XtremeSpeakFreely

A six-year archive of classified military documents made public on Sunday offers an unvarnished, ground-level picture of the war in Afghanistan that is in many respects more grim than the official portrayal.

The secret documents, released on the Internet by an organization called WikiLeaks, are a daily diary of an American-led force often starved for resources and attention as it struggled against an insurgency that grew larger, better coordinated and more deadly each year.

The New York Times, the British newspaper The Guardian and the German magazine Der Spiegel were given access to the voluminous records several weeks ago on the condition that they not report on the material before Sunday.

The documents — some 92,000 reports spanning parts of two administrations from January 2004 through December 2009 — illustrate in mosaic detail why, after the United States has spent almost $300 billion on the war in Afghanistan, the Taliban are stronger than at any time since 2001.

The archive is a vivid reminder that the Afghan conflict until recently was a second-class war, with money, troops and attention lavished on Iraq while soldiers and Marines lamented that the Afghans they were training were not being paid.

The reports — usually spare summaries but sometimes detailed narratives — shed light on some elements of the war that have been largely hidden from the public eye:

• The Taliban have used portable heat-seeking missiles against allied aircraft, a fact that has not been publicly disclosed by the military. This type of weapon helped the Afghan mujahedeen defeat the Soviet occupation in the 1980s.

• Secret commando units like Task Force 373 — a classified group of Army and Navy special operatives — work from a “capture/kill list” of about 70 top insurgent commanders. These missions, which have been stepped up under the Obama administration, claim notable successes, but have sometimes gone wrong, killing civilians and stoking Afghan resentment.

• The military employs more and more drone aircraft to survey the battlefield and strike targets in Afghanistan, although their performance is less impressive than officially portrayed. Some crash or collide, forcing American troops to undertake risky retrieval missions before the Taliban can claim the drone’s weaponry.

• The Central Intelligence Agency has expanded paramilitary operations inside Afghanistan. The units launch ambushes, order airstrikes and conduct night raids. From 2001 to 2008, the C.I.A. paid the budget of Afghanistan’s spy agency and ran it as a virtual subsidiary.

Over all, the documents do not contradict official accounts of the war. But in some cases the documents show that the American military made misleading public statements — attributing the downing of a helicopter to conventional weapons instead of heat-seeking missiles or giving Afghans credit for missions carried out by Special Operations commandos.

Not a big surprise.

Also not sure why you decided to bold that one sentence. The heat seeking missiles are obviously not being used to as great an impact considering we have not lost that many aircraft.

Just as an example of the censoring our government commits.

Like they have in every war in history. Whats the point? What difference would it have made if people knew they were using MANPADS? None.

A big F*** difference. Its a difference in history. I never believe one word that has ever came out from military anyway, regardless of what flag they fly. The US is no exception. I always wondered why manpads was never reported much, and now I know why.

Oh yeah, what is this big difference? And why were they not reported much?

The powers that be don't want the public to know the true threat. Its better to sell a war against a few rag heads with badly aimed AK's.... than sell a war against a few rag heads with Ak's and Manpads, AND implicit Pakistan Security Service support in both arms, money and planning.

The war has reached a state of revulsion now. Did you know that NATO routinely pays off local taliban warlords for clear passage? Its just a self serving cycle.

The powers that be don't want the public to know the true threat. Its better to sell a war against a few rag heads with badly aimed AK's.... than sell a war against a few rag heads with Ak's and Manpads, AND implicit Pakistan Security Service support in both arms, money and planning.

The war has reached a state of revulsion now. Did you know that NATO routinely pays off local taliban warlords for clear passage? Its just a self serving cycle.

Yeah you are right. I mean those MANPADS just make all the difference

Well they did against the Soviets didn't they? oh wait they didn't really... but on CNN and in your average living room they did.. Indeed they made all the difference on public perception back in the mid 80's. And the reverse can happen if you let it out now.

How do you know it made all the difference?

I think it doesn't matter the 2 occupations occurred for different reason, and so have different sentiments from the public.

Having public opinion on your side helps. Having public opinion not on your side becomes very difficult. I know these are hard concepts to grasp, but try and keep up...

What I think you are having a problem grasping is the wars are being fought for completely different reasons and so I do not think it would have made any difference in public opinion.

What is the reason we are in Afghanistan today?

You claim that in the Soviet war that picturing the MANPADs made a difference. Prove it.

Which is.....?

Seriously? Same reason as yesterday, as last year, as the year before that and the same since we went there after 9/11.

Guys on the forums aren't taking anything for granted as you have a tendency to b1tch them out for putting words in your mouth. Opinions do vary on the reasons we are in Afghanistan. Public opinion on the matter seems to be changing. The fastest growing opinion seems to be coming from the "We're there because we are stupid" crowd, followed closely by the "because thats where Osama wants us" group.

If the numbnuts from New York is not able to understand why we are in Afghanistan, then I am not going to explain it to him.

Whether we are being effective or not, whether it is a smart decision, is irrelevant to why we are there.