Certain Doubt

Julian and Goliath

Monday, August 30th, 2010

I find the efforts of Julian Assange and his anonymous band of merry “Wikimen” to be admirable. Trying to combat a growing world trend towards opacity in government is a noble cause. However, I’m very much afraid they are too little, too late.

The sheer size of the juggernaut that is the modern American security state, the huge number of people, and the vast sums of money spent to keep classified information secret render any efforts by Wikileaks moot. The recent cache of 75,000 documents released to the Guardian, the New York Times and Der Speigel may seem like a staggering number. But the cache is a teardrop in the ocean compared to the number of classified documents produced every year by the United States government. As diligent as Wikileaks is, they can’t possibly keep up with the tsunami of pages of information that the American public has a right to know but will never see. They are no match for the legions of Homeland Security bureaucrats dedicated to keeping Julian Assange and others like him from getting access to that information. They are also no match for the legions of propagandists dedicated to spinning and marginalizing any leaks that do occur so that the effect of their release on public opinion is nullified. In short, obtaining and publishing a few classified documents is simply not going to stem the tide of secrecy in the United States.

Several commentators have attempted to draw parallels between Assange and Daniel Ellsberg. Because the Pentagon papers had an effect on ending the Vietnam war, many believe that Wikileaks can do the same for Obama’s war in Afghanistan. I believe, however, these comparisons to be specious. Ellsberg was a leaker who went directly to the newspapers with information he had helped create. Wikileaks by contrast, doesn’t do any of it’s own hacking or spying. It merely acts as a facilitator, a middleman, a warehouse of information to which leakers can come to disseminate secrets. Totally different animal. Totally different effect.

Also the times are totally different. During the 60’s and 70’s, media outlets like The Washington Post and CBS news not only had the ability to change public opinion, they reveled in their role as independent commentators. Nowadays, the fourth estate is totally toothless. Virtually all media outlets are owned by multinational corporations. Faux news outlets such as Rupert Murdoch’s FOX, Disney’s ABC, and General Electric’s NBC dominate what people hear and see. In contrast to previous generations, modern news broadcasting seems to see its role as being a cheerleader for different political party lines. As both major parties agree on promoting war this virtually assures that public opinion towards military actions such as those in the Middle East will not change.

Moreover, propaganda and message management has been honed to a fine craft. The introduction of “embedded reporting” spelled the end of independent war reporting. Can anyone imagine Walter Cronkite being allowed the freedom to report on the conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan the way he did in Viet Nam? Or take the Pentagon papers. Assuming Daniel Ellsberg managed to find someone who would print them today they would be marginalized in the media and largely ignored by a public anesthetized and dumbed down by a steady stream of beer ads, football, and “reality TV.”

But the main reason why it is too late for Assange and company to change history is that the only constituency that really matters, the Obama administration, is deaf to their message. The same coalition of ideologues and corporate cronies who brought forth the invasion and occupation of Iraq and Afghanistan during the Bush Administration are still calling the shots… and they are not about to change course because of a few leaked documents. If you doubt this, consider the following:

1 The Downing Street Memos: The closest thing to a smoking gun you will ever find that proves President George W. Bush took America to war based upon a lie. The Downing Street memos created a small stir when the first came out and then were quietly and successfully buried in the press. The Obama administration shows absolutely no interest in opening an investigation.
2 The Bybee Memo: The infamous Bybee memo which in effect legalized torture: By itself, this document should have been enough to charge principals in the White House with war crimes. But again, after an initial furor the memos were buried.
3 Warrantless Wiretapping: The spying on American citizens without a warrant, a program in which, by his own admission, George W. Bush knowingly broke the law – and then lied to the American people about it. A policy such as this surely should have been considered grounds for impeachment. However, not only has the Obama administration failed to investigate, they have reinforced and institutionalized these surveillance policies. And the press has resonded without so much as a whisper of doubt.

Now we have the Wikileaks cache – what the Guardian and the New York Times refer to as “The Afghan logs.” It is perhaps not surprising that the governments response has been to excoriate Wikileaks in the press, claiming that Assange and his friends have “blood on their hands,” for releasing the documents. There have been calls for everything from indicting Wikileaks to tarring and feathering Assange. (Something that is currently happening with the recent molestation allegations against the Wikileaks founder.) But once again, the only thing that truly matters to the government is marginalizing the information contained in the Afghan logs and nullifying the effect they have on public opinion.In many ways, the Obama administration seems less worried about what the documents contain and more worried about making sure they do not negatively affect the public’s perception of the conflict.

Nowhere is there any interest in the press or the Government to respond to the documents honestly with an eye to questioning the wisdom and efficacy of the policies that produced them. In this regard, Wikileaks efforts have to be judged as a failure.

Julian Assange and Wikileaks may be fighting the good fight against government secrecy. But they are out manned, out gunned, and facing an ideological, bureaucratic and corporate enemy that is too large and well entrenched to be dislodged by printing a comparative handful of secret documents. I applaud the members of Wikileaks for their courage and determination but I’m afraid the outcome of this struggle is a forgone conclusion. In the Bible, David may have brought down mighty Goliath with a simple slingshot. In this case, however, Goliath is backed up by legions of cyber-secrecy warriors, a propaganda machine that never sleeps and a trillion dollar security and surveillance leviathan that gobbles up secrets like chum in a can. David (Assange) on the other hand stands armed only with a straw and a spitball.

From where I’m standing, the odds of victory in this struggle are not good.

Don’t get me wrong. I am rooting for Wikileaks. I hope they prevail. I really do. But if I were gambling man, in this fight, my money would definitely have to be on Goliath.

Tags: Assange, Ellsberg, Goliath, government, Julian, propaganda, secrecy, secrets, Thomas Vincent, Vincent, wikileaks
Posted in Daily Rant, Politics, economics, media, warfare | 1 Comment »