Afghan leaks (2)

A few more random thoughts on the documents and the related stories . . .

1. The reports (and therefore the stories they're based on) are mostly ground level/unprocessed reports, and they will be criticized as such. It's true that they are very susceptible to rumor and the like, but they are not as far off or as inaccurate as some will claim. The biggest problem is reading them out of context. So: a grain of salt, not a bagful.

2. There are a lot of references to ISI (Pakistani intelligence) in the documents - don't buy the critics' 'no smoking gun' defense.

3. The documents aren't an argument for or against involvement in Afghanistan. What they are is an argument that Pakistan is not the gung ho ally some have pretended it is.

4. The Guardian, which was the other paper that initially began reporting on the papers, has an interesting animated graphic that shows where IED attacks have taken place. Let the graphic run and draw your own conclusions. (Graphic page is here.)

5. You didn't think the Secretary of State's saying that Pakistan knew where Osama was last week was just a coincidence, did you? Do you believe it now?

6. The Pakistan connection is the most explosive bit in the stories from a MSM point of view, but there are many other interesting facets. My favorite so far (I haven't finished reading) is the one about the aircraft tasked to shoot down the UAV - do you get a little tally marker on the fuselage for that?