WikiLeaks Iraq FAQs: What the Logs Really Say
WHAT DO THE LOGS SHOW AND WHAT WAS BLACKED OUT?
Most of the logs were written by soldiers in the field, usually shortly after missions took place. They aim to record events on the battlefield and around the country in a way that can be understood and assessed within the military. Even small events are logged in order to convey a full picture of events up the chain of command.
HOW DOES ONE READ THE LOGS?
All the logs follow the same template. They are full of military jargon and abbreviations that are almost impossible to decipher for most people.
- The fact that the logs are written immediately after the events by the soldiers who took part raises the possibility that they contain errors -- its is inevitable that perceptions suffer in the stress of a combat mission.
- Unlike scientists and journalists, soldiers are not primarily focused on recording events. It is a task they have to perform in addition to their other duties, and one that they must often regard as onerous after a disturbing and exhausting mission.
- In many cases the logs are likely to have been written in miserable conditions and are probably hard to read as a result.
- It is possible that reports give a one-sided version of events, partly intentionally and partly subconsciously -- so that wrongdoings, accidents and crimes by the opposing side are portrayed more clearly than one's own.
- It is also feasible that one's own crimes are subsequently assigned a higher classification level and thereby removed from the material that was then passed on to WikiLeaks. This material only contains logs marked "Secret," not "Top Secret." The massacre of Haditha in which US soldiers murdered 24 Iraqi civilians on Nov. 19, 2005, isn't included in the logs -- even though they record even minor events.
- The logs contain contradictions. SPIEGEL found several even in the fewer than 100 logs it picked at random. For example one log mentioned two deaths in the event description but had a zero in the template box for the number of people killed. Given such inconsistencies one has to assume that the figures given are not accurate. Technical transmission errors are also possible. David Leigh of the Guardian regards the figures given for the numbers killed as "extremely unreliable." And if such a central fact is sometimes wrong, other facts are even more likely to be erroneous.
The logs are marked "secret" rather than "top secret." That may be why the logs make no mention of spectacular events such as the Abu Ghraib torture scandal and the massacre of Haditha. In addition, WikiLeaks removed thousands of documents from the material in order to protect its sources, which has led to a certain distortion.
Despite these shortcomings, the material is a treasure trove because it contains countless details that would otherwise never have come to light. Also, the sheer volume of logs is valuable in itself because it allow us to track events over a prolonged period of time. The shortcomings mentioned above do not lessen this over-arching significance of the logs.
© SPIEGEL ONLINE 2010
All Rights Reserved
Reproduction only allowed with the permission of SPIEGELnet GmbH
"However, it does expose secret information that could make our troops even more vulnerable to attack in the future. Just as with the leaked Afghan documents, we know our enemies will mine this information looking for insights into how we operate, cultivate sources, and react in combat situations, even the capability of our equipment. This security breach could very well get our troops and those they are fighting with killed."