Bradley Manning. Traitor.

Contrary to what my opponent believes, I was not, in the previous round, “arguing about the legitimacy of the Iraq War.” Rather, I was stating well-known facts about the Iraq War in an attempt to identify who our “enemy” is in the Iraq War. Identifying our enemies is a necessary component of this debate if we are deciding whether or not Manning committed treason by “aiding the enemy.” My opponent, whether he is aware of it or not, actually helped prove my assertion in the previous round that, after Hussein was executed, “the idea of a concrete ‘enemy’ dissolved” and “‘al-Qaeda’ and ‘terrorists’ became our only ‘real enemies.’” In his argument for this round, he states: “Who was the enemy? Before Saddam's downfall he issued one final order to his military, to continue fighting the Coalition as a guerrilla force for as long as possible. The parts of the military that obeyed that order made up about 30% to 40% of our opposition. Another 10%to 20% were people of Iraq that just didn't like having invaders in their land and didn't like being conquered. But the vast majority of our enemies were radical Muslims from all corners of the earth that answered the call of jihad given by various religious and terrorist leaders to drive off the infidel invaders from Muslim lands. These are who our enemies [correction my own] were in Iraq at the time of the incident, not Saddam.” In other words, it seems as though our enemy simply became “radical Muslim terrorists,” or even just radical Muslims, who were upset with us for sticking our noses where they didn’t belong while slaughtering innocent civilians along the way. This is the same enemy we are fighting in Afghanistan, though it is not one that is as “self-explanatory” as my opponent asserts… However, I believe my opponent and I can now establish who our enemies are for the sake of moving forward with this debate—radical Muslim terrorists—though it seems as though we are destined to disagree with the legitimacy of said “enemy.” Therefore, in this round, I would like to argue the following point: U.S. military policy and the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan themselves do far more in aiding our enemies (radical Muslim terrorists) and killing innocent civilians than any of the documents leaked by Bradley Manning. To start, in July 2010, the Pentagon itself, after reviewing the documents leaked by Manning, stated that “there is no evidence the disclosure harmed U.S. national security or endangered American troops in the field” [1]. The following November, they also conceded that they had no evidence that the leaked documents led to any deaths [2]. Moreover, contrary to the belief that Manning and Assange arbitrarily and lazily released all classified information they received, there is also evidence that BOTH of them sorted through the documents for material that could threaten national security, holding back more than 15,000 documents for this reason. They reportedly even asked the White House itself for assistance vetting prior to releasing any documents, but received no response [3]. The current death toll for Manning’s actions, then? A big fat zero. The number of Afghans alone killed in the War in Afghanistan? 2,412 in 2009, 2,777 in 2010, and 1,462 in the first half of 2011 [4]. Well, sure, death is a part of war. “Collateral damage,” you might say. Not so. There is actually a large amount of evidence suggesting that anti-American terrorist activity in the Muslim world has increased since the beginning of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. This growth can be attributed to the perpetuation on our part of the very ideas that turn ordinary citizens into terrorists. In other words, U.S. actions in the “War on Terror” are only adding fuel to the fire, giving civilians more and more reasons to hate America and driving them to acts of terrorism. According to an article in Times of Oman: “Soon after President Barack Obama took over from George W. Bush, two veteran counter-insurgency experts warned the US administration against growing radicalisation of population both in Pakistan and Afghanistan. Andrew Exum and David Kilcullen unequivocally blamed the US policy of continuing with the drone strategy and the massive collateral damages the strategy wreaked for the radicalisation. ‘Every one of these dead non-combatants represents an alienated family, a new desire for revenge, and more recruits for a militant movement that has grown exponentially even as drone strikes have increased,’ they wrote in an incisive op ed article in The New York Times. The Obama administration continued with the flawed and dangerous strategy of drone attacks making everyone in Pakistan and Afghanistan vulnerable and potential targets. In fact, the strategy left more innocents and civilians dead than the Al Qaeda and Taleban fighters. No wonder that the drone attacks alone alienated 65 per cent of the Pakistanis and Afghans turning them extremely hostile to the United States”[5]. If you want to look at the numbers, a U.S. study of terrorist attacks after the invasion in 2003 found that the number killed in jihadist attacks around the world has risen dramatically since the Iraq war began in March 2003: “Iraq was the catalyst for a ferocious fundamentalist backlash, according to the study, which says that the number of those killed by Islamists within Iraq rose from seven to 3,122. Afghanistan, invaded by US and British forces in direct response to the September 11 attacks, saw a rise from very few before 2003 to 802 since then. In the Chechen conflict, the toll rose from 234 to 497. In the Kashmir region, as well as India and Pakistan, the total rose from 182 to 489, and in Europe from none to 297” [6]. To bring this point home, consider the recent Boston Marathon bombings. In a note left behind by suspect Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, he states that the attacks are retribution for U.S. military action in Afghanistan and Iraq, calling the bombing victims “collateral damage” in the same way innocent Muslims have been in the American-led wars. “When you attack one Muslim, you attack all Muslims,” he wrote. [7] So, is Bradley Manning, by legal definition, a traitor against the United States? That depends on what you mean by “the United States”—are you speaking of its military-industrial complex, or its people? Manning did indeed leak classified military documents; that much can’t be denied. He also threatened the integrity of the aforementioned MI complex. However, he did so for the good of the American people. He did so for the very taxpayers that are funding these extravagant and unfounded wars. He did so in an attempt to protect us, to show us what goes on behind closed doors, to enlighten us to the realization that it is our government and our military, not the Taliban or al-Qaeda, not Muslims, not Iraq or Afghanistan, whose actions are fueling anti-American sentiment across the Muslim world and killing Americans. They are the ones aiding the enemy. Is Bradley Manning a traitor to the American military? Maybe. But that also makes him a champion of the American people. In a democracy that is “of the people, by the people, for the people,” that makes him a hero, not a traitor. So who should be put on trial here for “aiding the enemy”—Bradley Manning, or the United States government? I would argue the government. [1] http://www.nbcbayarea.com... [2] http://www.mcclatchydc.com... [3] http://www.bradleymanning.org... [4] http://www.aljazeera.com... [5] http://www.timesofoman.com... [6] http://www.alternet.org... [7] http://www.policymic.com...