The release, by Wikileaks, of tens of thousands of government documents concerning the U.S.-Afghan War gives us a massive and overwhelming quantity of data about the conflict. Most of the documents are ground level reports of encounters, attacks, IEDs, snipings, and so on. These are the daily happenings of a long war, the grunt’s eye view, written up for higher authority in language overwhelmed by acronym.
From 2004:
PROPAGANDA BEING DISTRIBUTED IN LASHKAR GAH, HELMAND PROVINCE, AFGHANISTAN: MULLAH FAZUL RAHMAN, LEADER OF THE JAMIAT UL-LAHMAN PARTY IN PAKISTAN, NFI, IS PAYING UNIDENTIFIED INDIVIDUALS IN LASHKAR GAH (313487N 0642175E), HELMAND PROVINCE, AF, TO DISTRIBUTE PROPAGANDA IN A LETTER/NOTE FORM. THE PROPAGANDA MENTIONS HOW HOST NATION COMMANDERS THAT WORK WITH US FORCES, ARE THE SAME AS AMERICANS; THEREFORE, THEY SHOULD DIE. EACH LETTER OFFERS AN UNSPECIFIED AMOUNT OF MONEY FOR THE DEATH OF HOST NATION COMMANDERS AND AMERICANS. THE LETTERS ARE PLACED AT THE HOMES OF INDIVIDUALS WHO ARE KNOWN TO WORK WITH AMERICANS. NFI.
From 2008:
At 1006Z, TF Helmand reported a Mine Find:
FF were conducting a domination patrol when they discovered 3x AP mines in an irrigation ditch.
EOD will exploit as a routine task, No injuries or damages reported.
NFI att.At 1601Z, TF Helmand reported:
The final report will be submitted through the CIED chain.
NFTR. Event closed at 1554Z.
From 2008:
At 1609Z, 2/7 USMC COY reported an IED Strike:
FF were conducting a mounted security patrol when the struck an IED. FF have assessed the BDA: 3x KIA (USA, OEF), 1x WIA (USA, OEF, CAT A). NFI att.
Others have highlighted some of the specific intelligence, and are wading through the reports to look at each individually. I thought I would use a chart to show the progression of the war:
The blue lines chart the number of “Enemy Actions” that coalition soldiers reported. The red line charts the number of IED encounters that coalition forces had.
The intensity of fighting seems to have picked up in 2006-2007, plateaued a bit in 2008, and then jumped again in 2009. I should qualify that by saying that action and IED reports may also track with the number of troops in Afghanistan (more troops may mean more encounters). Nonetheless, “Enemy Action” reports tripled from 2005 to 2006, doubled from 2006 to 2007, and then doubled again from 2008 to 2009. IED encounters followed a roughly similar pattern. Such a massive increase is hard for me to identify as anything other than the most obvious thing: that Afghanistan reignited in 2005-06, and that the U.S. was not, as of the end of 2009, winning the war.
The Edge of the American West 
14 comments
July 28, 2010 at 1:08 am
ajay
Great chart… What’s the definition of an “Enemy Action” report? Is this a contact between coalition troops and Taliban, or a report of a Taliban attack somewhere, or what?
Also, I assume an IED encounter includes “we found an IED” as well as “an IED went off”; correct? Does it also include “an IED went off beside an ANA patrol/ANP base/civilian minibus”?
July 28, 2010 at 3:56 am
Russ Schoneweis
“.. and that the U.S. was not, as of the end of 2009, winning the war.
Isn’t this why the leaks are not really important, as this fact you show, and the rest, are already known? The reason for the surge, came after McChyrstal came to the same conclusion, and stated a big change in policy was necessary.
July 28, 2010 at 5:39 am
Ben Alpers
I get the sense that if the NY Times had published the Pentagon Papers in 2007 (or 2010), the Bush (or Obama) administration, rather than trying to block their publication or raid Daniel Ellsberg’s psychiatrist’s office would instead simply declare that they were “old news” and everyone (or at least everyone who was “serious”) in media and political circles would just move on.
July 28, 2010 at 5:42 am
Ben Alpers
(Actually, to be fair to the Obama administration, they are aggressively going after Wikileaks. My guess is that the Bush administration would have, too. Attempting to kill the messenger and declaring that the message is “old news” can be complementary strategies.)
July 28, 2010 at 6:00 am
silbey
Great chart… What’s the definition of an “Enemy Action” report? Is this a contact between coalition troops and Taliban, or a report of a Taliban attack somewhere, or what?
Also, I assume an IED encounter includes “we found an IED” as well as “an IED went off”; correct? Does it also include “an IED went off beside an ANA patrol/ANP base/civilian minibus”?
Thanks! “Enemy Action” seems largely to be a coalition unit taking fire, whether small arms (“direct” as they call it) or mortar/artillery (“indirect”). IED reports do include finding them, and seem to include ones that hit ANA vehicles. I’m not sure about civilian.
Isn’t this why the leaks are not really important, as this fact you show, and the rest, are already known?
I’m not sure we know how important the leaks are. In terms of what’s come out now, I would say that there’s nothing there that wasn’t already known by those paying detailed attention. But that’s not the same thing as the general public, and these could serve as a crystallizing moment for public opinion. In addition, there could be stuff in there that no one’s picked up yet: 77,000 combat reports take some time to read and cross-reference.
I suspect that they won’t have a big effect: the documents are probably too low-level for there to be any startling revelations about the administration and if stuff does start to emerge, it’ll be in the coming weeks, when the public has moved on to how Lindsey Lohan is doing in jail. I’ve been badly wrong before, though, so…
July 28, 2010 at 6:39 am
Walt
Lindsey Lohan is in jail? You guys never do posts on the important stories.
July 28, 2010 at 6:58 am
PorJ
I want to second Ben’s thoughts. There cannot be a Pentagon Papers anymore, because it was done at the time of 3 TV networks, no internet, and the birth of the monopoly newspaper age. Each of the papers that published the Pentagon Papers (New York Times, Washington Post, and Los Angeles Times) were protected by profit margins that don’t exist anymore. With a lot less media noise in general, they could drive the agenda in ways that are impossible today.
Plus, it seems like leaks have become so commonplace (the “trial balloon” launched by every Administration is a leak, right? Like when it was “leaked” that Bush wanted to privatize Social Security…) and they are so cheapened that its very difficult to gauge their value.
I give the New York Times credit. It is clearly attempting to drive the agenda – and I hope it works. But it is far easier for the Obama Administration to simply downplay the significance of the leaks than it was for the Nixon Administration.
[By the way: one of the odd parallels is that both the Pentagon Papers and this case focus on revelations under the PREVIOUS administration. Nixon over-reacted – his Administration was never mentioned in the Pentagon Papers. Were I advising Obama, I’d say: don’t over-react. Make this about the Bush Administration’s failed policies….. ]
[There’s also a cynical side of me which wonders if deep down, the Obama Administration is relieved to have a way out of Afghanistan. In other words, this leak isn’t the worst thing in the world; if it can turn public sentiment against the war without damaging Obama too much, it might be an effective tool for scaling back the effort….]
July 28, 2010 at 8:27 am
politicalfootball
would instead simply declare that they were “old news” and everyone (or at least everyone who was “serious”) in media and political circles would just move on.
This column from Kinsley represents the first time I became conscious of this phenomenon, and it still amazes me that it works so well.
July 28, 2010 at 8:40 am
politicalfootball
I give the New York Times credit. It is clearly attempting to drive the agenda – and I hope it works.
Au contraire. It was Wikileaks driving the agenda – the NYT was merely playing its customary role of stenographer. From the NYT’s point of view, this is simply Saddam’s WMD all over again.
I am in awe of Wikileaks. As Bush did, Wikileaks presented the story to the Times in such a way that the newspaper felt compelled to report it. The fact that the Times allowed itself to be played by an organization with decent motives doesn’t change the fact that the Times got played, and you can bet going forward that the Times will again serve whoever knows how to pull the right strings.
July 28, 2010 at 8:50 am
politicalfootball
In terms of what’s come out now, I would say that there’s nothing there that wasn’t already known by those paying detailed attention.
People have a tendency to underplay the importance of stories. There are a lot of new stories here, and the public is well-served by hearing them.
July 28, 2010 at 4:20 pm
Chris J
“[There’s also a cynical side of me which wonders if deep down, the Obama Administration is relieved to have a way out of Afghanistan. In other words, this leak isn’t the worst thing in the world; if it can turn public sentiment against the war without damaging Obama too much, it might be an effective tool for scaling back the effort….]”
That’s actually what occurred to me immediately. Only I’d call it more pragmatic than cynical.
July 29, 2010 at 5:11 am
ajay
It would also make it rather more difficult for Petraeus when he comes back in six months time to ask for more troops for longer.
July 29, 2010 at 10:38 am
rmhitchens
One of many interesting things coming out of this leak, if you can believe what Jon Stewart reported on his hard-hitting news show, is that there are apparently no serious controls on i/o devices for SIPRNet terminals.
August 9, 2010 at 8:44 am
Herbert Browne
*FF were conducting a domination patrol when they discovered 3x AP mines in an irrigation ditch*
I just love that term “domination patrol”… and how it can involve an irrigation ditch (known for the occasional sightings of Taliban submarines) ^..^