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
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
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,
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,
Does this mean you can't win wars by giving the enemy a lollipop?
No, but if the overthrow of the popularly elected democratic government in Iran way back when is any indication, it does suggest that you can avoid wars by staying out of other people's business. Put another way, getting out of the habit of pissing people off might get you your own lollipop.
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..)
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.
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?
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.
Stop the future! Something "bad" was done 60 years ago!
That justifies any position in favor or opposed to anything from now until the end of time. And it automatically makes the other side wrong, regardless of anything -- because nothing they want to do will change what happened 60 years ago. And what if it happens again?
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
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
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.
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.
"If you are fighting fair you are doing something horribly wrong."
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
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
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.
". . .only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf."
George Orwell, assholes.
What?
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.
War isn't Ultimate Frisbee. No `spirit' points awarded.
This document was signed in 1994. Where do these policies fit in Clinton's playbook?
Evil is the money of root.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
you are entitled to your opinion and me mine ... however, nothing I said is factually incorrect.
:D
You haven't said anything "factually incorrect" because you haven't said anything factual at all.
and I will be voting McCain in 2008 too. Lets see if that can get a few more expletives to come out of your mouth
Well, it is obviously pointless to try change your position. I'm just pointing out your hypocrisy to others. After eight years in power, two nations in ruins, a trillion dollars spent on war, and an economy in shambles, Republicans still fail to take responsibility for their actions and admit that they screwed up. After what you did and how you are trying to weasel out of it now, people have a right to be angry with Republicans and people like you.
You also don't know your history when you talk about "anti-war liberals" in reference to WWI and WWII. It was two liberal Democrats that caused the US to enter into WWI and WWII. They entered those wars for the right reasons, and they followed through correctly. Despite all the Republican lies and distortions, it is the liberals that cause the economy to flourish and bring prosperity to America, lead the nation into just and successful wars, and promote freedom around the world.
People like McCain and you lack values, you lack historical understanding, and you lack integrity. And the sooner people realize that, the sooner we can restore American values and American strength.
Maybe I can explain the difference with some examples. This is an example of a logical argument that makes a good point: "We can't use nuclear weapons because we scrapped them all 60 years ago. There are no more."
Here is an example of an emotional argument that makes no particular point, even though we've all heard it a hundred times: "We shouldn't invade Iraq. We armed Saddam Hussein 20 years ago."
You see the difference? The second argument is just code words for "the US is bad". It makes no logical argument for anything. It presents no context about 20 years ago. It doesn't explain why the one event precludes the other. It doesn't explain why the facts are (implied to be) exactly the same now as they were 20 years ago. It's really not a debate point at all. It changes the subject to an emotional attack on the US.
If you want to say that some event in the past is meaningful because there's a lesson that should be learned, then state the conclusion. The implied conclusion to most of these arguments is "I hate the US". The lesson seems to be "the US is always wrong". But the arguments don't really make a convincing case, so the conclusion is left for the US-haters to fill in with their own prejudices.
Anti-war folks seem to be extremely intellectually lazy, dishonest, discontent, and altogether unable to put together a logical argument of any kind on the subjects they talk the most about. They seem indifferent to the real consequences of their choices and they have no apparent curiosity or desire to understand other viewpoints.
Also, they don't solve problems. They just complain when other people try to solve them. "Those other people are doing it wrong again. There's this thing that happened 60 years ago, after all."