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."
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?
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?
Also, doesn't anyone else find it ironic that those folks are supposed to be fighting for freedom and the American way?
So it's by any means necessary then?
When we go over there to bring them freedom, we can do whatever the fuck we like because we're the "good guys", right?
Whilst i can see some justification for some of these techniques in an actual war of defence against an aggressive power, you know this shit's going on in our wars of adventure and speculation too.
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
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
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. Yes, but there is one small problem... We never declared war.
How can you win when you don't even have a "proper" war to begin with? There is no end to this "war" (and insurgencies) because it was never begun and the objectives were never clearly identified.
G. Washington on Government "it is force. Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master."
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..)
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
". . .only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf."
George Orwell, assholes.
What?
Do you mean 'like it was in 1914 and 1939'? As in when the world wars started as opposed to when the US decided to join in?
"War is delightful to those who have not experienced it."
-Erasmus
"Quote me as saying I was mis-quoted." -Groucho Marx
Please cite your references, because I'm not sure you're possessed of the "ounce of intelligence" that you're referring to...
The United States was meddling with internal affairs via the CIA pretty much from WW2 on. They installed and supported the "pro west" Shah of Iran, whose whoring of his country and people lead to the rise of the ayatollah's and the extremist element in that country.
They then gave Saddam Hussein their support in order that he should stand agains the "New" Iran, and then people from both of those countries got to experience the meat-grinder that is American Foreign Policy in the Middle East. They also didn't seem to care if he oppressed his own people, by whatever means, although after decades of his abuses, they then supported a Kurdish insurgency, but cut-off support to them just in time to let Saddam obliterate them.
Later they sent money, guns and tactical support to the Afghan rebels in order to help them overthrown the Russians, but then cut them loose to "wither on the vine" once the Russians left.
The Americans support repressive regimes in Kuwait, Yemen, and Saudi Arabia. They also supported Isreal against Palistinians who've become the Middle-Eastern gypsies as a result.
This is the record of American influence in this region, as ever with Americans, it's a story of doing whatever it takes to advance their interests, without thought, care or regard for how much it'll fuck-up anyone else... That's the basis for the resentment, anger and hatred the people of these regions have for Americans, and that's the environment that's "breeding terrorists". So please, PLEASE cite your references that this area was a Terrorist Breeding-ground "before America got involved"!
-AC
PS: I'm an atheist, and Canadian. I am NOT an Islamo-fascist, and I have no particular sympathies for any of the peoples I've described. I have no hidden agenda. I'm simply pointing out that a LOT of the troubles America is experiencing in the world right now can be seen as karmic chickens coming home to roost.
PPS: Weird confluence: my captcha is "killings"...
The ludicous screed that heads the article might be considered a parody of itself. The manual that then follows is no worse than say Machievelli's "The Prince". or more apropos Sun Tzu "the art of war".
Armies are SUpposed to plan and supposed to control populations effectively, ideally inflicting the the least damage possible. Like Jujitsu, it's about knowing the pressure points to move the whole body.
Fuck, it's their freakin' job.
Folks it's not immoral to plan for war. it may be immoral to go to war, but in the USA that's a civil sector choice not a military choice.
On a similar tack. I't not immoral to equip our soldiers with the best weapons possible. If the Country decides through its political leadership to put soldiers in harms way then they should be equipt to be as effective as they possibly can. The immorailty of war comes when politicians send us to war or waste our treasure on unneccessary weapons.
Some drink at the fountain of knowledge. Others just gargle.
The local populace are still oppressed, they are still murdered and humiliated by various local and nonlocal groups including Al Qaeda and US armed forces.
So for whom is this so called freedom worth the price?
The difference between the current situation and the WW's are that in the WW's the US helped to liberate conquered nations where the populace was against their conquerors, in the current situation they are seen as the conquerors.