So, it's widely rumoured that Julian Assagne is being sought (desperately, some say) by the United States, to convince him not to release a video of a US airstrike on an Afghan village, Garani, that the Afghan government claims killed 140 civilians. The US has admitted "mistakes" were made, but maintains that the attack was targeting Taliban military positions.
The US said it was targeting Taliban positions when it used weapons that create casualties over a wide area, including one-tonne bombs and others that burst in the air. But two US military officials told a newspaper last year that no one checked to see whether there were women and children in the buildings.
I can imagine that if very heavy bombs were used on an ordinary village, this video could be incendiary far beyond Collateral Murder or even the Abu Ghraib photos. Depending on where and how the video was taken, the footage could be a rare insight into the real world effects of the airstrikes that are reported week in, week out in Afghanistan and Pakistan, and I doubt such an insight would be flattering to the US military.
Furthermore, Wikileaks claims it is in possession of yet more damaging material that the US has until now successfully suppressed. I have always thought that the realities of the horror of war have, since the Gulf War at least, been excised from the accepted narrative of the wars the West has embarked upon. This has made these wars acceptable to the general public in a way that they could never be if people were shown the damage done by the wars they tacitly and overtly support. These leaks, if there are enough of them to surmount the "rare mistakes" and "few bad apples" rationalisations could change that, which I think is an entirely good thing. While they may incite further violence against the West and its armies, that is not something that can be given as a reason to prevent such leaking, as the effects are already happening in the places these events occur, and yet we don't seem to stop doing it.