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."

5 of 999 comments (clear)

  1. Re:Did any of this need to be confirmed? by kestasjk · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I dunno, I think this is the old problem of mistaking incompetence for evil.

    Here in Australia our labor government (and before that, to a lesser extend, the liberal government) can sure be incompetent, but as much as I dislike Rudd he's probably not evil.

    He supported the Iraq war in 2003 and now blames Howard for it of course, but he (just like the majority of people) thought it was necessary at the time.

    No point mistaking bad intelligence and unquestioning politicians for malice.

    --
    // MD_Update(&m,buf,j);
  2. Re:War is fun! by GodsMadClown · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Our commander in chief said as much in a videoconference with troops in Afghanistan on Mar 13, 2008:
    ( http://www.reuters.com/article/politicsNews/idUSN1333111120080313 ) ...
    "I must say, I'm a little envious," Bush said. "If I were slightly younger and not employed here, I think it would be a fantastic experience to be on the front lines of helping this young democracy succeed."

    "It must be exciting for you ... in some ways romantic, in some ways, you know, confronting danger. You're really making history, and thanks," Bush said. ...

    What a shame he's otherwise "employed".

  3. Re:Did any of this need to be confirmed? by AHuxley · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Next slashdot will be "discovering" Operation Gladio.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Gladio

    --
    Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
  4. Re:Did any of this need to be confirmed? by alexgieg · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Oh yeah, arming one group of people and giving them a monopoly on violence is the solution to interpersonal conflict. Well, Hobbes used to say that the advantage of governments isn't that violence itself ceases to exist, just that it switches level. Or, to be more precise, that outside a state you have violence at a personal level, with people shotting each other in the streets as the only way of being sure they won't be the next killed is by being the next killers, while with states, although you still have violence among them, at least people living inside them get some measure of peaceful coexistence. The difference, thus, isn't one of "good" versus "evil", but rather one of "bad" versus "worse".

    As a result of this reasoning, his take on the subject was that, for people to be able to accomplish anything better than having to live in an eternal struggle for today's food (where anyone can come and take from you what you made, no one bothers to produce anything, much less any surplus), the very first thing they need is a state strong enough to both make other states afraid of messing with them and to make the people under its umbrella afraid of messing with each other. Once you have this established, no matter how (and at this point a totalitarian tyranny is okay for him), you have peace enough for surplus production to develop. And once you have a functional society, then you can start pursuing other goals, such as, say, freedom of belief, freedom of speech, democracy, individual rights etc. (which, contrary to common belief, he pretty much preferred).

    So, yes, arming one group of people and giving them a monopoly on violence is indeed the solution to interpersonal conflict. Even if it leads, in the worst case scenario, to the monopolist becoming an absolute totalitarian hereditary monarch and everyone else becoming his personal slaves, as in this case interpersonal conflicts are also few. But, and this is important, it's a solution only to interpersonal conflicts. Everything else requires, of course, much more than this.

    A monopoly in violence, thus, is just the very first step required in solving human problems, as it solves our very first problem. But it's never the solution to all of our problems.
    --
    Conservatism: (n.) love of the existing evils. Liberalism: (n.) desire to substitute new evils for the existing ones.
  5. Amazon by goombah99 · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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.