http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/jul/25/afghanistan-war-logs-military-leaks

A huge cache of secret US military files today provides a devastating portrait of the failing war in Afghanistan, revealing how coalition forces have killed hundreds of civilians in unreported incidents, Taliban attacks have soared and Nato commanders fear neighbouring Pakistan and Iran are fuelling the insurgency.

The disclosures come from more than 90,000 records of incidents and intelligence reports about the conflict obtained by the whistleblowers' website Wikileaks in one of the biggest leaks in US military history. The files, which were made available to the Guardian, the New York Times and the German weekly Der Spiegel, give a blow-by-blow account of the fighting over the last six years, which has so far cost the lives of more than 320 British and over 1,000 US troops.

Their publication comes amid mounting concern that Barack Obama's "surge" strategy is failing and as coalition troops hunt for two US navy sailors captured by the Taliban south of Kabul on Friday.

The war logs also detail:

• How a secret "black" unit of special forces hunts down Taliban leaders for "kill or capture" without trial.

• How the US covered up evidence that the Taliban have acquired deadly surface-to-air missiles.

• How the coalition is increasingly using deadly Reaper drones to hunt and kill Taliban targets by remote control from a base in Nevada.

• How the Taliban have caused growing carnage with a massive escalation of its roadside bombing campaign, which has killed more than 2,000 civilians to date.

In a statement, the White House said the chaotic picture painted by the logs was the result of "under-resourcing" under Obama's predecessor, saying: "It is important to note that the time period reflected in the documents is January 2004 to December 2009."

The White House also criticised the publication of the files by Wikileaks: "We strongly condemn the disclosure of classified information by individuals and organisations, which puts the lives of the US and partner service members at risk and threatens our national security. Wikileaks made no effort to contact the US government about these documents, which may contain information that endanger the lives of Americans, our partners, and local populations who co-operate with us."

The logs detail, in sometimes harrowing vignettes, the toll on civilians exacted by coalition forces: events termed "blue on white" in military jargon. The logs reveal 144 such incidents. Some of these casualties come from the controversial air strikes that have led to Afghan government protests in the past, but a large number of previously unknown incidents also appear to be the result of troops shooting unarmed drivers or motorcyclists out of a determination to protect themselves from suicide bombers. At least 195 civilians are admitted to have been killed and 174 wounded in total, although this is likely to be an underestimate because many disputed incidents are omitted from the daily snapshots reported by troops on the ground and then collated, sometimes erratically, by military intelligence analysts.

Bloody errors at civilians' expense, as recorded in the logs, include the day French troops strafed a bus full of children in 2008, wounding eight. A US patrol similarly machine-gunned a bus, wounding or killing 15 of its passengers, and in 2007 Polish troops mortared a village, killing a wedding party including a pregnant woman, in an apparent revenge attack.

Questionable shootings of civilians by British troops also figure. The American compilers detail an unusual cluster of four British shootings in the streets of Kabul within the space of barely a single month, in October/November 2007, culminating in the killing of the son of an Afghan general. Of one shooting, they wrote: "Investigation is controlled by the British. We not able [sic] to get the complete story."

A second cluster of similar shootings, all involving Royal Marine commandos in the ferociously contested Helmand province, took place in a six-month period at the end of 2008. Asked by the Guardian about these allegations, the Ministry of Defence said: "We have been unable to corroborate these claims in the short time available and it would be inappropriate to speculate on specific cases without further verification of the alleged actions."

Rachel Reid, who investigates civilian casualty incidents in Afghanistan for Human Rights Watch, said: "These files bring to light what's been a consistent trend by US and NATO forces: the concealment of civilian casualties. Despite numerous tactical directives ordering transparent investigations when civilians are killed, there have been incidents I've investigated in recent months where this is still not happening. Accountability is not just something you do when you are caught. It should be part of the way US and NATO do business in Afghanistan every time they kill or harm civilians."

The reports, many of which the Guardian is publishing in full online, present an unvarnished and often compelling account of the reality of modern war. Most of the material, although classified "secret" at the time, is no longer militarily sensitive. A small amount of information has been withheld from publication in the Guardian because it might endanger local informants or give away genuine military secrets. Wikileaks, whose founder, Julian Assange, obtained the material in circumstances he will not discuss, also says it redacted harmful material before posting the bulk of the data on its own "uncensorable" series of global servers.

Wikileaks published in April this year a previously suppressed classified video of US Apache helicopters killing two Reuters cameramen on the streets of Baghdad, which gained international attention. A 22-year-old intelligence analyst, Bradley Manning, was arrested in Iraq and charged with leaking the video, but not with leaking the latest material. The Pentagon's criminal investigations department continues to try to trace the leaks and recently unsuccessfully asked Assange, he says, to meet them outside the US to help them.

Assange allowed the Guardian to examine the war logs at our request. No fee was involved and Wikileaks has not been involved in the preparation of the Guardian's articles.

I know you're not suprised...

I know I'm not...

i don't think war is supposed to be nice.

What war? I only see a series of Hitler-esque unconstitutional, illegal invasions and occupations.

yea, well the the united nations, our allies, and most of the rest of the world disagrees with you. i haven't seen any sanctions,or anything else directed at the US about our "crimes" there.

War is one big crime.

There is no way around it except be smart and not do it.

war is needed from time to time... Afghanistan may not be, but our friends and relatives are there, so i support them.

It doesn't matter what the rest of the world thinks. The Constitution and the Federalist papers (not to mention Jefferson's writings and the Anti-Federalist papers) are very clear on this issue. An illegal, unconstitutional "war" is no war at all-it's an invasion.

Iraq was the biggest blunder since Saddam didn't do a damn thing to us.

We basically invaded that country illegally.

I don't know that much about Afghan but I imagine we were wrong there too.

We have been wrong since 9/11 or before maybe.

None of these illegal "military actions" are right by us.

The soldiers cannot be held responsible for the mistakes of the politicians.

But we are wrong. And us and them are dying in vain with these "excursions".

All conflicts in this world could have been resolved without war.

A wise person once told me that the only reason a person gets violent is because they are not smart enough to express themselves otherwise.

So stupidity leads to violence.

War is violent and means it took stupid people to start and continue.

Again soldiers cannot be held responsible for the stupidity of their superiors, they are just doing their jobs.

i agree with you, but once they signed the papers, they don't have a choice at all. maybe we need to do something over here to help them, but i don't think anything is gunna change anything soon.
the more i read about Afghanistan, the more i think it is about control over their resources.

All we are doing over there is emboldening the terrorist organizations.

They get to say "Look how wrong America is, it spreads it's death and destruction everywhere".

We are not helping ourselves with them at all.

Regardless to if we approve of them or not, they are sovereign nations with the same right that we have as one.

Here's another one of those occasions where I agree with you 100%.

I hate to tell you this but once all three branches sign off on it, it is completely legal.

Legality is subjective on this point.

Is it humanly legal to invade other countries on false premises?

I don't care who signed off on it, it is illegal.

9/11 is a false pretence?

I hate to tell you, but just because a law is made doesn't mean it is just or Constitutional. And FYI, all 3 branches did NOT sign off on the "war on terror". It was an EXECUTIVE ORDER, not a legitimate act of congress. I challenge you to find the official declaration of war or Letters of Marque and Reprisal that justify the invasion. I can guarantee you that you won't find it because IT DOES NOT EXIST.

Congressman Ron Paul has penned letters of marque and reprisal, but both republican war hawks and dems voted it DOWN.

The invasion called the "War On Terror" is ILLEGAL and UNJUST-no questions about it.

9/11 was not committed by any uniform or official Iraqui or Afghani. The majority of the 9/11 hijackers were SAUDI.

In short, yes, 9/11 was wrongly used as a pretext for illegal invasions.

The war in Afghanistan is about resources alright....it has the largest lithium deposits in the world. The stuff our batteries need. Iraq was about oil and Afghanistan is about mineral deposits. Conducting war in the name of eliminating terrorism is the cover...realy we are there to steal their natural resources. Now come on do you really think they want Democracy? With all of the religious zealots over there I can't see them holding elections....that would be like saying Cuba is a democracy just because they hold elections. And once we have a foothold over there we are gonna set up big government contracts to mine the crap out of them and companies like Halliburton are gonna get stupid rich.

furthermore...we need war on terror...remember Terror is the Boogeyman. Its what feeds the machine so our government can continue to tax and kill this country. Its all about elimination of free states and total global domination of the resources. As soon as we have one government, one currency and no freedom....we will have PEACE. Now come on if you really want world peace...you better ask yourself if you are willing to give up your freedom.