Not everybody agrees. International-aid experts point out that developing the infrastructure of a devastated country takes time and cannot be put on a fast track, regardless of how much money is poured into the projects. Often, the beneficiaries of the U.S. strategy in Afghanistan are the tribal leaders who become business partners with American contractors and friends of U.S. military commanders and intelligence officers. As Jake Sherman, the associate director of a New York University project on peacekeeping and the security sector, told me, “You’re empowering alternative structures of power that have the potential to fight amongst themselves or against the authority of the Afghan state.” Under these conditions, certain tribal leaders end up as winners.

The losers are ordinary Afghans who are left out of the deals or, even worse, targeted because of the false tips that corrupt tribal leaders have provided. Altogether, international-aid experts believe that it is a flawed system that is based on cash payments, with potentially disastrous results for the Afghan people and their nation.

The Washington Post blog, SpyTalk, reported that the four reports, Carol Rosenberg of the Miami Herald, Michelle Shephard of the Toronto Star, Paul Koring of the Globe & Mail, and Steven Edwards of Canwest Newspapers, were banned because they “revealed the name of a former U.S. interrogator whose name is under protective order — but is widely known.” The Pentagon said publishing the name violated previously agreed upon rules that prevent identifying protected witnesses.

The American Civil Liberties Union, in a published statement, said the  “identity of the interrogator had already been disclosed in previous news reports, including an on-the-record interview the interrogator gave to Shephard in 2008.” Politico reported that Pentagon spokesman Col. David Lapan, when asked why reporters were being punished for reporting a name already made public, said any previous stories or interviews were irrelevant.

“That doesn’t change the fact that his identity was protected in the courtroom during this hearing,” Lapan said.

Jameel Jaffer, ACLU Deputy Legal Director, said that punishing reporters for disclosing information already publicly available:

is nothing short of absurd – any gag order that covers this kind of information is not just overbroad but nonsensical. Plainly, no legitimate government interest is served by suppressing information that is already well known. We strongly urge the Defense Department to reconsider its rash, draconian and unconstitutional decision to bar these four reporters from future tribunals. If allowed to stand, this decision will discourage legitimate reporting and add yet another entry to the long list of reasons why the military commissions ought to be shut down for good.

Politico reported that Lapan told the news outlets they may appeal to the deputy assistant secretary of defense for media operations, Bryan Whitman. According to the Post, Mindy Marques, managing editor at The Miami Herald, said they would appeal.

Further reading: Washington Post SpyTalk, Politico article, ACLU statement