There has been some discussion about WikiLeaks and whether is it a good or bad thing for historians? Does the top secret information help historians write a more accurate narrative or do the leaks ensure that future access will be even more difficult and ultimately hinder future historiography? Is it ultimately so harmful that it could never be useful? Is there a level where historians are not entitled to such sensitive data? All legitimate questions.
The Chicago Tribune spoke with several historians and authors about the leaks and about the comparisons some are making between WikiLeaks and the Pentagon Papers. I think they are born from much different circumstances and motivations, but certainly there are some similarities. Here is a sample from that editorial:
Princeton University historian Sean Wilentz rejects similaries between WikiLeaks and the Pentagon Papers.
“It’s not as if we’re still up against the Vietnam War; and everybody has a right — no a duty, to play Daniel Ellsberg,” Wilentz, whose books include “The Rise of American Democracy” and “The Age of Reagan,” said.
“But this is extremely dangerous, given the imperatives of diplomacy. Is there some profound deception of the American people and the world going on which, as with Ellsberg, requires an insider to, in effect, blow the whistle? I don’t get that sense. I get the sense that there are people out there, like the WikiLeaks people, who have a simpleminded idea of secrecy and transparency, who are simply offended by any state actions that are cloaked.”
But Ellsberg believes there are parallels to the documents he leaked nearly 40 years ago. He says that while early media reports about WikiLeaks focused on gossip and personalities, memos are now emerging that show greater U.S. involvement in Pakistan than the government acknowledged, a pattern revealed by the Pentagon Papers about Vietnam.
“This means the Obama administration is on a path that is as dangerous as can be,” Ellsberg says, noting Pakistan’s nuclear capabilities. “I think the press did a disservice by leading with so much gossip, which isn’t terribly important.”
Certainly WikiLeaks will ultimately not be a bright spot for the Obama Administration, but I am more concerned about its impact on future historian’s access to sensitive documents. Never will we get enough access or enough information no matter how sensitive, but I do worry how this impacts the future. For now, we have some extraordinary documents (I have looked through some and it is enormous and incredible), but I have yet to see a smoking gun. It’s real foreign policy and political agendas. I do also worry about the revealing of informants and sensitive data. There has to be plenty of information leaked that could get people killed, I hope not, but I wonder.
So in the end there are multiple aspects to WikiLeaks, certainly good and bad.
Chris,
The proper question, I think, is should classified information be released for historical purposes in advance of its regulated, authorized release? That leads into the age old question about the difference between the historian and the journalist. I’d submit that anyone pushing for the release of more classified “stuff” for sake of historical research is treading closer to journalist. After all, classified information is not “lost” but more so “preserved” in context for the historian to review at a later, distant date.
The reality here is that WikiLeaks has provided some important smoking guns thus far. Particularly about the war in Iraq. Some time down the road, historians will have major grounds for “revisionist” views of that war. But I don’t know if the journalists out there have the desire to run the story. And I doubt, for what it is worth, that the public would actually buy such a story, given the baggage of personal experiences.
Not sure that the idea of a “regulated, authorized release” is necessary as often the historian is never allowed to see such regulated, authorized released information. But otherwise good thoughts and indeed this is a difficult question with regard to access to these historical documents. Thanks for the post Craig.
Chris
Chris,
I am referring to information that is released for public consumption, usually accessed through archives, libraries, etc. after specified conditions for release are met. Certainly that implies someone has vetted the information, to ensure no current sensitive information would be disclosed, and other criteria are met. Classified information cannot remain classified forever. And even the highest seals have an expiration, or to be more exact, a required review date. That later point is often not appreciated.
You, and every historian who has looked at any photo or document from DoD, or it’s predecessors, has indeed looked at regulated, authorized, and released information. Most historians who have researched topics in 20th or 21st century American history have viewed information that was released through regulated, authorized processes. Even unclassified information must go through some form of review (if for no other reason to ensure privacy data is not disclosed).
And the story behind the release of these documents is in many cases as important to the historian as the document itself.
Craig.