Slashdot Mirror
Wikileaks Gets Hold of Counterinsurgency Manual
HeavensBlade23 writes in to let us know that Wikileaks has published a US Special Forces counterinsurgency manual, titled Foreign Internal Defense Tactics Techniques and Procedures for Special Forces (1994, 2004). "The document, which has been verified, is official US Special Forces doctrine. It directly advocates training paramilitaries, pervasive surveillance, censorship, press control and restrictions on labor unions & political parties. It directly advocates warrantless searches, detainment without charge and the suspension of habeas corpus. It directly advocates bribery, employing terrorists, false flag operations and concealing human rights abuses from journalists. And it directly advocates the extensive use of 'psychological operations' (propaganda) to make these and other 'population & resource control' measures more palatable."
Who ever said war was a fun thing?
I mean, where are the true believers now? Does anyone seriously think that western governments have any kind of moral credibility?
We wag our fingers at China for their actions in Tibet, but by any measure what they have done there is far more humane than what we have done in Iraq. We lecture Russia about corruption and they simply retort with examples of western corruption.
Who actually believes that our governments have any reason to exist anymore beyond their existence itself?
If we can put a man on the moon, why can't we shoot people for Apollo-related non-sequiturs?
... has been proven, what are Americans going to do to make sure the government and the military practices what they preach?
... oh boy, was I wrong!
I thought the plan was to export democracy, free speech, human rights and other such goodies
---
"The chances of a demonic possession spreading are remote -- relax."
The United States will lose more than can ever be gained with war. It's a question when, not if.
So in other words Saddam Hussein was the ideal leader to have in Iraq?
As General William Sherman said;
"I've been through two wars and I know. I've seen cities and homes in ashes. I've seen thousands of men lying on the ground, their dead faces looking up at the skies. I tell you, war is hell!"
You aren't fighting a war to be nice. You are fighting to win and to do so you need to do whatever it takes.
These things mentioned are unpalatable but then again - so is war. Moral of the story - avoid it. But sometimes you will have to fight, and when you do, fight hard and fight to win.
--- Nick, hard at work
Does this mean you can't win wars by giving the enemy a lollipop?
in a few moments men in suits will get out and shortly thereafter a few people will quietly disappear.
:(
gosh and here I was being a good little sheep the whole time too
If creativity is the field, copyright is the fence.
If this was a CIA manual noone would lift an eyebrow, but this is apparently a field manual for an Army unit. But I keep forgetting, unless you are an american citizen you lack rights in the eyes of Uncle Sam. Sad, really.
Now the world has gone to bed, Darkness won't engulf my head, I can see by infra-red, How I hate the night.
Also, doesn't anyone else find it ironic that those folks are supposed to be fighting for freedom and the American way?
Special Forces are trained to work behind enemy lines in war to destabilize the government and cause as much damage as possible to the enemy's war effort. Since when have the niceties of the US constitution applied to an enemy, in war, in the enemy's territory? Regardless, war is uncivilized. Anyone that thinks otherwise should do some research. If you try to apply peacetime's morals to a war zone you're just going to lose a lot of lives and accomplish nothing.
Satis clankiller.com
Sun-Tzu's book was in many ways similar, explaining how to conduct war, but the difference seems to be that 2,500 years ago in China there was no pretense of democratic government, and perhaps also the tactics described in that book were more successful.
The cynicism of this counterinsurgency manual, and willingness to use ordinary people as material for war, is quite stunning.
My blog
All these are valid tactics for civil war. Armchair generals.
"God fights on the side with the best artillery." - Napoleon, Marshal of France - speaking truth to power
in luv, 2;-)
War is about imposing YOUR will on your enemy. If you read von Clausewitz, or Sun Tsu, you will find nothing but a ringing endorsement of the techniques described in your indignant lead in.
Even beyond the observation that the manual describes nothing but techniques used in war since the dawn of time, I'll observe that it is the insurgents who cynically hide behind an unarmed populace. They make the fundamental decision to deliberately cause civilian casualties when they refuse to abide by the Geneva Convention and fight in uniform, away from civilian population centers.
A uniformed military must counter the insurgents in some way; would you prefer that we burn down the house to kill the bed bugs? What do you suggest? Asking the insurgents nicely to go home? Take a long hard look at places like Somalia or the disaster in Bosnia and then tell me there are realistic options other than the judicious application of force.
"Man is nothing without the works of man" -- Helvetius
The manual is probably for situation where the world (and the press) might be watching you. If that isn't the case, you can whip out the really effective counterinsurgency measures (purges, ethnic cleansing, random killings to keep people afraid, retribution quotas, death camps, etc).
It's not like it hasn't been obvious that this has been US domestic policy for several years.
Lacking <sarcasm> tags,
...this is a fucking war.
News flash: during war armies also advocate killing people.
We're talking about war here.
War is hell, film at 11.
Insurgencies/counterinsurgencies are a fight over the support of a population. The notion, which is implied in the summary, that wars can be fought in an environment devoid of the infrastructure of law and order with an attention to civil niceties that peacetime domestic civilian police forces can't live up to is ridiculous. The population will realize that your side is hamstringing itself while the other side has no such qualms and choose sides accordingly. That is what happened in Iraq for the first year or so of the Iraq insurgency - domestic Sunni and foreign jihadist groups terrorized the population whenever the American flag wasn't around, while the American occupation went around promising new water plants and soccer parks. No wonder the American intelligence gathering efforts were so effective back then - new soccer park vs. we will kill you and every member of your family if you cooperate.
Light a fire for a man and he'll be warm for a day. Light a man on fire and he'll be warm for the rest of his life.
The USA has spent a good bit of the last century telling the world that "the ends justifies the means" is not carte blanche to those with power. If there's going to be a change of policy, perhaps abrogating those treaties would be a good start.
Lacking <sarcasm> tags,
As the above have pointed out, the manual is for SF units behind enemy lines. The emphasis however, is on "enemy". Cause last I checked, Bosnia had not actually declared war on US. Nor Cuba. Nor Vietnam. etc.
So this is not quite "war". This is "we don't like you, so we'll send our guys to blow up your infrastructure". When we do it to "them", we're aiding democracy. When 'they' do it to 'us', it's called terrorism.
Fellows, I'm all for cynicism in war. Most people really don't get the extremes that become routine in real war. But I repeat - this manual will never actually be used in "war". It'll be used against whoever Uncle Sam says is the "enemy"; I think we all know how well that's worked out. (cf Saddam in 1983 vs. 1991, Shah of Iran in 1953 vs 1971, etc..)
Say what you like about the people who actually operate the armed forces, they aren't stupid. They know what they have to do to win. Whether or not the civilian political classes will let them is a different issue, and whether or not they should is another one still. But if you really do want to suppress an insurgency, this is kind of what you have to do.
Next question?
Chapter 23: Recruiting The Locals
pervasive surveillance,Chapter 1: Know What The Enemy Is Up To
censorship,Chapter 15: Maintaining Classified Data
press controlChapter 15: Maintaining Classified Data
and restrictions on labor unions & political parties.Chapter 8: Building A New Government (new since Iraq mission)
It directly advocates warrantless searches,Chapter 2: The Element Of Surprise
And it directly advocates the extensive use of 'psychological operations' (propaganda) to make these and other 'population & resource control' measures more palatable.Chapter 3: Getting The Locals On Your Side
Honestly, WTF would you think would be in an operations manual? This is standard stuff for every army in the world. I mean, warrantless searches? My mind boggles that anyone would ever suspect otherwise.
Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?
Seriously how do people get surprised by this stuff? And no I do not mean the whole, "well the government is a bunch of criminals" mentality that has been dominating every thread like this. I mean WAR, plain and simple, is nasty business. Tactics such as those discussed in this manual have been in the playbook of armed combat since the dawn of war. Anyone who doubts that really needs to go pick up some history books. Hell that sounds just like the Roman Legions best practices guide to me. People need to get over the fact that war is dirty business period. This manual doesn't even warrant news. Before I get flamed, no I am not being cynical or being a war monger, just stating the obvious.
Lacking <sarcasm> tags,
Comment removed based on user account deletion
I liked the part environmental impact. Now remember boys and girls after violating international law and illegally foreign civilians clean up your messes. That is American morality in a nutshell focus on the trivial and utterly miss the big picture. And I say that as both an American citizen and environmentalist, but also above all a humanist.
Tired of all the isms, don't exploit people as an employer, or a government, mmmmK?
. . . it advocates using the same tactics the Iraq insurgents have been using rather successfully since the beginning of the war. Apparently, the US Special Forces get to play by the same rules, and there's absolutely nothing wrong with that.
It always bugs me when someone posts a thinly-veiled rant about how evil the US military is, but gives the insurgents a free pass for the way they conduct their operations. I didn't see anything about beheadings or suicide bombings in your list.
Hence the support provided to him in his war against Iran. FFS he was using chemical weapons with impunity - then he wanders into Kuwait and becomes a 'bad' person. Now we seem to have decided Iran is 'bad' again, but we've removed the hostile neighbour we were supporting... but we can't wander into Iran ourselves.. but..
Oh you just cannot take this stuff seriously any more.
There are many here who say that war has never been a humane activity and so this release is no surprise.
But the doctrine of Just War has existed for centuries and has been practiced more or less successfully at times.
Particularly, to my knowledge, the European powers after Westphalia, where only professional armies took the field, bought their supplies rather than pillaged and treated their captives with dignity.
There were exceptions, probably, but on the whole the wars fought were not bitter struggles where any means necessary was advocated
"And that solves the mystery of the missing ring" - Bender
I've scanned the comments, and after reading the respoonses from my countrymen I amd ashamed and appalled.
There was an item on the radio in the news today that the Gitmo prisoners are suffering from TSS and show evidence of torture. When will Americans wake up and demand accountability? Like excellence, mediocrity and criminality come from the top.
Bush, Cheney, the Secretary of "defense", and a whole lot of other people need to be tried and convicted of war crimes. The actions of my government are past shameful.
We deserve the vitriol hurled at us by the rest of the world. For the first time in my 56 years I'm ashamed to be an American.
Bush and all the people he has appointed should be impeached, tried, found guilty of treason and war crimes, and set in front of a firing squad and shot.
Not even Hirohito damaged my country as much as the current administration.
mcgrew's razor: Never attribute to stupidity that which can be explained by greedy self-interest
as if any of this is shocking
are there people out there who are so sheltered and naive that they find anything in that document out of the ordinary?
i don't mean ordinary for the usa, i mean ordinary for the world
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
This is for special ops. You're acting as if this is the CIA manual (I'm sure one exists, but that's an argument for another thread). This is a _military_ manual where one would anticipate that we are at war with the offending country.
I'm curious, would you prefer unrestricted nuclear attacks? Personally, I've always been partial to renaming Iraq "New Iowa", but I can understand that thousands of square miles of radioactive glass may actually not be preferable to taking a government down from within.
Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
It directly Advocates directly advocating directives which are direct and advocatable.
BFD... I utterly fail to see the so-called immorality here. Even reading the editor-chosen bolded parts that I guess were supposed to blow me away, failed to introduce even a minor stir to my immorality meter. The document doesn't talk about assassination, kidnapping, torture, or anything of that matter but that won't stop people from seeing and reading whatever it is that they want to read into the document.
I'm in ur Host Nation readin ur manual !
Gee, maybe if we just were more polite, and just asked these bad men nicely we could make a lot of friends! and everyone would like us cuz we hand out candy and stuff and we could omgpwnies in pink together! Comon hippies, how about some loyalty to your coutrymen first and then we'll think about making friends?
He truly was the first modern general. Right before he kicked everyone out of the town and burned Atlanta, he also said, "You cannot qualify war in harsher terms than I will. War is cruelty, and you cannot refine it . . . But, my dear sirs, when peace does come, you may call on me for any thing. Then will I share with you the last cracker, and watch with you to shield your homes and families against danger from every quarter." Sherman hated newspaper reporters too, and wanted to have them all hanged as spys. I wonder if the Iraq War wouldn't have been over long ago if the US had banned all press before the invasion? Like it or not, if you want to WIN, that's how it's done. Thousands of years of human history don't lie. It's all about denying the enemy a support base and destroying the population's will to resist.
I've often said that if Sherman were in charge (I mean *really* in charge as an independent command, and allowed to conduct it as he did the March to the Sea and beyond), the Iraq War would have lasted about six months tops. But because we place the lives of civilians over victory, we have had a long and protracted war in Iraq . . . which is ironic because the "Sherman approach" has higher initial civilian casualties but is over much faster with many fewer total civilian casualties, and the country can be rebuilt that much faster.
Of course, this must mean that there is some insurgency underway in the US, but the media (i'm guessing under government suppression) isn't telling anyone about it.
At some point, somewhere, the entire internet will be found to be illegal.
the original Gulf War was not declared either, so your point is moot and GP's point stands
-Clio
Karma: Bad (mostly from not giving a fuck)
Blog: http://clintjcl.wordpress.com
It's clear now that we can't relay on the government to do every damn thing. We as citizens need to be more involved in our own safety and survival. That includes strikes, counterstrikes and all manner of diabolical operations in third-world nations. As we speak I'm highlighting the major points for my Boy Scout Troop.
The U.S. Constitution forbids the suspension of Habeas Corpus, except when "in cases of rebellion or invasion, the public safety may require it". This manual apparantly "advocates" suspending Habeas Corpus as a "last resort". From the topic (counter-insurgency) I would assume that "rebellion" and "public safety" would apply.
This manual is directed towards situations outside of the United States, but the Habeas Corpus suspension as a last resort would probably pass a consitutional challenge if this were to be a counter-insurgency within the U.S.
Still, an interesting read on the messiness of counter-insurgency policy. Plenty to learn, and plenty to disagree with.
... as if millions of naive americans suddenly cried out in terror and were suddenly silenced...
... that isnt important. most people know what america did in central and south america a few decades ago, including training terrorist deathsquads and propaganda/censorship operations etc. the important parts are: 0: its obviously still going on, and probably on an even more sophisticated level 1: with a leaked document, its a lot harder to deny.
but I read over a good portion of the .PDF and aren't the things it endorses tantamount to terrorism, that evil scourge the nation is supposed to be so against? Just asking, but isn't it basically saying that it's okay for them to do it, but others cannot? And, if they can keep it a secret they'll support terrorism as long as it's against an enemy?
The eternal struggle of good vs. evil begins within one's self.
Let's pull out 100,000 regular troops in Iraq now and replace them with every last special ops and civil affairs troop we have, and we'll have success within months. But no, the politicians insist we play by antiquated rules because we are a "civil" society. Every time a politician says to pull troops out of Iraq and put them in Afghanistan, they instantly lose credibility with anyone who knows anything about how regular troops deploy, and how they are ineffective in the Afghan theater. Keep that in mind this election season. As much as I detest the saying, sometimes the ends really do justify the means. 10 years, trillions of dollars, a few thousand US lives, a few hundred thousand Iraqi lives and years of political instability, or a few months of counter-insurgency operations and a somewhat stable (relative term) governance in place...you decide.
There's nothing worth fighting for that isn't worth fighting dirty for.
...
Admittedly, Iraq wasn't worth fighting for, but
Let's just hope you actually have the brains to see this document for the obvious fake that it is.
It's amusing that Americans need a written document to believe in something that they can learn by themselves if they dare to go around the world just asking!
Go to Chile and ask who (and how) helped Pinochet's coup d'etate? and what about Argentina's militar Junta in '76? San Salvador, Nicaragua, Panama, etc., etc. And that is only in Latin America.
for the love of all things holy, can we stop posting stuff that incites political commentary!? this is the one place i come to hoping to not hear about obama or clinton or democrats or republicans. that's exactly what this place has turned into lately, a political zoo. i don't care if it's an election year or not, this is "NEWS FOR NERDS, STUFF THAT MATTERS." remember that.
From the document:
:-DDD
Mail your comments to -
Commander, U.S. Army John F, Kennedy Special Warfare Center and School
ATTN: AOJK-DTD-M
Fort Bragg, NC 28307-5000
"If you are fighting fair you are doing something horribly wrong."
Callously and wilfully bolding as you find ncessary is excellent.
Let's face it... A lot of these techniques have been used in the "war" on drugs for a while now. We got three strikes laws, a drug czar, military forces in operation in foreign countries as "advisors." No knock warrants have been served, complete with requisite old ladies being shot for no reason. And the outrage isn't there.
If we don't even care about what's going on in our own country, why do you think we'd care about what goes on in others, whether it's our troops or not?
"It is a miracle that curiosity survives formal education." -Albert Einstein
"We're now invading, so let the suspension begin. Hey, the consitution never said that someone needs to invade _us_ for that to happen, right ?"
But I was intrigued by the use of the world 'peasant'. I figured that it was a term that only made sense in a feudal system - so like the proper netizen that I am, I toddled off to Wikipedia to clarify my thoughts.
I got no further than the first line:
Not to be confused with pheasants.
ROFL! What's that, a guideline for the upper classes when on a shooting party!
Sorry. I never did find out about the peasants.
Genesis 1:32 And God typed
. . . and all you faggots can do is whine about it.
its pretty much what I would expect a book like this to be. you do realize we KILL people in wars...everything else is of a lesser degree.
So coming from someone in the military... How could you people possibly be shocked by this? A) Special Ops. These people are meant to be invisible and are meant to invade quietly and do what is necessary to survive. B) One of the reasons that all the complaining above can go on is because of the ability of our special forces to do these kinds of things... C) This stuff is TAME compared to what a lot of militaries in the world allow their regular forces to do. That's why its called SpecOps. D) You people have NO context on which this is based. This manual, in its proper context, is most likely very useful and appropriate. So before you go on, bleeding your heart out because you have no idea what SpecOps actually does, and you think that these people should expose themselves to great risk rather than survive, move to the North Korea or China and then start trying to voice your opinion. See who's military is bad then.
Mike Moore ph33nd@gmail.com
I mean seriously, it seems that everyone except the majority of American citizens has known for decades that this is how the US operates. The very dirtiest of tactics and a complete disregard for human rights against any group or any nation that dares to stand in the way of American corporate hegemony in any significant way.
It seems that anywhere in the world that there's a profit to be made, it is the God given right of an American to be there making that profit. Never mind that, just perhaps, countries may want to control their own resources for the benefit of their own people. Such countries should always be disabused of any notion that they are anything other than an American profit centre. Unless, of course, such country is big enough and with an effective enough armed forces to seriously fuck up any US attempt at military coercion.
Fortunately for the rest of the planet, this whole "America as World Police" thing will be the downfall of the US. Trillions of dollars are being used for military expenditures without acknowledging the fact that changes in foreign policy would mostly achieve the same security objectives. America will be a lot less vicious and coercive after the economic meltdown it will face within a few years.
knowing that Bush will only follow his invisible leader in the sky.
News flash, sparky: this has nothing to do with religion. Bush no more believes in God than you do. But he knows how to use propaganda, he knows how to get Christians to follow his evil, Satanistic ways. What you ascribe to religion is merely evil, selfish men who use religion to further their own greed.
Bush is the wolf is sheep's clothing that we were warned about. Pat Robertson, too. These men are NOT Christians. Don't listen to their words, look at their actions. They worship money.
Bush is an athiest who pretends to be a Christian.
mcgrew's razor: Never attribute to stupidity that which can be explained by greedy self-interest
"Sufficiently advanced satire is indistinguishable from reality." - [Tips: 1DrYakQDKCQ6y52z6QbnkxHXAocMZJE61o ]
I'm actually less concerned with the possibility of the site being taken down as I am with the people who run it being silently "removed" from the public place, being put into planes flying who-knows-where, and generally getting the serious shaft from the very people whose business is to approve those materials. There are going to be spies from many countries trying to find out how Wikileaks got this document (to prevent or encourage more leaks). Some of the countries will be less pleasant in their methods than others and despite the nature of this document, I don't think the U.S. is at the top of that list. Not really an issue, IMO. It's not like this is some NOC list for the region, or something of that level of sensitivity. With the personnel you have there, these SOP manuals aren't exactly hard to come by. This one just happens to pertain to Special Operation Forces; one that happens to detail some inconvenient practices the top brass would rather not be widely known. Very embarassing if this gets picked up by big media outlet? Certainly.. A breach of protocol, sure. But not exactly a National Security Threat, and it's not like anyone's seriously surprised by this. This _is_ Special Forces we're talking about, right? It's business-as-usual, part of what they're trained to do.
This just seems like the work of some disgruntled operative, and "intelligence" agencies worldwide have been exploiting the "human" angle for information for quite some time.
(crap, first time I've posted anonymously -- for some reason, it won't let me choose to discard my moderation in order for me to post)
considering the subject of today's slashdot poll .
My ism, it's full of beliefs.
That is exactly what we did in World War 2. It is why it ended in only six years. People today have taken on such an unrealistic view of the world and worse on how wars need to be fought. As we found out in the forties you cannot talk to the unreasonable. They will make their threats and when they are ready they will act on them. Of course those who thought they could talk it out will act all confused and such but the end still remains the same, the unreasonable did what they said they would and now instead of containment we have to first kick them out.
Wars only end when one side loses the stomach to fight it. That is done by demoralizing the populace which supports it. Unfortunately that means raining death and destruction on what is a civilian population.
Look, it would be nice if we could afford to not mind other people's business but unfortunately many of these countries make it imperative that someone does mind their business. Are you suggesting the world ignore Iran's leadership constant threats to wipe Israel off the face of the earth all the while telling the UN to bugger off when it comes to their nuclear program? I guess we are going to ignore China the day it overruns Taiwan too. After all its only "yellow/brown/red" people - not whites, not in our own backyard, etc.
Sheesh, how many people must die before it becomes okay to act. When will people realize that proactive actions will cost lives too but more likely less than in the long run. Why is it okay to suggest intervention in darfar or zimbabwe but not somewhere else? Who decides which is which? What about Burma. I guess its okay to let nearly a quarter million die because we need to mind our own goddamn business.
Well we are doing it and they are still dieing. You can't win, you can only make losing less painful. Minding our own goddamn business doomed hundreds of thousands to death during the Hutsi/Tutsi fighting, millions are starving in Darfar, and how many hundreds of thousand do we not know about in Burma.
Turning away does not make it not happen. It sucks but its the truth
* Winners compare their achievements to their goals, losers compare theirs to that of others.
I like their claim to have "leaked" the document. Its a 'sensitive' document, not classified, and you can google for it and find the full text on the web in several locations, all posted before wikileaks. Anyone in the US Army had access to it through multiple websites for soldier education.
I thought the plan was to export democracy, free speech, human rights and other such goodies ... oh boy, was I wrong!
I'm sorry to tell you this, but If you ever believed the plan was about bringing democracy, you're either naive or very undocumented. I'm assuming #2. The good thing is that it can be fixed; all it takes from you is a tendency to sckepticism when it comes to governement propaganda, and a taste to read foreign press. Most of what you know today about Irak was largely forecasted and documented back in 2003.
Western governments practices stink. A lot. It goes far beyond average citizen awareness, and that's part of the problem.
Never gonna happen. The idea is to ensure that everyone else practices what you preach. One of the tactics to achieve this is to convince people that what you preach is motivated by something other than personal gain (i.e. dedication to truth, righteousness etc) and to imply that you yourself will of course follow the rules which you have 'discovered' in the 'big book of how to live right' and are laying-down as a public-service.
Requiem for the American Dream
". . .only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf."
George Orwell, assholes.
What?
This manual describes operations for an Army building an Empire. It is neither a manual for peace-time operations, nor for self-defense.
Patriotism is a virtue of the vicious
One of the things the manual apparently advocates is "the suspension of habeas corpus". Why is this shocking? The U.S. Constitutional standard is "when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion" and I'd sure consider insurgency as qualifying.
That isn't practicing what they preach. Practicing what they preach would be saying openly that it's OK to suppress dissenting speech, violate human rights, and hire terrorists. Do you hear the administration publicly admitting to all that? The only things described in the article summary that they have come out in favor of AFAIK are "warrantless searches, detainment without charge and the suspension of habeas corpus." Oh, and lying to the public. Bush has said that's OK on at least one occasion*. Otherwise the talk is all about freedom, liberty, democracy, and fighting terrorism.
* When asked whether an official was going to resign (I think Rumsfeld), he lied and said no even though he already knew the person was going to resign. When asked after the fact, he admitted he had lied and did not apologize or indicate he regretted it or had made any kind of mistake in doing so. His position was basically that the reporter had put him in a difficult position by asking him the question, so it was OK for him to lie about it.
War isn't Ultimate Frisbee. No `spirit' points awarded.
Moral Credibility does not win wars you dumb slashtardian shithead!
Dont all act surprised to find out what counter-insurgency is all about and your assuming the enemy holds some sort of elite position of moral superiority. They dont, we do, the United States and whatever it takes to end their existence is justified for the greater good.
Thats something your soft handed button pushers just dont get...until its gone then you let others do the hard work for you
"I mean, where are the true believers now? Does anyone seriously think that western governments have any kind of moral credibility?"
The government told me not to believe you. They said there is no plan to undermine rights--only plans to defeat the terrorists. They said we are at war to protect American interests and ideals in a scary, scary world. They said we must make sacrifices to catch all the baddies. They said I is no plebe. They said I is an important part of a real democracy.
I don't know why, but these messages are soothing, appealing. They help me not to care. I can trust the government. I can trust the government. I can trust the government. We can trust the government. We can trust the government. We can trust the government. We can trust the government. We can trust the government.
What will it take for people to wake up?
I use irony whenever I can, but my shirts are still wrinkled...
Right out of Bush's and the multi-national corporations playbook:
1: Suppress labor unions, we can not let labor have any power, how could we control them then?
2: Control political parties, we only need one party (one that is propped up and controlled by the corporations) , after all, it worked in Communist Russia!
3: Warrantless Searches - need to keep us safe from terrorism
4: Bribery - err, did I mean Lobyists???
5: Propaganda - terrorists are a threat...
Come on, it's obvious. No one in the military can read.
SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
I thought the plan was to export democracy, free speech, human rights and other such goodies ... oh boy, was I wrong!
we did export it.
problem is, we sent them our last copy.
damn.
--
"It is now safe to switch off your computer."
I like how wikileaks highlights the parts that make their story look good, you know, like the distruction notice. "Classified military documents contain orders to destroy the documents to prevent release", news at 11. In light of the fact that they find that line of particular importance, I find the remainder of their chosen highlighted areas suspect as well... Wait, here's another part. "Restrictions. Rights on the legality of detention or imprisonment of personnel (for example, habeas corpus) may be temporarily suspended." How horrible! Our government endorses suspension of habeas corpus!! Let's look at the very next sentence. "This measure must be taken as a last resort, since it may provide the insurgents with an effective propaganda theme." Oh, so it's not just go in and arrest everyone you see, it's "here's a possible tool, use it wisely." "Just war", "honorable" warfare, etc. ONLY work if everyone is willing to play by those rules. THAT was the military lesson of Vietnam. And no, that doesn't give you free reign to do what you want. By the way, "They broke the rules, so we can do whatever we want" isn't the point of this manual. PDFs are available from the site, I've already downloaded my copy and intend to read it before formulating a full opinion. But the beginning is very keen to point out that these measures must be carefully considered implementation.
Where's Jason Bourne when you need him?!
there is a major specious assumption underlying a lot of the shock in the comments in this thread: butt out and mind your own business, and everything will get better. fact: in any conflict, on any scale, from the interpersonal on up to the international, it is always better to get involved. it is better for yourself, it is better for other people, and it is morally superior. it is naive and morally inferior to believe that not getting involved makes things better, anywhere, on any issue, in any place
take any issue or region of the world you care about, anywhere in the world, and it is obvious the solution involves getting more involved
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
"Civil War" is an oxymoron.
Sorry to pop all your bubbles, but that Counterinsurgency Manual is publically available. I bought an offical copy from Amazon many months ago. There's nothing secret in the book and those "warrantless searches" are done on the battlefield overseas, not in this country. The whole article is alarmist tripe.
can take the pressure off of hundreds of other women
every day http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Random
Can't believe nobody got that.
"My government wouldn't do this! It must be a fake!"
Sorry, it's been verified. The US government not only would do this, it has a long and verified history of doing this. Read up on the history of central and south America. But maybe all that history is fake too! Yeah, maybe anything bad anyone has ever said about the US is fake!
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
...it was the American colonists who were the insurgents. Now that I come to think of it, perhaps history has proven your point! If England had resorted to these tactics, the world might be a better place today.
Bush: Alright, let's do this, let's kick some ass!
Officer: Ah, George, the war is over.
Bush: What?
Officer: Yeah, it's done.
Bush: Get outta here, you serious?
Officer: Yeah.
Bush: Oh man, Ahh, I just got your messages (stumbling). I'm sorry.
Officer: George it's been over for a while.
Bush: Really?
Officer: It's 1981.
Bush: Oh, oh wow, so, I'm way late. Oh boy. Well, you wanna do something else?
Officer: I got some blow.
Bush: Son-of-a-bitch, it took you this long to tell me. Break it out man!
Windows 3.1x calc: 3.11 - 3.10 = 0.00
I agree 100%. Quite simply, Bush knows what he is doing when he makes himself look stupid. Who would you believe is more capable of terrible evils, the intelligent man who carefully plots - or a doofy stooge who seems like a fratboy who never grew up and is obsessed with religion? Its a facade. He has played the religious right like fiddles. He is an extremely intelligent, and extremely evil man.
It's $10.20 (paper back) on Amazon.
or you can get it on line from the us army at Us.army.mil.
see FMI 3-07.22
The FAS has the 2004-2006 version posted here
No story. move along.
Some drink at the fountain of knowledge. Others just gargle.
It occurs to me after reading many of the comments that most of the slashdotters are a caricature of the typical Do Gooder found in many films.
The situation is dire, lives are at stake, and these morons want to stop and perform some act of humanity for someone who really should just be shot, and, who will later come back and kill everyone.
Let's uphold the Freedom of Speech in a war zone so that the enemy will know what we are up to.
Let's catch and then release on bail terrorists.
Let's NOT conduct surveillance on the enemy or possible collaborators.
Since the average age on Slahdot is about 12 and the average mental age is about 6, I'm not surprised.
Starving the population was a trick learned from British lassaiz-faire economics in India in the late 1800s and used to devstating effect in the Phillipines and later in Vietnam.
Drought & disease conflagrated while the Imperialists looked on, 50 million dead in 30 years and the construction of the Third World. Go Europe!
My school seemd to miss that part out when they told me overpopulation is the cause of famine
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Late_Victorian_Holocausts
There are places where the networks are not touching,and there are places where they are-Boeing's Lori Gunter
on the vast majority of problems that call for getting involved
to not understand that you need force is a sort of naivete about the nature of the problems in this world, the nature of their cause, and the nature of their solution
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
Oh you mean the occupation of Iraq? Is that still going on? I paid attention for a few years, hoping against all odds that they could pull it off. But no, failure as predicted.
Sorry, if the gov't couldn't start a draft or require energy conservation to make this war effort less of a drain on our debt and servicepeople...I can't be bothered. Between free health care, bonuses and other incentives...well...if you join Bush's military...watch your self!
Blar.
So it originated in 1994? No war then and-um who exactly was President at that point?
John Rambo rewrote all the Special Forces manuals. Rather than use intelligence and counter-intelligence assets and local government involvement, etc. etc. the enemies seemed to flock towards him and he'd mow them down. On his Third (III) publicly acknowledged mission, he fought so easily in Afghanistan.
So? If you live in America you want to be protected right? How can the government protect you during an emergency if their hands are completely tied behind their backs and stapled to their rears?
"No! don't arrest that known terrorist! you don't have any hard core proof! let him set off a bomb and kill 3 million Americans first, THEN you can arrest him!"
I think our government does a pretty darn good job protecting our rights and our safety with minimal invasion of privacy or infringement of our rights. Personally, I don't care if they eaves drop on me 24/7 if it helps catch a terrorist or drug dealer.. it's the people that are doing illegal things that complain about illegal surveillance and warrantless searches... they're just mad because they got CAUGHT!
What is scarier, the fact that they're stupid enough to write these tactics down in a published manual, or that those involved are stupid enough that they need to have them written down for them?
War sucks, the problem is that we're taken to war, the symptom is the abuses that take place. Better to cure the problem than treat the symptom.
This is really kind of absurd. The article is all alarmist creating the impression that the U.S. is on some moral limb with its counter insurgency tactics. This is hogwash. Whats REALLY funny is that the U.S. has always been hesitant to really commit to the kind of counter insurgency tactics that actual work and keeps trying to fight insurgencies with normal battlefield tactics. This book is just an attempt to implement in the special forces what many other governments have already successfully done against insurgencies.
For example-
(1) England. England practically wrote this play book. They used it to great effect in Ireland, India and amusingly the middle east. They suppressed the media, lied, arrested on mere flimsy suspicion, bribed and bombed. Guess what- it worked. They were very successful at suppressing insurgencies in many many countries.
(2) India. They learned very well from their former colonial masters and have one of the best counter insurgency operations in history running in Kashmir and a few other provinces. Totally dirty. Totally works.
(3) The French in Algeria. The French successfully beat down an insurgency in Algiers that was particularly brutal (bombed many many civilian locations) using all of the tactics cited in the article above. Unfortunatly they went one step too far and engaged in some pretty nasty torture. While they were able to pacify the city their was media outrage at home. The insurgents started operations again in the country-side and the broke French government just decided to leave.
There are a lot of other examples. However consider this, the British have been far more unsuccessful in their areas of operations in Iraq then the U.S.. On the one hand they are far less arrogant, and far more respectful in some ways to the locals then the U.S.. On the hand they are employing all of the dirty tricks they learned from hundreds of years of successful direct colonialism.
Insurgencies fight dirty. Successful counter insurgencies do too. The U.S. to date has been pretty bad at this game and it really does appear that its due to a mindset in U.S. commanders that insists on forcing big war paradigms onto the a very different kind of battlefield. It sounds like this book needs wider distribution if we are going to go to places like Iraq and Afghanistan.
Funny, it appears that wikileaks has gone completely down. Either they've been slashdotted, or someone doesn't want this information released. Kind of suspiscious. Good thing I already shot off an email to the AP I guess with the manual and FOIA request verifying its authenticity.
http://thepiratebay.org/tor/4246204/US_Special_Forces_counter-insurgency_manual_FM_31-20-3
Wikileaks seams to be slashdotted.
Big FOX =^,^= What do you mean it's broken? I fixed it yesterday!
I had no idea that Dick Cheney posted on slashdot!
How on earth did this tripe get modded informative?
*** Where are we going? And what's with this handbasket?
The U.S. are the good guys. You guys to remember that don't you? I know that it might be fun to feign outrage and to rebell in your own little angst-ridden way. But, at the end of the day, I hope you all remember that the U.S. are the good guys. We must win at all cost. Yes, even if we must fib to our enemies. You do know that, right?
Wikileaks appears to be down atm...
Irony?
Seriously, I hear many critics, and can partly agree with some of their points. Any self-respecting conservative should believe in 'staying out of foreign entanglements'. But what I don't hear is an alternative. What should the policy be for handling groups of people with the stated goal of destroying our country? Dialog? Ok, what when the dialog comes to a standstill? What when the groups are loosely organized and not tied directly to a country, treaties, etc.? So, all you complainers need to get together on a wiki and come up with an alternative manual for anti-terror policy.
Lacking <sarcasm> tags,
http://www.fas.org/irp/doddir/dod/jp3_07_1.pdf
This is not a signature.
Did you ever hear of Free Speech Zones
What about Guantanamo Bay, Abu Ghraib, and extraordinary rendition to name but three. Cheney is on record saying that torture is a no-brainer if there is the potential to save (presumably american) lives...
Well, depending on how you define terrorist, the US has provided support for: the IRA, Osama Bin Laden, and various death squads in South America. Doing business with "friendly" tyrants has not been atypical either.
Actions speak much louder than words.
Talk is cheap. The actions of this administration suggest less-than-noble intentions.
*** Where are we going? And what's with this handbasket?
So who are you to say gravity is a law? It might be different millions of light years from here. You haven't scoured every inch of reality so you can't know for sure that gravity is real.
So go jump off a cliff. And good luck with that.
[quote]Civilian Self-Defense Forces [Paramilitaries, or, especially in an El-Salvador or Colombian civil war context, right wing "death squads"]
When a village accepts the CSDF program, the insurgents cannot choose to ignore it. To let the village go unpunished will encourage other villages to accept the government's CSDF program. The insurgents have no choice; they have to attack the CSDF village to provide a lesson to other villages considering CSDF. In a sense, the psychological effectiveness of the CSDF concept starts by reversing the insurgent strategy of making the government the repressor. It forces the insurgents to cross a critical threshold-that of attacking and killing the very class of people they are supposed to be liberating. [/quote]
Do the ends always justify the means, or only during times of war?
*** Where are we going? And what's with this handbasket?
To think these tactics haven't been in use for over a century is naive.
It's amazing how many people are convinced they should run up and hug the guy holding a knife to their gut.
Seriously. Read this.
Pointless partisan hackery is destructive.
Weaselmancer
rediculous.
Once you've decided to kill to accomplish your goals the idea of outlawing lesser acts than killing seems a little absurd.
I find being offended by me offensive.
Anyone has a mirror? wikileaks seems to be down. Google Cache doesn't have it either.
can anyone actually connect to wikileaks right now?
I'm having no such luck...not sure if its a work coincidence or a result of the manual.
It was videoconferenced. Video of the even exists, so your 'might be faked' is, well, wrong. Nice try.
"The document, which has been verified, is official US Special Forces doctrine. It directly advocates training paramilitaries, pervasive surveillance, censorship, press control and restrictions on labor unions & political parties. It directly advocates warrantless searches, detainment without charge and the suspension of habeas corpus. It directly advocates bribery, employing terrorists, false flag operations and concealing human rights abuses from journalists. And it directly advocates the extensive use of 'psychological operations' (propaganda) to make these and other 'population & resource control' measures more palatable."
not much unlike any governing body or large media outlet.
Dedicated Cthulhu Cultist since 4523 BC.
"detainment without charge and the suspension of habeas corpus." Just to put things in perspective, on a battlefield, you know you are allowed to, like, shoot people and blow them up with grenades, etc. Suspending habeas corpus seems a bit less severe. Life and death, people. Spreading a little propaganda or bribing officials to keep US troops safe is fine by me. These tactics seem very tame considering stuff that's happened in previous wars.
Carpet bombing the suburbs good??
This is a manual for the US Special Forces. Their main job is to go into a country, before our tanks roll in, and reduce the effective fighting power of said country as much as possible. Thereby allowing the "boots on the ground" to have an easier time doing their job.
So, yeah, a foreign power coming in and removing people's rights sucks, but Tomahawk missiles blowing up their cities suck even more.
Whether or not the US should be involved in wars or not is a moot point relative to this manual.
Hollow words will burn and hollow men will burn.
State your position on this topic and the ABSOLUTELY CURRENT justification behind it. You wouldn't happen to be a hypocrite lambasting the opposition for beating you to the punch, would you?
The past does not GUARANTEE the future - but only the insane repeat their mistakes expecting different results.
I never spellcheck and I freely admit it. Save your karma for more worthwhile "lol erorrs" replies
You idiot. This is an army field manual. It is widely available. There is no story here. You know how to get this document? You google for "FM 31-20-3".
Again, my point is that the administration's actions are not consistent with its words.
Get over it.
I hope the government uses every resource and tactic at their disposal against enemy combatants.
Prevent linux based DDOS's!
http://linux.denialofservice.org/
Hey where is the section to remind people we are the 'good' guys. ;)
âoeTolerance applies only to persons, but never to truth. Intolerance applies only to truth, but never to persons.
Insightful.
(and good sig material \/ )
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
Wikileaks Gets Hold of You!
Apparently you haven't ever been to fas.org Not news.
One forgets all the democratic governments the US has overthrown and "civil"" wars it has started or maintained over the ages.
The methods described in this book are nothing new, certainly not to the US authorities.
Just so you know: the countries I am thinking of are (and this is an incomplete list...) Angola, Mozambique, Sudan, Somalia, Ehiopia, Nicaragua, Chili, Cuba -the list is endless.
Maybe US citizens should just realise that their government(s) have the tendency to support dictators, and if necessary, put dictators in power. Freedom, as viewed by the US, is something that applies to US citizens -the rest of the world can f*ck off and die if that benefits US interests.
I opened that doc in a new tab and left for about an hour, came home to find wikileaks and the site hosting the doc is unreachable. Didnt take them long to take them down...
And WWII pilot briefing documents are nearly 60 years old. Do they look real because they weren't word processed?
The field manual is simply a textbook:
Complete Digital Reference of US Army Field Manuals
600 books on DVD for $25.
You'll need an AKO [Army Knowledge Online] log-in to read the classified texts.
The tactical briefing is rough-cut because it isn't finalized or distributed until the last possible moment - for all the obvious reasons.
I wondered about that possibility when I was replying to your post. I guess you were just too subtle for me :-)
*** Where are we going? And what's with this handbasket?
To accept that ones government and country is what by *many* moral standards would be deemed *evil*, and wave it off as old news even when faced with actual evidence is pretty messed up. To remain passive when the evidence is hearsay migh be acceptable but to stay passive faced with "proof" is another issue alltogether.
In addition the ammunition this kind of information gives to terrorsist and other anti amerikan groups is pretty powerful as they are essentially proven right. Any arguments for a softer approach towards USA are rightly crushed. Usa has no moral high ground only vulgar display of power.
The reactions of the american people to this news will be telling. Are the people as bad as their government.
Wait, this whole thing sounds like exactly what Bush/Cheney have been doing IN the U.S. TO U.S. citizens! Now we have their "field manual", we know what they have been doing and what to expect next! What a help!
The Truth is a Virus!!!
Interesting to note that wikileaks.org site is now down, 4 hours after publishing the doc. Someone's not happy.
Parent is right, GP is dead wrong. Special forces number less than the top 1% of the army. The amount of training per qualified special forces soldier is around 100k USD in year 2000 dollars. To think that most real special forces soldiers go into municipal police work demonstrates a lack of knowledge in what special forces really are and the kind of people that earn the green beret.
Does anyone have a copy of this PDF, I am curious to read it but unable to reach the site (seems the american gov has shut it down??)...
I agree with your point, but do get your facts straight. U.S. deaths due to drunk driving:
13,470 in 2006
http://www.alcoholalert.com/drunk-driving-statistics.html
I believe 50,000 is roughly the number of Americans killed per year by automobiles, but alcohol is involved in a fraction of those deaths. And yes, the war on terror is shameless, sickening, and a horrible waste.
Never let a lack of data get in the way of a good rant.
"There is no situation, no matter how miserable that it cannot be made more so by the intrusion of government thugs."
The original said cop, but I've updated it for the 20th and 21st century. I'm with you on this call Guppy06, the idiocy of the populace is to believe 100% of what they "learn" in school. We're lied to, the guys and girls over seas are lied to, their enemies are lied to. The only ones of us that stand any chance of making sense of this shit are the ones stepping back, rather than diving into the whole chaotic mess, "sword in hand."
That being said, I'm hoping everyone starts asking themselves, "who gains"... and step back BEYOND the ones you see on the horse. Who is pulling strings, whose power is consolidated. Stop thinking small, stop thinking elections and generals and grunts and stupid people and terrorists. These are all puppets dangled in front of you. Step further out and look at the grand scheme of things. What changes. Who gets what? Who has been getting what. Who changed and what did they changed. What television and high school taught "heroes" were actually traitors to any principle that Americans once held dear (even if it was 230 years ago)?
Once you step back far enough, this whole mess becomes easier to sort out, and that is the point where questions start becoming visible that were impossible to put into perspective when caught up in the "democrats vs republicans", "warmonger fascists versus control freak socialists", "us vs them", "consumerism vs environmentalism"... all religions, all polarizing factions. So few of the people today seek balance, so few seek the definitions of freedom and of justice. And if we do not apply the words we use, by their true definition, can we truly be upset when the so called "leaders" do not, either? After all, if you do not reserve and protect YOUR rights YOURSELF, you DO NOT HAVE THEM! Period.
" What luck for rulers that men do not think" - Adolf Hitler
This is the force structure and techniques ordinary Americans will be overtly facing very soon.
Annie, get your gun---and IEDS----and land mines and whatever else you need to defend you and your fellow Americans.
The Us government is coming for you---NEVER FORGET THAT!!
BD
The Iraqui army was defeated, Sadam is dead, we occupy and control every square kilometer of Iraq. The war is over.
What we have now is an occupation, and you can't win an occupation. You either occupy or don't. I can't think of any colonial power that has been able to successfully occupy another nation since WWII (arguably Soviets in Eastern Europe), so I don't think our chances are good.
The Chinese have done pretty well in Tibet, but they did it by moving millions of Chinese settlers into the region. Maybe we can get all our dittoheads to move to Iraq for the good of the cause.
Never let a lack of data get in the way of a good rant.
The fundamental reason lies in the rise of the West.
Osama's dream has always been that of a sterile medieval caliphate - with nothing of the intellectual achievement, the creativity and energy of Islamic culture in its prime. It is entirely appropriate that he found refuge with the Taliban.
What Went Wrong?"
Almost every American would like to see other countries become free and democratic. The problem with Bush is not his intent, it is his incompetence, his lies, and the colossal waste of American tax payer dollars.
Bush has failed to deliver on his promises: he didn't bring democracy to Iraq, he didn't reduce government spending, he endangered the lives of Americans, he made terrorism worse, and he ruined the economy.
It boggles the mind that people like you are still talking about "freedom" and "pride" as if the people that dragged us into Iraq had a monopoly on that. Anybody who voted Bush into office should hold down their head in shame; this is your fault. You made a bad choice. Take responsibility for your own actions and stop blaming others.
And next time you want to follow the impulse of bringing freedom to the rest of the world, listen to the people who actually have demonstrable experience with that, not to incompetent hacks like Bush and his cronies.
Unfortunately, we are afflicted with the most corrupt military-industrial-political oligarchy the world has ever known. Need evidence? Read this before you post your standard ignorant redneck knee-jerk responses, or instinctively mod this to "Troll":
The Pentagon's $1 Trillion Problem
A choice excerpt (for those of you unaccustomed to RTFA):
In 2000, the inspector general told Congress that his auditors stopped counting after finding $2.3 trillion in unsupported entries made to force financial data to agree.
I challenge anyone and everyone to post credible data showing that there has been at any time in human history a state which has "lost track of" a greater amount of its citizens wealth. And yet, the morons continue to vote for the thieves.
...are we scared yet?
Seem that the US and Bush are being held to a different standard than any other war or country.
Slashdot "libertarians": Small government for me, big government for those I disagree with. -1, I disagree with you
From the summary:"censorship, press control and restrictions on labor unions & political parties. It directly advocates warrantless searches, detainment without charge and the suspension of habeas corpus. It directly advocates bribery, employing terrorists, false flag operations and concealing human rights abuses from journalists".
That does not imply that we are at war with a country, rather that we are assisting a "friendly" regime to stay in power.
"I'm curious, would you prefer unrestricted nuclear attacks?
No, I'd prefer that my government quit wasting my taxes by sticking its nose into other countries' business.
Never let a lack of data get in the way of a good rant.
I am utterly dumbfounded by this whole thread. Since when in the history of warfare has any country, ever given POWs habeas corpus or needed warrants? Seems like America and Bush are being held to a different standard.
What next, will soldiers have to Mirandize the enemy in the battlefield? This is ludicrous.
Slashdot "libertarians": Small government for me, big government for those I disagree with. -1, I disagree with you
If "disco" means "I learn" in Latin, does "discothèque" mean "I learn technology"?
Lots of i told you so and no still online source and confirmation.
"It directly advocates training paramilitaries, pervasive surveillance, censorship, press control and restrictions on labor unions & political parties. It directly advocates warrantless searches, detainment without charge and the suspension of habeas corpus. It directly advocates bribery, employing terrorists, false flag operations and concealing human rights abuses from journalists. And it directly advocates the extensive use of 'psychological operations' (propaganda) to make these and other 'population & resource control' measures more palatable."
Sounds effective.
Better known as 318230.
Counter-insurgency manual, yet another infringement on our rights by the gov't. Add it to the ever-growing list of violations:
They violate the 1st Amendment by opening mail, caging demonstrators and banning books like "America Deceived" from Amazon.
They violate the 2nd Amendment by confiscating guns during Katrina.
They violate the 4th Amendment by conducting warrant-less wiretaps.
They violate the 5th and 6th Amendment by suspending habeas corpus.
They violate the 8th Amendment by torturing.
They violate the entire Constitution by starting 2 illegal wars based on lies and on behalf of a foriegn gov't.
Support Dr. Ron Paul and save this great country.
Last link (unless Google Books caves to the gov't and drops the title):
America Deceived (book)
I've had enough of this "bad Intelligence" excuse. W and the gang have fooled a bunch of fools. They never mention the fact that they had their own "intelligence" gathering body running in parallel to the CIA. Neither do they mention the fact that this body existed purely to justify the war in the face of the CIA's resistance to it based on the facts.
Yet, when it all comes out, they blame the CIA's information.
the document you linked to is FMI-07.22 and is called "Counterinsurgency Operations". The document in TFA and on wikileaks is FMI-31-20-3 and is titled "FOREIGN INTERNAL DEFENSE TACTICS, TECHNIQUES, AND PROCEDURES FOR SPECIAL FORCES"
:)
I'm still not sure whether the second one is classified though as it's not mentioned. The first one says "This publication is available at Army Knowledge Online www.us.army.mil" and the second one doesn't though.
You are obviously employed by the military to spread disinformation; nice job you have reading slashdot on our tax dollars
my password really is 'stinkypants'
I thought the plan was to export democracy, free speech, human rights and other such goodies
It makes sense. To export something, you have to remove it whence it came.
== Jez ==
Do you miss Firefox? Try Pale Moon.
It's insane how many people are replying to this news with, "Well of course we do this in war, why is anyone surprised." That's not the point.
Nobody is surprised that special forces with no oversight will do immoral things to accomplish their objectives. Yes, everyone knows that these sorts of things - suspension of habeas corpus, employment of terrorists, and so on - happen in the world, and are sometimes done by Americans.
What's outrageous is that there's official documentation recommending, even instructing, special forces soldiers to engage in this shit. This is morally repugnant for two reasons.
First, there's the problem of sanctioned behavior. It's bad when a special ops guy tortures a prisoner in Nicaragua. It's worse when the American government, nominally the spokesperson for the American people, tells him it's okay to do that. Would torture still occur at the hands of special ops forces without higher-ups in Washington condoning it? Absolutely. But at least the people torturing others, without orders to do so, would have to take full responsibility if they were ever found out.
Second, it calls up an important question that would otherwise go unasked. We naturally assume that these sorts of atrocities must happen during wartime (and apparently some of you assume they must happen during peacetime as well, if we have a burning desire to prop up a dictator). But if orders and directions to do these things came to individual operatives from their bosses... well, authority is a complex and powerful force. How can we say that these atrocities are bound to happen in wartime when they are mandated by an authority figure? Can we really assume that special ops guys would consistently breach fundamental human rights in these ways if they weren't being expressly directed to? Isn't it possible that, without a directive to engage in propaganda or illegal search and seizure, some operatives would avoid doing those things because they're wrong?
At the very least, they COULD avoid doing those things if they chose. Which I'd say is a damned sight better than using a government directive as a moral compass.
Well, some day we all have to choose sides. Wikileaks has chosen theirs.
If it were done when 'tis done, then t'were well it were done quickly... MacBeth
Editor could make a living pitching breaking balls for the MLB.
Since I'm bored:
"The document, which has been verified, is official US Special Forces doctrine."
WAS official doctrine. The 1994 version has been superceded by the version dated Feb. 2007. Furthermore, the document does not actually have a printed security classification, which means it is either Unclassified or For Official Use Only, the lowest classification level. It does have a distribution restriction (correctly excerpted) which is not the same thing, and only to protect other classified information. Furthermore, Wikileaks is incorrect in claiming it is the first to publish to the web. A quick Google search reveals several sites that have had it posted, not the least of which is FAS.org, which maintains a comprehensive library of military manuals. In short, not much of a leak.
"It directly advocates training paramilitaries, pervasive surveillance, censorship, press control and restrictions on labor unions & political parties."
Based on the severity of the situation, true. None of this is unusual however, for a student of either history, or the student of law who recognizes that civil law may be superceded by martial or "emergency" law (the conditions under which the document in question advocate these actions). Furthermore, special legislation is emplaced at the will of the foreign nation, not by the US.
"It directly advocates warrantless searches, detainment without charge and the suspension of habeas corpus."
Again, true if the foreign nation enacts the legislation. The assumption being made by Wikileaks is that normal civil law should operate without respect to any civil strife, which is questionable at best. Certainly no government of a nation under civil strife has attempted it. Wikileaks also fails to point out that these are advocated as measures of last resort.
"It directly advocates bribery, employing terrorists, false flag operations and concealing human rights abuses from journalists."
False. The manual discusses monetary motivation without making a recommendation. It does not advocate employing terrorists. Wikileaks has bolded "attacking infrastructure" without making clear that this refers to the insurgent organizations. It also has bolded a sentence on drawing the insurgency into terrorist acts, but this is clearly not advocating terrorism by US or the supported foreign-nation forces. "False-flag operations" are not discussed, unless Wikileaks is refering to operations by paramilitary forces, but these are citizens of the foreign nation and would only be operating under their own flag. As for concealing human rights abuses, the manual says that US personnel are not to discuss them, but nowhere does it instruct them to lie--this is not instruction to conceal.
"And it directly advocates the extensive use of 'psychological operations' (propaganda) to make these and other 'population & resource control' measures more palatable."
True, by explaining what the measures are for. As the US found out the hard way in Iraq, not explaining what you are doing gives free reign to insurgent propoganda to paint every action as evil.
I give this story a 1/10.
- The Captcha is "generals." Irony.
The others, OK. Mind you, that's rather like saying you're a nice person compared to that Lizzy Borden...
But Castro? He's undone ALL the shite that american corporations did to the PEOPLE of Cuba and made them one of the most prosperous and healthy places to be amongst the putative third world.
Education and lack of extreme poverty (cf the number of bums in NY, NY) are amazing when you consider the interference US makes to keep the Cubans who LIKED exploiting those less fortunate that then fucked off to the US when they couldn't butt-fuck the poor any more voting for them.
Castro wasn't great but he's looked after the ordinary Jane Housecoat in Cuba a SHITLOAD better than that ignorant twat with the silver spoon up his arse GWB.
Yugoslavia were pretty buttfucked by the west. Told they were going to be helped but that was ignored for political expediency and the hope that that horrid little man would stop.
But they got no traction. (I'm talking about the dedicated blame America for everything 'Rage Against the Machine' type morons.)
Afghanistan is a skirmish. Iraq is a skirmish.
The real war will last for 50 years and will only end when the towel heads have out bread us in the west OR we have taken they're children's minds with MTV middle east.
New energy technologies (which ever ones turn out to win in the market) will help defund them as well.
Nobody with power is saying everything they know or do. For example I guarantee that the department of state knows that the Saudis are not as a nation our allies. Saying that would not be smart though, so we keep smiling at each other.
A shia vs. sunni war wouldn't be the worst thing for the US ether. Worked great for the 80s and most of the 90s.
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
Always have. Ask the Aussies, Canadians or even the Scots and Irish.
Who killed more people? Do I need to quote Patton?
Canada is much better served with its OWN military (vs its previous status as an English vassal state).
We allied with Saddam when the USSR was a serious threat. The fact that Saddam didn't really grasp the things had changed and continued to play his previous hand tells much about the man.
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
It is silly to use this "declaration" word as a standard when the whole point of it being in Article I was to make sure the President consults with Congress on major military action, not some need for someone outside of the country to hear the actual word "declaration." Presidents since Thomas Jefferson have used military police powers without an actual declaration, and I'd think Jefferson in particular would know a little about what presidential power entails.
The great irony is, you nit-picker, is that the current detainees would have less rights in a declared war, since they could be held indefinitely until the war is over. This entirely flies in the face of the point of Geneva, being that the only ones who are supposed to get its protections are those who follow it(as an incentive to sign the Accords and live up to them), unlike al Qaeda. Instead, al Qaeda, flouting all the rules of warfare, get treated better than a POW would have been, thanks to an overreaching SCOTUS.
Oh by the way, Osama bin Laden declared war on the US. Is that good enough, or would you like to employ some other jailhouse law to hamstring the USA from defending itself? I'm beginning to think this isn't some concern for civil liberties, but actual bad faith on your part.
I would like to know, should US soldiers be Mirandizing al Qaeda in Baghdad? Are we really going to this level of absurdity? War not cops and robbers for crissakes!
Slashdot "libertarians": Small government for me, big government for those I disagree with. -1, I disagree with you
In World War II, Germans were tried in the US an executed via military tribunal, and SCOTUS upheld that (Ex parte Quirin, 317 U.S. 1 (1942)). The poor little terrorists eat a lot better on much softer beds than the Nuremberg defendants like Hermann Goering did. Too bad for Bush and America that SCOTUS decided to ignore its own precedent on the matter.
Slashdot "libertarians": Small government for me, big government for those I disagree with. -1, I disagree with you
I'm not surprised by the government document or the tactics--war is an age-old craft and it's a dirty one at that.
What I am surprised by is the naivete of the more liberal-minded folks who are so outraged. There's nothing wrong with being an idealist, a pacifist, or an over-all peace monger, but it's down-right ignorant to think that a war of any scale and/or any other type of police action can be waged without these tactics. It's not just a war in Iraq and Afghanistan; our foreign policies over the years, as well-meaning as it might be, hasn't exactly made us many friends. Political alliances and friendships are fickle and unstable--Iraq was our friend when Iran was the enemy. Afghanistan got help from us and Israel when the Soviets were the enemy.
We Americans like to think we're the good guys but we, like many disenchanted college freshmen, are outraged to learn of the unfortunate realities of world politics: the biggest difference between the good guys and the bad guys seems to be which side you're on!
The ugliest part of it is that our standard of living in the USA was brought to us by these same practices--be they economic or military. In the present paradigm, our continued enjoyment, unfortunately, seems to rely on perpetuating the practices outlined in this document.
When the present administration says, "Spreading Democracy" what the really mean to say is "Preserving the Status Quo." The "Democracy" candy coating makes it go down easier.
Everyone loses something--their life, their innocence, their money, their liberty, or all of the above. The idea is to restrict most of the losses on the other side.
I might know what I'm talkin' about, but then again, this is Slashdot...
There's a big problem with your logic: the 20 premier combat brigades are just a tad bit busy at the moment. Sure, simply having them near the Iranian border will have some impact on the psychology of their administration, but the implied threat rings a little hollow when they know your troops are tied up with other pressing duties.
Protecting our strategic interests in the area is all dine and fandy, but aren't there more pressing matters at home that we could address? The 600 billion dollars spent so far in Iraq sure would go a long ways towards fixing a lot of schools, libraries, bridges, and other infrastructure right here at home. Conservatives complain about tax and spend Demacrats, but it takes a spend and spend Republican to really blow a budget!
Propaganda is THE cornerstone of counter insurgency. Psychological Operations (PSYOP) uses the media to convince people to vote, to exercise freedom of speech when it's dangerous, to criticize family members who take money from militants, etc. American propaganda is very rarely ethically questionable.
The problem is, however, that right now the US has about 1/4th the PSYOP and Civil Affairs that it actually needs. Our Army was designed to fight small conventional wars as part of NATO, and we simply don't have the structure to fight wars with only a little help. We need to basically double the size of the Army for a war like this. Which would cost about $100 billion per year.
Of course, pulling out of Iraq would result in a 5-way war with millions massacred in fighting between Turks, Persians, Kurds, Sunni Arabs, and Shia Arabs. Save money just to let a second holocaust happen?
The Democrats and Republicans try to make it a simplistic picture because they want you to vote for a sound bite. Reality is much, much harsher.
it was 'goodwill' as such, more sympathy. We all might have bitched and moaned about US foreign policy, but we meet Americans and by and large they're a lovely bunch of people. So we have a dichotomy - and resolved it by kindof deciding it was just a spot of mild ignorance/apathy (a pretty universal trait in all of us). 9/11 happened and we were all shocked, sympathetic - and this was then followed by wondering what US response would be? Well response was pretty swift, involved a shit-load of ordinance and a couple of countries randomly picked from the 'people we don't like list' - hohum. I think the bit that really really rankled was the complete and utter lack of sincerity and the gigantic gonads required to actually attempt to meld the rhetoric and actions. I mean this will be the high water mark of the Goebbelian scale. Saudis blow you up - so you go after Afghanistan and Iraq.. Soo that's the taliban you armed against the soviets and Saddam who you armed against the Iranians. Now neither side 'nice' people, but blowback-tastic. Now consider current situations - Iraq is falling apart and will need foreign occupation for generations to prevent it completely imploding. Well maybe it's not so much implosion, as the locals stopping selecting leaders you don't like. Afghanistan - we decided to get rid of the Taliban... but then decided to stamp out heroin... but then the locals didn't like that as they used the poppy money to feed their children with (a selfish people) so seemed to want the taliban back... so we decided maybe we'd let them grow poppies and look the other way.. Oh and we seem to have decided that a Pakistani dictatorship should be supported as he's friendly (and has nukes) - despite the fact there's a reasonab... Oh I could blather on in this uninformed way for years... Oh - point I meant to leap on was that the US public response seemed to be to remain deep-fried potatoes as a bunch of cheese-mongers didn't seem to leap on the US spiel (somebody owes somebody an apology - and look like you mean it). Oh and to top this all off, the US public seems to think that maybe they should withdraw from Iraq - why? Because some of your soldiers are getting hurt. FFS at least have the good grace to attempt to straighten up the mess you've made.
This is a standard field manual that has been used for special forces training for almost two decades. I read it on a lunch break nearly five years ago while attached a unit that wasn't even special forces. It's also posted on the internet:
Here: http://www.counterinsurgency.org/doctrine/31-20-3/31-20-3.htm
Here: http://www.geocities.com/tominelpaso/armymanual.htm
oh and on Amazon: http://www.amazon.com/FM-31-20-Operational-Techniques-Department/dp/1581605463/
Also, Anyone who is familiar with the School of the Americas, the United States history of engaging in false-flag terrorism, or the CIA's cocaine trafficking business should not find any of it a surprise.
It is called "pathocracy" - rule by the psychopathological (psychopaths, narcissists and other manipulative, selfish critters who by nature often are very skilled at rising to high positions). Do look it up.
There was research into the nature of how they shape and influence ideological movements and societies by a team of Polish psychologists working during the Communist times (indeed, the Nazi and Soviet era was a prime subject. the same sort of societal disease has long since taken root in our modern societies, though it seems to be developing more slowly and subtly this time around).
The last-survivng one, Andrzej Lobaczewski, finally re-rewrote (the first had to be destroyed due to a search when authorities in Communist Poland were alerted to the dissident nature of the research, and the second was "lost" when sent off to the Vatican) the manuscript of a book of the research in 1984 and tried - Zbigniew Brzezinski then blocking it - to get it published. Two decades later during his last years, he finally did get it published, though it remains rather obscure.
Deflect criticism by producing incriminating documents about yourself that will be revealed as fakes upon closer inspection.
We have met the terrorists, and they is us! ...Proof that our 1980's tax dollars went to fund South American "anti-communist" testicle-in-a-vice training.
Ahhh, freedom.
http://rapidshare.com/files/123382001/us-fm-31-20-3.pdf.html
The document in question is FM 31-20-3, Foreign Internal Defense Tactics, Techniques, and Procedures for Special Forces.
It is aimed at SOF personnel, not conventional operations personnel.
"Field manual (FM) 31-20-3 is the third in a series of tactics, techniques, and procedures manuals that expand on the principles developed in the Special Forces (SF) operations manual, FM 31-20. They provide information and guidance to SF commanders, staffs, and operations personnel at battalion, company, and team levels. This manual will help them prepare for or conduct foreign internal defense (FID) operations across the range of military operations described in FM 100-5."
FMI 3-07-22 is a document for a different audience.
"APPLICABILITY
The primary audience for this manual is conventional-force leaders at division-level and below. It supports Army Education System instruction on the theory and conduct of counterinsurgency operations."
Read TFA people.
I completely agree. However the people who send them checks worth thousands in the mail think differently. I have a relative of senior age that lost her home to Jesus. (Btw, i wish mods could recognize sarcasm when they see it. The person who submitted the story has a nick that made me think about this specific subject matter, nothing more. There's nothing I trolled about at all.)
Today.
And tomorrow.
And next year. And when our babies are teenagers.
We are supposed to be leaving our children a BETTER world, not one burdened with unmanageable debt!
http://www.amazon.com/Marine-Corps-Counterinsurgency-Field-Manual/dp/0226841510
The entire point of the Special Forces is to cause chaos behind the lines. That is what they do and have always done. Every major armed service has this. They are not "Rambos" that run and gun and shoot explosive arrows. They go behind the scenes and cause chaos by using whatever means necessary.
Anyone happen to figure out that this document was originally published during the clinton presidency?