What absolute nonsense. It's just an elaborate exercise in straw Manning -- if the intelligence community and military establishment can make it about the person, they don't have to get into the far stickier "shining a light on war crimes vs. keeping them secret" thing. He takes one aspect of the defense argument, that Manning was ostracized in the military, acts like that was Manning's entire reason for doing what she did, and then says that's bullshit. "Felonious" is a word that has no business in this sentence. But again, it's a meaningless argument. He cops out by saying that the idea that "everyone" was this alpha male type is wrong. That's fine, but even if that's true, how does that refute Manning's assertions? Notice too how he fails to mention that higher ups in the military said Manning shouldn't have been sent to Iraq (from the Guardian link Huwieler himself posted). Moreover, he's failed to address any other possible motivations, such as the ones actually espoused by Manning: Which was confirmed by a psychiatrist who evaluated Manning during the court martial: But again, that would require the government to justify its secrecy and the underlying actions, which is much harder. It's far easier to write a hit piece on the person's character (that she's transgender makes that even easier). That way they can take advantage of the "ick" factor in so many people's minds too. Plus you get plenty of those sweet, sweet page views.What is not accurate is the false and felonious image of the U.S. military on which the defense of her conduct has been, at its root, predicated: that somehow everyone in her formative years in the military was practically part of a tribe of 6’2”, overly-aggressive Alpha males pumping testosterone out their pores who ganged up on the smallest in the group and tore her apart out of hyper-machismo intolerance...
These documents were important because they relate to two connected counter-insurgency conflicts in real-time from the ground. Humanity has never had this complete and detailed a record of what modern warfare actually looks like. Once you realize that the co-ordinates represent a real place where people live that the dates happened in our recent history; that the numbers are actually human lives—with all the love, hope, dreams, hatred, fear, and nightmares that come with them—then it's difficult to ever forget how important these documents are.
Well, Pfc Manning was under the impression that his leaked information was going to really change how the world views the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, and future wars, actually. This was an attempt to crowdsource an analysis of the war, and it was his opinion that if ... through crowdsourcing, enough analysis was done on these documents, which he felt to be very important, that it would lead to a greater good ... that society as a whole would come to the conclusion that the war wasn't worth it ... that really no wars are worth it.
He leaked some important information that the public should probably have the right to know. This doesn't void what the author is pointing out. The author is saying, "I recognize this soldier was a bad soldier and its because she's a bad soldier that she decided to leak this information." In reality, Manning most likely leaked all this shit as a sort of tantrum/fuck-the-man maneuver. It just happened to be very valuable to the public. In other words is it still a strawman if it's true and critical to an objective view of the argument?
That's begging the question. The author has 0 proof that his depiction of Manning's time in basic is accurate, and 0 proof that her treatment was the reason for the leak. On the contrary, there is specific evidence that it was not the reason for Manning's actions. Claims from a random internet person with an interest in making good with the intelligence/military establishment are not enough by themselves.In other words is it still a strawman if it's true and critical to an objective view of the argument?
I hear ya, thanks for the explanation. I believe what the author is saying because the description of Manning fits spot-on with a handful of drop-outs and still-stragglers from Basic, and based on conversations with a few of my classmates that have were active duty and deployed solidifying my understanding that this description of Manning is exactly what they would've assumed. The fact that these people I've spoken to, and myself, assumed anyway that this is the kind of soldier Manning was based on our own experiences, is certainly a logical error in itself. There is no evidence that she truly was this way. But the same way I assumed that all the horrible shit Manning leaked was going on anyway, it would be mind-blowing to me if this person's account was not the spot-on truth about Manning. Being in the Army comes with complaining about insane shit that goes on in the Army a helluva lot more than a civilian complains about the Army. If there was some other shit going on, I'm inclined to believe that this author would probably say so.
But that's my point: saying that the link is consistent with your own and others' preconceived ideas doesn't magically make it accurate. This is a textbook example of the kind of "post-truth" rhetoric that is flying around these days. The same is true about this. Two baseless sets of assumptions don't suddenly become supported once there's enough of them.I believe what the author is saying because the description of Manning fits spot-on with a handful of drop-outs and still-stragglers from Basic, and based on conversations with a few of my classmates that have were active duty and deployed solidifying my understanding that this description of Manning is exactly what they would've assumed.
But the same way I assumed that all the horrible shit Manning leaked was going on anyway, it would be mind-blowing to me if this person's account was not the spot-on truth about Manning.
To be clear, I know, I was stressing that they're baseless assumptions. I am illogicaly choosing to believe them due to a set of red flags on a checklist of experience.