Wikileaks Endangered Lives Saved by Military Censorship - Essay Example

YOUR PROF August 2, Wikileaks Endangered Lives Saved by Military “Censorship” The word censorship makes people squirm and worrythat they are being lied to, or that the government or other force of authority is trying to harm them. This is just not the case. In fact, what is usually called military “censorship” is in the best interest of our troops, our country, our government, and our liberty. One recent example of this is the Wikileaks scandal where a large number of sensitive documents were released to the public.

This release of censored material shows why censorship is actually a positive thing when it comes to military documents, as it has caused problems with military security. Furthermore, it endangered not only the lives of American troops, but of Afghan civilians and everyone involved. Wikileaks and other disasters have proved that military “censorship,” far from being dangerous, is a necessary part of keeping the country safe. In the middle of 2010 and the war in Afghanistan, a website called Wikileaks began posting classified documents from the US Government.

In many cases these documents being uncensored “could put the lives of Americans and our partners at risk, and threaten our national security” (Jones). Although it’s debatable what intent the Wikileaks project had in fighting against what they perceived as censorship, their result was definitely harmful. As Assistant Secretary of Defense for Public Affairs Douglas B. Wilson put it, the “arrogance and naivete” of fighting against military censorship “have determined and had negative consequences for national security" (Miles).

It is clear, then, that the removal of military censorship caused by the Wikileaks scandal has had negative effects and harmed people's livelihoods and safety. Clearly, military censorship is a good thing. Some might dismiss this as just empty speculation, but that is not the case. There are numerous reports and some evidence which shows that Wikileaks has harmed lives. As Navy Admiral Mike Mullen explains, the release of classified information makes the jobs of military personnel “a lot more difficult and in fact, could jeopardize their lives ” (Garamone).

In this particular example, the leaked documents contained material which detailed “field reports from Afghanistan, as well as alleged Pakistani partnership with the Taliban” (Carden). This means that the military personnel who were in the field in Afghanistan had their lives put in danger when the military censorship that hid their movements was removed. This censorship is absolutely necessary in order that the enemy does not learn troop plans, movements, or other military secrets. What is most important to note is that military censorship does not just protect the military.

In fact, it does not even protect just the citizens of the country the military belongs to. In many cases, the censorship is there to protect the citizens living in the war-torn country, who might otherwise be afraid to talk to the military and ask for their help. This, too, is the case with military censorship in the Afghanistan war, and is something else shown by the release by Wikileaks of confidential documents. While military censorship was in play, neither domestic newspapers or Taliban militants were able to learn which tribal clans and individuals were supporting the US military.

This kept them safe. However, with the removal of this censorship by Wikileaks, these people's lives were in danger. Pentagon spokesman Marine Corps Col. Dave Lapan claimed that the leaked documents caused “discontent from Afghan partners, whose names were revealed in the documents leak” and that it posed “a threat to their lives, or to their future conduct in support of coalition forces” (Carden). Although the Wikileaks scandal was just one case where the military's classified information was attacked, the consequences that stemmed from it go a good way towards proving the necessity of so-called military “censorship.

” This censorship, or more accurately, this keeping safe of dangerous information, plays an important role in making military tactics successful and also helps to keep those who serve in the army alive. Furthermore, the incident shows that military censorship not only keeps military personnel safe, but that it also protects the identity of foreign civilians who may be helping in the fight against dangerous militants. From the example Wikileaks gives, it is clear that military censorship is a necessary practice, and also that its removal is dangerous.

Works Cited Carden, Michael. "Document Leaks Could Endanger Afghan Civilians." Defense.gov. July 28, 2010. Web. August 2, 2011. Garamone, Jim. "Chairman Appalled by Wikileaks Release." Defense.gov. July 27, 2010. Web. August 2, 2011. Jones, James. Statement of National Security Advisor General James Jones on Wikileaks. The White House. July 25, 2010. Web. August 2, 2011. Miles, Donna. "Pentagon Official Addresses Wikileaks, Social Media." U.S. Air Force. April 18, 2011. Web. August 2, 2011.