I Knew Chelsea Manning in Basic Training. Here’s the Story You Haven’t Heard
huwieler.net
huwieler.net
But what's the point of harping on it years later? I don't think anyone would be surprised that Manning was a 'bad soldier'.
Then there is a bunch totally unrelated stuff that happened much later, took a huge amount of courage, and led to arrest and imprisonment.
But I read some stories about soldiers getting medals for progarmming stuff, when they were deployed somewhere. So it seems the stuff you learn in basic training doesn't necessarily determine the value you got for the army you serve for.
Heck when I went through a couple of decades ago we were still shouting anti-communist slurs while we practiced with bayonets.
In other words, forget what you know about the person and consider only what they did.
However, if this assessment is correct, then I am surprised Manning even made PFC. Thats the story I would like to hear.
One can even say that Snowden is irrelevant in the long run, he only pops up once in a while.
There was not major political or social fallout following manning. Same goes for Snowden, the NSA is still there with more power than ever, more and more countries developing similar capabilities and no one seem to really care.
Just because something extraordinary happens and nothing changes doesn't mean it didn't become history; it's precisely the kind of history of the time we are in. Things dont change because the world has been artifically crafted to be perceived as a stable system.
If you haven't seen Adam Curtis' documentaries, I highly recommend them. Particularly HyperNormalization.
>Manning altered not only the way we think about information security, authentication and confidentiality, but also about the grave damage posed by the insider threat.
So it was a historic event to the military, and we still don't know how the repercussions of this will eventually play out. History isn't what people know about, it's what happens. I doubt you know about how an obscure British psychologist crippled the American psychological profession with doubt which had a major role in ushering in global neoliberalism, but it happened, and it affected nearly everybody.
Do you think the leak should be judged in isolation? It seems very difficult to judge any one act in isolation, as one cannot interpret whether the action was motivated by justice, loyalty, attention-seeking, or other motives.
> forget what you know about the person
We know very little about Manning. We know about the leaks. Everything else we know is mostly autobiographical. (For instance, the suicide attempts were reported by Chelsea to the media)
That's not necessarily a good thing.
The most effective soldiers are actually quite good at figuring out how to counter the system.
In addition, soldiers are given quite clear orders about things like the Geneva Convention and they are supposed to disobey orders that contradict them.
Soldiers have to be predictable and interchangeable otherwise the entire structure falls apart, this isn't some hollywood action movie.
Yes (predictive) initiative is encouraged and rewarded but what Manning did according to the article and the behaviour shown during boot camp was not intuitive for the lack of a better word manning acted like a brat.
Now this isn't a personal attack, not everyone can fit into the military, not everyone can be made to fit through boot camp, but honestly if the first thing you do is effectively stomp your feet on the ground and say nope (the bag thing during initial induction) doesn't really bode well.
People like manning used to get a "blanket part", not the prison one where you actually get covered by a blanket and beaten half to death but things like shoe polish in your boots and other stuff was pretty common hazing for anyone who thought they were a special snowflake.
Most militaries work on unit cohesion which means if 1 fails everyone fails, sometimes a single infraction is enough for the entire unit, squad or troop to get punished (e.g. mess duty, extra PT, weekend passes revoked etc.).
Additionally when a unit is assigned tasks the task is assigned with mind that everyone is not only going to give 100% but effectively 110%, anyone who doesn't effectively makes everyone else work harder to pick up the slack for them because they don't want to get punished for someone else's mistakes.
Yes it may suck, but there is no way around it, acting like a brat doesn't work in the military and don't expect your fellow soldiers not to show their "dissatisfaction" in various ways with your behaviour.
I think the best question is why wasn't manning booted out in the first place.
To name just one example, repeat offenders are always punished more harshly than first-timers, and yet the fact that they did something in the past doesn't change the act for which they are judged in any way; but (rightly or wrongly) the justice system thinks it illustrates who they are.
It's always a person who is judged.
Yeah no shit... military training is ridiculous. I think a lot of us have enough sense to not ever join.
We are human beings (or so we like to believe), not savages.
I find it weird, the implication in the article is of a weak person.
So, she leaked classified material and went to prison because she was weak, which sure is a narrative alright. I bet the author of the piece is mentally, morally and physically strong enough to never leak classified material, destroy their life and suffer greatly for doing something that has no appreciable benefit to them.
So the logic goes like this: Manning was different, therefore Manning was weak, Manning did something the author and other people at boot camp wouldn't therefore Manning is still different therefore still weak. Weak, weak, weak not strong like the author and other soldiers who cohere together to value commitment and loyalty, manly non-weak virtues that weakling Manning could never know.
Anyway, really it seems a little unlikely given this description of Manning as a soldier that she would ever have gotten through basic. So I wouldn't be surprised if there are a few lies sprucing up the main point of the article, which main point being that Manning is weak and we should feel a sort of moral disgust about that condition of weakness.
ah well, the writing was just awful. Maybe that's why I ascribe an awful world view to it.
Some people really find they are good at that stuff. Others have no real options (I met both). Most are somewhere between that and where you are.
I think the article paints a picture of someone who didn't fit in, and who just wasn't in a mental space compatible with the military. Nothing wrong with that, but probably shouldn't be a soldier. I'm sure her experiences all contributed to her taking the extraordinary step of leaking all this information. Human behavior is complicated, I think it would be best not to demonize her despite what I believe to be a mixed record on the outcomes of the leak.
... But she didn't quit. Kinda diminishes his entire point for me.
My other thoughts on the case are that her 37 year sentence was draconian, and the solitary and mind-tricks they played on her in prison were cruel and unusual. And that overall we are better off having the collateral murder video so the war can be seen for what it is. Not sure if there was any value in leaking the diplomatic cables, though.