That claim wasn't made by some random politician. It was made by Amnesty International, Campaign for Innocent Victims in Conflict, Open Society Institute, the Afghanistan Independent Human Rights Commission, and the International Crisis Group. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2010/aug/10/afghanistan-wa... . Reporters without Borders also mentioned it: https://rsf.org/en/news/open-letter-wikileaks-founder-julian...

There's also a statement from the spokesman for the Taliban saying they will go after the people named: https://www.newsweek.com/taliban-says-it-will-target-names-e...

From the first link:

...WikiLeaks had tried to comply with a private White House request to redact the names of informants before publication, but the US authorities had refused to assist.

Thanks, Obama. Whatever, let's forget about that. The main point is, this material was released a decade ago. If anyone in USA military or intel had learned of a collaborator harmed as a result of the leaks, they would have crowed about it ad nauseam. Instead, crickets. Therefore, this didn't happen. Linking decade-old fear-mongering about "risks" supports the point rather than contradicting it.

Evidence of anything would be scarce or nonexistent. It's Afghanistan. Would you want your name out there cooperating with the US when the Taliban is still around? Would you be comfortable with that?

There's no way I would ever cooperate with a USA military invasion, no matter how bad the local conditions might be. For at least 60 years, USA military has made every situation they've ever touched worse. I wouldn't imagine that "it's different this time!"

As addressed in sibling thread, it has been a decade. The USA military-industrial complex is highly motivated to manufacture more reasons to silence Assange. If this had happened once in that decade, we would have heard about it.

> For at least 60 years, USA military has made every situation they've ever touched worse.

Kosovo for one would disagree with you

OK, you got me. An area that was never occupied by USA ground troops (that was NATO, UN, and OSCE), saw a couple weeks of USA flyovers before the Serbs withdrew, and which later was ruled by heroin and organ traffickers as a result, totally proves that the Afghans would have been wise to welcome the invasion with open arms. Not really!

> For at least 60 years, USA military has made every situation they've ever touched worse.

This is objectively wrong. Operation unified response in Haiti in 2010, Operation Continuing Promise in the Caribbean and Latin America in 2011. Then Enduring Promise back in Latin America in 2018. Operation Tomodachi after the Japan earthquake in 2011.

Then of course there is the Cold War which lead to the breakup of the Soviet Union and the chance for political self determination of over a dozen countries.

Your convenient 60 year boundary just excludes the Korean War which led to the prosperous and democratic country of South Korea.

Sure we all like inexpensive and functional durable goods like Hyundai automobiles, but then again that war did kill a fifth of all Koreans. So, maybe not completely a good thing?

I didn't ask if you would. I asked that had you, would you want your name out there?

I’m not comfortable with any part of invading a country, so no.