The At War blog is following reaction to the release of an archive of classified military documents described here that paints a grim portrait of the war in Afghanistan. The New York Times had access to the documents and published a series of reports.

A note to readers describes The Times’s process of reviewing the documents and deciding what to publish. Editors and reporters who worked on the articles are answering questions about the material in Talk to the Newsroom. E-mail your questions to askthetimes@nytimes.com and post a comment below.

James Morin, a former captain in the United States Army who has served in Iraq and Afghanistan, questions whether the leak will have a chilling affect on candor among U.S. troops in a post on Room for Debate.

Leaks like those at the heart of the Pentagon Papers, play a role in a democracy when national civilian and military leaders mislead the country deliberately about the challenges faced. What we see in these documents, however, largely demonstrates the absence of such a need. Instead, we are left with the harmful aspects of classified leaks – a chilling lack of confidence and internal candor. Going forward, a battalion-level intelligence officer may hesitate to pass on what her instinct tells her to be marginally credible information (after all, even the best source is not always right). She may start to wonder, “Do I really want to see this pop up on WikiLeaks or run in a 10-second spot on the evening news?” when she is debating whether the rumor is worth sending up to the next echelon. Ultimately, such concerns will damage the ability of our institutions to fully understand the diplomatic and security landscape before them.

Stephen Farrell rounded up a sampling of reaction on military blogs.

In Threat Matrix, the blog of The Long War Journal, Bill Roggio writes: “Longtime readers of The Long War Journal will not be shocked by these reports. For years, Tom Joscelyn and I have been documenting the involvement of the Pakistani military and intelligence services with various terror groups.” He said he and his colleague would “have more to come on these and other subjects as we sift through the documents.”

On the Small Wars Journal, Rex Brynen said the documents appeared to bear out years of reporting from the war, but provided Afghan insurgents with a detailed picture of the Americans’ files on them.

“They seem more like the anti-Pentagon Papers, since they reveal that the official and media portrait of the war has been — within the confines of OPSEC, the normal political spin, and the fog of war — accurate. There are, so far, no big surprises or scandals. “As to the intelligence and war-fighting consequences of the leak, it provides the Taliban with unparalleled information on what ISAF knows, doesn’t know, and often how it knows it too. It’s likely to have a chilling effect on intelligence cooperation and sharing too, within and across governments.”

Other reader echoed a theme perhaps unsurprising on military-focused blogs – anger at the unauthorized release of secret documents.

“Where in the hell was the C.I.A.? Wikileaks was known to be in possession of classified material in violation of U.S. and NATO country laws well before this release. They should have been stopped before what is probably the largest release of classified material during a war in history. Can you imagine what would have happened during WWII or even the “cold war” if something like this had occurred?”

And in a pointed exchange

gian p gentile:

“Rex: Agree; Like the Pentagon papers, but not really. I would only add to your points about this historical reference that another key difference is the general apathy of the American public toward the war in Afghanistan compared to the moral connection between the American people and war during Vietnam because of the draft.

“Unlike the Pentagon Papers that resonated months and years and even beyond after they were released, these wikileaks on Afghanistan will be front page for a day or two then swept into the dustbin of history where the only folks interested will be wonks, experts, historians doing current history, and military bloggers.”

Tom:

“Gian…..and other groups that will be interested, Taliban/AQ!”

Abu Muqawama theorizes about the proliferation of new, Internet-based, media driving the news agenda but also addresses a key issue beyond the who, where, when and what happened in the leaked documents. Will it change anything? In Wikileaks’ Afghanistan adventure he writes:

“I’ve noticed on my Twitter account that opinion on the information contained in the leaked Afghanistan documents obtained and released by Wikileaks varies between “yeah, we knew that. So?” to “Oh my God!” “I think there is much more to this whole episode than whether or not you knew civilians were being killed in Afghanistan and former ISI officials were giving advice to insurgents in Afghanistan. This is about public opinion. Measuring what the public thinks and predicting how it might react to events is an imprecise science (much like the related fields of economics and sociology). But it’s still very real.”

He concludes:

“What makes any difference here is whether any of this changes anything. Does public opinion get swayed? Do politicians feel the need to react? Do insurgents find a sense of justification for their actions (or fall in support when they screw up)? The answer to all of these questions is yes.” “So the response here isn’t, ‘Yeah, whatever, we know this.’ or ‘OMG!

Why did no one tell me?!’ The question to ask is how the information is being digested.”

On Antiwar.com Justin Raimondo takes a step back from the detail in Bradley Manning’s Gift and says that, at first glance, it is the overall impression that is so damaging. “What’s particularly bad, from the perspective of the Obama administration officials charged with selling this war to the American people, is the dramatic portrayal of the sheer chaos enveloping our military effort … Oh, and by the way, the Taliban is apparently armed with portable heat-seeking missiles – a fact the administration has been covering up.”

As he fielded questions on the WikiLeaks disclosures, White House press secretary Robert Gibbs seemed at times to contradict himself, particularly when fielding questions on the relationship between Pakistan’s spy agency and Afghan insurgents. Nothing is new in the reports, he suggested, while adding that Pakistan was fully cooperating with the United States and NATO in combating the Taliban and militant groups operating in its borders.

“I don’t know that what is being said or what is being reported isn’t something that hasn’t been discussed fairly publicly, again, by named U.S. officials and in many news stories. I mean, The New York Times had a story on this topic in March of 2009 written by the same authors.” When asked what exactly the United States is getting for its continuing aid to Pakistan and whether the administration was certain that the ISI was no longer aiding insurgents, he said, “Nobody’s here to declare mission accomplished. You’ve not heard that phrase uttered or emitted by us as a way of saying that everything is going well.” The press secretary stressed that Pakistan’s domestic government had made progress in recent months and noted that the documents did not include any developments since December 2009.

Earlier today, our colleague Janie Lorber wrote: “the question looms large: Are these the Pentagon Papers of our time?” Richard Tofel, the general manager of ProPublica, the investigative Web site, says the answer is, “Not quite.” In a blog post he writes:

The greatest similarity between the Wikileaks trove and the Pentagon Papers is that the documents end before the current administration’s policy began. In political terms, that is hugely important. The Pentagon Papers, of course, were a secret study, commissioned during the Lyndon Johnson administration by Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara. The period under study ended in 1968, and the Papers were not made public until 1971. Johnson left office in 1969, and was succeeded by a president of the opposing party, Richard Nixon. Nixon promised a shift in Vietnam policy, and while his policy did not differ as much in practice as he had hinted that it would while campaigning, he was not held responsible, by most voters, for the deepening mess of the Johnson years. In the current case, as the White House has repeatedly pointed out in the last 18 hours, the papers end before President Obama’s announcement last year of an Afghanistan policy that departed from that of President Bush. (That policy, of course, has centered on significantly increasing the number of troops, and focusing more on counter-insurgency.) In terms of important disclosures, it’s not even close, with the historical importance of today’s documents likely to be relatively minor, and that of the Pentagon Papers enormous.

The Afghan war documents, Mr. Tofel argues, merely reiterate or add detail to previously reported suspicions and facts. “In 1971, in contrast,” he writes, “the Pentagon Papers revealed a host of important discrepancies between the public posture of the U.S. government with respect to Vietnam and the truth — from the Truman administration, through the times of Presidents Eisenhower, Kennedy and Johnson.”

As several observers have noted, the revelation that American soldiers suspect that Pakistan’s intelligence service, the ISI, is sponsoring the Taliban, is not new in itself.

Steve Coll — the author of “Ghost Wars: The Secret History of the C.I.A., Afghanistan, and Bin Laden, from the Soviet Invasion to September 10, 2001” — explained very clearly in an interview with PBS last year, any talks on a final settlement to the war in Afghanistan will have to please not just the Taliban and the Afghan government, but also the men who run Pakistan’s military and intelligence services as well. In Mr. Coll’s words:

The Taliban’s bid for national power in Afghanistan is inseparable from their historical relationship with the Pakistani security services. Even today, the Taliban in Afghanistan are taking direction from leaders who are almost certainly living in Pakistani cities, may very well be known to the Pakistani security. And why is the government of Pakistan — our ally — possibly tolerating the presence of these Afghan Taliban? Because they’re not certain about where Afghanistan is going. They see the Taliban as a potential hedge against their enemies in Afghanistan, so they’re sort of sitting on their hands. This could not be a more complicated war. If you think about it, the United States is essentially waging a proxy war against its own ally. The Taliban are a proxy of the government of Pakistan. We are an ally of the government of Pakistan. We are fighting the Taliban. In the end, the Taliban will be defeated strategically when the government of Pakistan makes a strategic decision that its future does not lie in partnership with Islamic extremists.

The German magazine Der Spiegel has published an English translation of one of its articles on the leaked released documents, “The Helpless Germans.” According to the magazine:

The war logs obtained by WikiLeaks depict a situation in northern Afghanistan that is far worse than it is depicted in the reports German Chancellor Angela Merkel gives to parliament. They also show even though the German armed forces, the Bundeswehr, have been present since 2002, they have made little progress in Afghanistan.

A Guardian live blog tracking reaction to the release of the documents notes that their Berlin correspondent, Kate Connolly reports:

The German government said today it planned to investigate the leaked US military documents amid concern that the information disclosed might put its troops in danger. Foreign minister Guido Westerwelle called for the information to be closely scrutinized. ‘All of it must of course be carefully examined, to see what possible new revelations there might be,’ he said, speaking on the sidelines of a meeting of EU foreign ministers in Brussels.

In a series of interviews, Julian Assange, the founder of WikiLeaks, explained and defended his organization’s decision to publish tens of thousands of classified Afghan war documents. In an interview with Der Spiegel, which was one of the three news organizations that had access to the documents before their release on Sunday, he said:

These files are the most comprehensive description of a war to be published during the course of a war — in other words, at a time when they still have a chance of doing some good. They cover more than 90,000 different incidents, together with precise geographical locations. They cover the small and the large. A single body of information, they eclipse all that has been previously said about Afghanistan. They will change our perspective on not only the war in Afghanistan, but on all modern wars. […] This material shines light on the everyday brutality and squalor of war. The archive will change public opinion and it will change the opinion of people in positions of political and diplomatic influence.

On Monday, Britain’s Channel 4 News published the complete video of an interview with Mr. Assange, in which he said, “There doesn’t seem to be an equivalent disclosure made during the course of the war when it might have some effect. The nearest equivalent is perhaps the Pentagon Papers released by Daniel Ellsberg in the 1970s, which was about 10,000 papers — but that was already four years old when it was released.”

In June The New Yorker published a profile of Mr. Assange by Raffi Khatchadourian.

Adam B. Ellick and Salman Masood report from Islamabad:

A senior ISI official, speaking on condition of anonymity under standard practice, sharply condemned the reports as “part of the malicious campaign to malign the spy organization” and said the ISI would “continue to eradicate the menace of terrorism with or without the help of the West.” Expressing dismay over the reports, the official said the Pakistan military and its spy organization had suffered tremendously while leading the forefront of the war against terror. “Pakistan is the biggest victim of terrorism,” he said. “Why then are we still targeted?” he asked. Calling the reports raw, uncorroborated and unverified, the official said: “In the field of intelligence, any piece of data has to be corroborated, analyzed and substantiated by multiple sources. Until then it remains raw data, and it can be anything.” Farhatullah Babar, the spokesman for President Asif Ali Zardari, dismissed the reports and said that Pakistan remained “a part of a strategic alliance of the United States in the fight against terrorism.” He continued: “Such allegations have been regurgitated in the past. Also, these represent low-level intelligence reports and do not represent a convincing smoking gun. I do not see any convincing evidence.” Mr. Babar questioned how Pakistan could possibly have the kind of connections to the Taliban that some of the reports suggest, asking if “those who are alleging that Pakistan is playing a double game are also asserting that President Zardari is presiding over an apparatus that is coordinating attacks on the general headquarters, mosques, shrines, schools and killing Pakistani citizens?” He continued, “There was a time when many people believed that former President Musharraf was running with the hare and hunting with the hound,” he said, suggesting that any such double-dealing lay with the president’s predecessor and nemesis. “We believe that era is over.” Pakistani newspapers touched only briefly on the documents. Dawn.com, the Web site of the country’s most prestigious daily, carried an Associated Press report in which an ISI official denied the allegations aimed at the spy organization. The Express Tribune, a daily newspaper from Karachi, noted that American officials had held long-standing concerns about ISI links to the Taliban, though its report led with the government’s condemnation of the leak. Popular Pakistani blogs had nothing on the WikiLeaks trove by Monday afternoon. Bina Shah, a novelist based in Karachi, wrote on Twitter: “Why is nobody in Pakistan discussing the WikiLeaks story? It’s sensational.”

In what could be the one of the most serious cases of civilian casualties in nine years of war, top Afghan officials said Monday that 52 people had been killed in a remote region of Helmand Province on Friday when a rocket slammed into a house where women and children had gathered to take shelter from fighting between NATO troops and militants, Richard A. Oppel Jr. and Taimoor Shah report.

Maj. Michael Johnson, a spokesman for ISAF, said that an assessment team was in the area investigating the incident. If confirmed, the incident would be the worst civilian casualty toll since a NATO airstrike in Kunduz called in by German forces in September 2009.

Julian Assange, the founder of WikiLeaks, which posted tens of thousands of classified military reports on the Afghan war online on Sunday, spoke to journalists about his work at the Frontline Club in London on Monday. Embedded below is video of Mr. Assange’s news conference posted on Ustream.

Here is the first part of the news conference:

Here is the second part of the news conference:

Mujib Mashal, an employee in The Times’s Kabul bureau, rounds up some of the initial reaction to the reports on the document release.

Afghanpaper, an online news and opinion source, focused on the Pakistani intelligence service’s reported links with the Taliban:

“The documents indicate that Pakistan, a strong ally of the United States, allows its intelligence officers to directly meet with the Taliban. In such meetings, the plans for fighting American soldiers, and even plots for the assassination of Afghan leaders, are discussed.

Obviously, such reports have become ordinary and mundane to us. But what is noteworthy is the fact that U.S. officials have condemned the leaking of such information. General Jones, the National Security Adviser, tried to show that America has good relations with Pakistan and decried the leakage.

Pakistan, too, seems uncomfortable with the leak, as its ambassador to Washington tried to play down the documents, saying they “do not reflect current on-ground realities.”

Afghanpaper goes on to say that the documents, despite not carrying any groundbreaking information, do reveal some clues about controversial issues in the war.

“The documents might not contain any seriously surprising information, since Afghans have grown accustomed to such reports. But they will definitely provide clues and answers to questions regarding the various kinds of military operations, the assassination of Afghan leaders, circumstances of civilian killings, political games with government figures etc.”

Azadi Radio, in a Web site article entitled “Pakistan is Deceiving the United States by Secretly Supporting the Taliban,” also focuses on the Pakistani intelligence agency’s ties, and how it undermines the war effort. The piece is an exposition of the Times’s article on the Pakistani spy service and the United States government’s reaction to it.

Ava Press, an online news source, focuses on the extent of information that the documents provide on civilian casualties. The piece quotes a human rights activist as saying:

“These documents pull the veil from the secrecy with which Americans and NATO have been dealing with the incidents of civilian casualties.

Despite our repeated calls, most of the cases in civilian casualties never underwent a thorough investigation by the authorities. These documents show what lies behind the secrecy that we have decried for a long time now.”

Weesa Daily also focuses on the civilian casualties and points to the leaks’ critical timing — when investigations into recent events are in progress. “These documents are leaked at a crucial time when NATO forces are investigating last week’s airstrike in Helmand that killed 45 civilians.”

Andrew Sullivan asks the question that many At War readers have asked since the War Logs report was published.

What do we really learn from the Wikileaks monster-doc-dump? I think the actual answer is: not much that we didn’t already know. But it’s extremely depressing – and rivetingly explicit – confirmation of what anyone with eyes and ears could have told you for years. We already know the following: The notion that a professional military and especially police force can be constructed and trained by the West to advance the interests of a “national government” in Kabul within any time frame short of a few decades of colonialism is a fantasy. We are fighting a war as much against the intelligence services of Pakistan as we are the Taliban. They are a seamless part of the same whole, and until Pakistan is transformed (about as likely as Afghanistan), we will be fighting with two hands tied behind our backs. This is the Taliban’s country. Fighting them on their own ground, when they can appear in disguise, can terrify residents by night if not by day, and fight and then melt away into the netherworld of mountains and valleys is all but impossible. And as the occupation fails to secure popular support (and after ten years and a deeply corrupt government in Kabul, who can blame the Afghans?), the counter-insurgency model becomes even less plausible than it was before.

Adrian Lamo, the former hacker who turned in Pvt. Bradley Manning, the soldier arrested on suspicion of handing secret video and military secrets to Wikileaks, said Private Manning could not have acted alone in the latest release of some 92,000 documents.

“I do not believe that Private Manning had the technical expertise necessary to communicate this amount information to the outside world without being detected on his own,” he said in an interview with George Stephanopoulos of ABC News. “And I don’t believe he operated without guidance, rather I think it’s more likely that he was a personal shopper for classified data for the Wikileaks apparatus,” he said.

“It has harmed what is most important to our intelligence community and that is our ability to trust the people we put out there to do critical and sensitive jobs,” Mr. Lamo said in the interview.

Lt. Gen. Hamid Gul, who ran Pakistan’s spy service, the ISI, from 1987 to 1989, a time when Pakistani spies and the C.I.A. joined forces to run guns and money to Afghan militias who were battling Soviet troops in Afghanistan, denied allegations in The Times’s report on documents that appeared to show ties between the ISI and insurgents. “Report of my physical involvement with al Qaeda or Taliban in planning attacks on American forces is completely baseless,” Mr. Gul said in an interview with The Wall Street Journal. “I am not against America, but I am opposed to what the American forces are doing in Afghanistan.”

Mr. Gul, who now lives in a high-security neighborhood in Rawalpindi, which is also the headquarters of the Pakistan army, told the Journal: “I am their favorite whipping boy and it is not the first time that such a allegations are made against me.” He said, “It is almost two decades since I am retired from the ISI, but they keep accusing me for everything.”

Julian Assange answered questions about the documents at the Frontline Club in London. He defended the release of the information and encouraged reporters and the public to examine the documents for themselves. He focused on the number of civilian casualties cited in the documents and said there is evidence of “war crimes” throughout the reports. The complete news conference is available on the Frontline Club’s Web site and posted above in our 11:29 update

Our colleague Richard A. Oppel Jr. reports from Kabul that the initial reactions of the Afghan media were not ones of shock or awe. What the documents revealed about Pakistan did not surprise anyone in Kabul.

Asked whether there was anything in the leaked documents that angered the Afghan president, Hamid Karzai, or which he thought was unfair, his spokesman, Waheed Omar, said in brief comments after a press conference in Kabul Monday afternoon: “No, I don’t think so.”

“Most of it was about civilian casualties and efforts to hide civilian casualties, and the role of a certain intelligence agency in Afghanistan,” he said, referring to Pakistan’s Directorate of Inter-Services Intelligence, or ISI, “and the president’s initial reaction was, ‘Look, this is nothing new.’”

“Of course,” Mr. Omar said, “it is going to add to the awareness in the world about both of these issues, but there was nothing surprising in this.”

The Washington Post notes how WikiLeaks’ decision to let The New York Times and two European news outlets have access to the classified reports “reflects the growing strength and sophistication of the small nonprofit Web site.”

Senator John Kerry, the chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, said the documents released by WikiLeaks raised serious issues about the U.S.’s handling of the situation in Afghanistan and Pakistan.

“However illegally these documents came to light, they raise serious questions about the reality of America’s policy toward Pakistan and Afghanistan. Those policies are at a critical stage and these documents may very well underscore the stakes and make the calibrations needed to get the policy right more urgent.”

The White House e-mailed the following statement with the subject line “Thoughts on Wikileaks” to reporters on Sunday evening. In the memo, the White House advised journalists on possible reporting tacks to take on the documents and pointed them to an excerpt from The Guardian newspaper’s report:

You all should have received a written statement from General Jones [see update below] about the wikileaks release. Please let me know if you didn’t. A few thoughts about these stories on background: 1) I don’t think anyone who follows this issue will find it surprising that there are concerns about ISI and safe havens in Pakistan. In fact, we’ve said as much repeatedly and on the record. Attached please find a document with some relevant quotes from senior USG officials. 2) The period of time covered in these documents (January 2004-December 2009) is before the President announced his new strategy. Some of the disconcerting things reported are exactly why the President ordered a three month policy review and a change in strategy. 3) Note the interesting graphs (pasted below) from the Guardian’s wikileaks story. I think they help put these documents in context. 4) As you report on this issue, it’s worth noting that wikileaks is not an objective news outlet but rather an organization that opposes US policy in Afghanistan.

The White House official then quoted from an article by Declan Walsh of the Guardian, who wrote:

But for all their eye-popping details, the intelligence files, which are mostly collated by junior officers relying on informants and Afghan officials, fail to provide a convincing smoking gun for ISI complicity. Most of the reports are vague, filled with incongruent detail, or crudely fabricated. The same characters — famous Taliban commanders, well-known ISI officials — and scenarios repeatedly pop up. And few of the events predicted in the reports subsequently occurred.

Mr. Walsh also reported that a retired senior American officer told him that ground-level reports were considered to be a mixture of rumors and “second-hand information” which was weeded out as information was passed up the chain of command. “As someone who had to sift through thousands of these reports, I can say that the chances of finding any real information are pretty slim,” the officer, who has years of experience in the region, told Mr. Walsh.

Mr. Walsh added, in a passage quoted by the White House official, “If anything, the jumble of allegations highlights the perils of collecting accurate intelligence in a complex arena where all sides have an interest in distorting the truth.”

The memo also provided excerpts of comments that President Obama has made on issues addressed in the documents.

The White House released the following statement, condemning the disclosure of classified information:

Statement of National Security Adviser Gen. James Jones on Wikileaks The United States strongly condemns the disclosure of classified information by individuals and organizations which could put the lives of Americans and our partners at risk, and threaten our national security. Wikileaks made no effort to contact us about these documents – the United States government learned from news organizations that these documents would be posted. These irresponsible leaks will not impact our ongoing commitment to deepen our partnerships with Afghanistan and Pakistan; to defeat our common enemies; and to support the aspirations of the Afghan and Pakistani people. The documents posted by Wikileaks reportedly cover a period of time from January 2004 to December 2009. On December 1, 2009, President Obama announced a new strategy with a substantial increase in resources for Afghanistan, and increased focus on al Qaeda and Taliban safe-havens in Pakistan, precisely because of the grave situation that had developed over several years. This shift in strategy addressed challenges in Afghanistan that were the subject of an exhaustive policy review last fall. We know that serious challenges lie ahead, but if Afghanistan is permitted to slide backwards, we will again face a threat from violent extremist groups like al Qaeda who will have more space to plot and train. That is why we are now focused on breaking the Taliban’s momentum and building Afghan capacity so that the Afghan government can begin to assume responsibility for its future. The United States remains committed to a strong, stable, and prosperous Afghanistan. Since 2009, the United States and Pakistan have deepened our important bilateral partnership. Counter-terrorism cooperation has led to significant blows against al Qaeda’s leadership. The Pakistani military has gone on the offensive in Swat and South Waziristan, at great cost to the Pakistani military and people. The United States and Pakistan have also commenced a Strategic Dialogue, which has expanded cooperation on issues ranging from security to economic development. Pakistan and Afghanistan have also improved their bilateral ties, most recently through the completion of a Transit-Trade Agreement. Yet the Pakistani government – and Pakistan’s military and intelligence services – must continue their strategic shift against insurgent groups. The balance must shift decisively against al Qaeda and its extremist allies. U.S. support for Pakistan will continue to be focused on building Pakistani capacity to root out violent extremist groups, while supporting the aspirations of the Pakistani people.

As our colleagues report, a six-year archive of classified military documents to be made public online Sunday by an organization called WikiLeaks offers a picture of the war in Afghanistan that is in many respect more grim than the official portrayal.

The New York Times, The Guardian newspaper in London and the German magazine Der Spiegel were given access to the records, which illustrate why, after the United Sates has spent almost $300 billion on the war in Afghanistan, the Taliban are stronger than at any time since 2001.

The latest posting from WikiLeaks is its first publication of classified military information since its release in April of a video showing a 2007 attack by Apache helicopters that killed a dozen people in Baghdad, including two Reuters news staff.

Some of the findings in The Times’s analysis of the trove of documents released Sunday include:

* Americans fighting the war in Afghanistan have long harbored strong suspicions that Pakistan’s military spy service guides the Afghan insurgency that fights American troops, even as Pakistan receives more than $1 billion in U.S. aid.

* The C.I.A.’s paramilitary operations are expanding in Afghanistan.

* The Taliban has used portable, heat-seeking missiles against Western aircraft — weapons that helped defeat the Soviet occupation in the 1980s.

A note to readers describes the The Times’s process of piecing together the documents and deciding what to publish.

Please share your thoughts in the comments box below.