I've found in the cables from Turkey is jaw-dropping. It might not seem jaw-dropping to American readers, but when you know enough about the local scene to put some important remarks in their context, they are truly enlightening.
The cables are greatly expanding my knowledge of recent Turkish history, the history of this region, and the role the United States has been playing. In a perfect world, someone would pay me to read them all day and then write a book about them.
Would it be right to do it? On the one hand, they are in the public realm. That can't be undone, and since it happened, historians and journalists have an obligation to try to make sense of them. On the other, it's very clear why many of these cables were classified. Perhaps it's the better part of wisdom to draw no attention to them.
The media seems to be bored with them already, more preoccupied with its various feuds with Assange than with the contents of the documents. It's possible that only a handful of people are reading them. There's a real irony here: Leak a hundred cables, and they'll be on the front page of every newspaper in the world. Leak a quarter of a million, and they may as well have stayed in their crypt. Boredom, laziness, and the world's short attention span have done a better job of obscuring them from the wider public than any scheme James Jesus Angleton might have dreamt up.
I doubt I could even interest publishers in a book about them. It's probably a moot point.
But if you love the fossil record of history as much as I do, it's pure gold--in a private way.
- Comment (20)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (3)
Comments :
May '10
Re: The Wikileaks and the Historian's Dilemma
You tease! What did you learn?!?!
May '10
Re: The Wikileaks and the Historian's Dilemma
Very cool. (if you're in to that sort of thing).
One thing that continues to amaze me is how few (practically zero) embarrassments there've been for Israel. You just know people are looking -- and hoping.
(You Jews must be even more clever than we thought to continue to keep your conspiracies hidden.) :-)
Jun '10
Re: The Wikileaks and the Historian's Dilemma
I guess you could capture a lost era in history by writing about the Wikileaks cables--when diplomats still had foreign sources that would talk to them.
Jun '10
Re: The Wikileaks and the Historian's Dilemma
The problem with stuff that would normally remain secret for a time is the underlying assumption that if the "public" knows somehow the process is more legitimate or honest or even more forthright. At the risk of diverting a discussion on a very legitimate need for historians to know at a point when it is safe to make public information, the public in general does not, nor should it, have the right to know before time. To cite but one egregious and rather more neutral example: How was the course of justice served by Judge Ito's allowing cameras in his courtroom during the O.J. Simpson trial? It is as important for judges to resist the urge to turn themselves into circus clowns as it is for diplomats to think themselves safe in the practice of their profession.
Now, I know diplomacy is different from a legal proceeding; but there is no denying that the difference lies in the fact that diplomacy is almost always significantly more important than a tawdry murder trial that at best affects only a few persons.
Edited on Sep 9, 2011 at 9:18pmRe: The Wikileaks and the Historian's Dilemma
No, check out the YouTube comments section on a random video- it's all been figured out before. Something about the Illuminati, Israel, and Madonna...
Re: The Wikileaks and the Historian's Dilemma
Cas, this one is full of legitimate moral dilemmas. I don't want to draw premature conclusions, because there are, literally, a quarter of a million new cables to read and I've read maybe 200 at most. But what I've read has made me wonder if some of the calumny I've heaped upon Obama has been warranted. The most important negotiations in this region have been kept out of the press and kept out for good reason--but the consequence of this has been the impression, which I've shared, that the US isn't involved in a meaningful way. It serves the interest of truth to point out what I'm noticing (although again, I've seen only a tiny fraction of it). It may not serve my country, however, to which I'm loyal.
Oct '10
Re: The Wikileaks and the Historian's Dilemma
Re, Claire. In a sense one might agree that some information has been made available before its time. This opportunity may be a one off as it were, save it provides a glimse into what is current and living prior to dry hard copy.
To have a peek behind the curtains should be usefull and provide wisdom.
However, working some truths into the varied fabric in the storytelling texts of history makes for consternation.
In short, the more data the better. Have no problem with that.
Mar '11
Re: The Wikileaks and the Historian's Dilemma
“The problem with stuff that would normally remain secret for a time is the underlying assumption that if the "public" knows somehow the process is more legitimate or honest or even more forthright.”
Cas, you’re quite right about this. And not to get wildly off topic, but this assumption about knowledge lies beneath the entire Enlightenment and much of the project of modernity. You might even say that the degree to which you agree with the proposition that the diffusion of knowledge in this way is 1) possible and 2) desirable because it leads to better outcomes, is the degree to which you support that project.
“I don't want to draw premature conclusions…”
Claire, this provokes the old question of whether or not it is possible for the historian qua historian to serve in that capacity with regard to events that are nearly contemporaneous to them, or whether some distance is necessary for the work to be done properly.
"....When diplomats still had foreign sources that talked to them"
The Westphalian world order does seem to be under fire from every direction in our time....
Jul '10
Re: The Wikileaks and the Historian's Dilemma
There is a reason that confidential materials are scheduled for general release long after the matters they involve are "history". Ultimately, the Bush Administration will be held responsible along with Bradley Manning and WikiLeaks. The materials stolen and published were exposed owing to the zealousness with which the Administration assured the promulgation of potentially critical classified data to anyone that might be able to utilize it to improve national security at a time, 2001, when intelligence was caught flat footed and barriers to information exchange protected federal fiefdoms rather than the American people. There are systems in place to prevent this sort of mass spill many places in the federal government, just not everywhere. After adding $5T of deficit spending, who wants to bet that the Regime has plugged all those holes? Or any of them?
Information spilled before its time can make history as well as convey history. The Obama/Clinton foreign policy extravaganza is a fragile enough creature without the unprecedented challenge of the WikiLeaks fishbowl.
Jun '10
Re: The Wikileaks and the Historian's Dilemma
Claire, setting aside the moral dilemmas for a moment, every leak is political. This is especially so when the leaker is a senior government representative. Granted it is usually a newspaper reporter that information is leaked to, but even if the recipient were a historian that person should be painfully aware that they are being used for a political purpose.
Wikileaks is unusual and markedly different, but it is political none the less. Again to cite a more neutral example: When counting votes, as was the case with Bush-Gore in Florida, there is only one apolitical vote count, and that is the first count. Every count after the first is political.
As much as I love history, and as much as I would defend your access to information, Claire, I would also expect that you, as both a journalist and historian, would be aware of when you were being used for some other's purpose. Most times reports want the information so desperately that they forget that by agreeing to receive it they have tacitly agreed to become someone's political tool.
Edited on Sep 10, 2011 at 12:44amRe: The Wikileaks and the Historian's Dilemma
To say the least. I wish this were a widely-understood point.
Oct '10
Re: The Wikileaks and the Historian's Dilemma
Fascinating exchange . . . apologies in advance if this is deemed too far off-topic. But in a sense it really is not . . . or so I’m claiming.
The country is at war. A duty-bound, oath-swearing member of its Armed Forces took deliberate, calculated actions that he knew in advance would significantly harm the nation’s war effort. Can anyone explain to me why this isn’t treason? If it is treason, why is he still alive? We execute the treasonous in war time, do we not? Or have we lost that bit of self-respect too?
While I perversely covet the insights Claire can bring forth thanks to this tsunami of revealed secrets, I pray fervently we will have the wisdom to discourage it ever happening again by imposing the ultimate sanction as swiftly as establishment of facts beyond a reasonable doubt will allow.
May '11
Re: The Wikileaks and the Historian's Dilemma
I have no idea what is in the Wikileaks documents, because the government has decreed that anyone with a secret clearance is forbidden to read them. While I think this is unconstitutional, and pointless, I have no wish to rock the boat.
But I will say this: Julian Assange is a creep and his organization is one I don't much like, but let's face it, he's not an American and it's not his business to safeguard our secrets. If he didn't publish them, someone else would have and it makes no difference to me whether it was Julian or Vladimir Putin.
The only villain is Bradley Manning. He was the traitor. He should be strung up by a rope.
Others were fools, such as those that allowed extremely sensitive diplomatic cables to be readily available on the Secure Internet Protocol (SIPR) network where every PFC in Afghanistan and Iraq has easy access.
Jan '11
Re: The Wikileaks and the Historian's Dilemma
If you keep the cards visible all the time, is it still poker?
Diplomacy is more than having interests and seeking them. It also involves prioritizing your interests, and being willing to pursue some interests instead of others. Those priorities, and the decisions about which interests to pursue at any given time, are strategic decisions.
Wikileaks attacks the ability to create strategy, which is perfectly within your rights to create. Instead of maximizing freedom, it undermines an essential one.
Re: The Wikileaks and the Historian's Dilemma
Seriously? I'm shocked by this--on what grounds? What are you supposed to do if you see a newspaper headline about them and you suspect the article might quote one--avert your eyes?
Oct '10
Re: The Wikileaks and the Historian's Dilemma
Claire Berlinski, Ed.
Seriously? I'm shocked by this--on what grounds? What are you supposed to do if you see a newspaper headline about them and you suspect the article might quote one--avert your eyes? · Sep 10 at 7:42am
Read it and weep.
"Pentagon to Troops: Taliban Can Read WikiLeaks, You Can’t"
http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2010/08/pentagon-to-troops-taliban-can-read-wikileaks-you-cant/
Mar '11
Re: The Wikileaks and the Historian's Dilemma
Claire Berlinski, Ed.
Seriously? I'm shocked by this--on what grounds? What are you supposed to do if you see a newspaper headline about them and you suspect the article might quote one--avert your eyes? · Sep 10 at 7:42am
This has more to do with the appropriate use of DoD NIPR machines and the possibility of having potentially classified material on networks not designated for such purposes. This is assuming of course that the material being distributed by Wikileaks does actually comprise accurate classified State Department cables, that possibility of course is something that anyone with a SECRET clearance or above has no opinion on whatsoever and any such inquiries are to be made to the DoD Press Operations Center.
May '11
Re: The Wikileaks and the Historian's Dilemma
No, this is definitely not limited to NIPR machines. They have no need to tell us what is allowed on NIPR machines because they filter that (though no filter is perfect). They specifically said that it applies to your home computer and the newspaper as well.
Mar '11
Re: The Wikileaks and the Historian's Dilemma
Now you have me wondering if the left hand is talking to the right hand. That's not how the directives I've seen were written, but then heaven forbid the Air Force coordinate with the other services.
Apr '11
Re: The Wikileaks and the Historian's Dilemma
Claire -
I have a buttload of questions regarding this post and comments so far, but I wish (initially) to ask, how does one train to be a historian? (That's not meant as a snarky question, but a sincere one.)
Because as my nieces point out, "You're dupid, Unca Steve."