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?
... 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
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
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
Jools, Jops and Stoo, for a start. War has never been so much fun!
Real Daleks don't climb stairs - they level the building.
Bearded Dragon
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.
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.
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?
Our commander in chief said as much in a videoconference with troops in Afghanistan on Mar 13, 2008: ...
... in some ways romantic, in some ways, you know, confronting danger. You're really making history, and thanks," Bush said. ...
( 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
What a shame he's otherwise "employed".
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
This document was signed in 1994. Thanks for playing.
Evil is the money of root.
Except Iraq. Which wasn't a breeding ground for terrorists.
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"...
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.
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.
I think the key is to play it in "Normal" mode. "Easy" mode is too easy and "Hard" mode can get frustrating. Normal mode is the most fun. Save the "Hard" mode for after you win it in "Normal" mode.
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.
WWI began in 1914, but America didn't get there till April of 1917 (oh yea, and it ended in November of 1918. Of the ~10 million deaths, and 13 million wounded, America's contribution stands at approximately 1% (117k killed, 205k wounded).
Cripes, Canada, with a population about 1/12th of the United States at that time, suffered HALF as many casualties (67k killed, 150k wounded)! By proportion to overall population, Canada contributed approximately 24x as much as the USA!
World War II began in 1939. The Battle of Britian was fought in 1940. The Americans, after A LOT of wembling about "other peoples' problems", finally joined the war in December of 1941 (having essentially sat-out half of the conflict).
The Shah of Iran was an American-backed dictator who essentially pillaged Iran and stayed in power by virtue of the CIA.
Similiarly, Saddam Hussein was enabled by support from the American military-industrial complex, as well as the CIA and the DoD. They armed him, paid him, and supported him because he was happy to throw hapless Iraqis lives at Iran on behalf of the ole' US-of-A.
Given these things, I'm having trouble finding a basis for the self-righteous tone of your message (other than just being completely blind to history, and having swallowed the current propaganda hook-line-and-sinker...)
-AC
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.
all they ever do is replace "Oppressive Bad Guy 1 antagonist to the U.S." with "Oppressive Bad Guy 2 sympathetic to the U.S."
So the only way to contribute to the war effort is to sustain casualties? By that logic I guess that Yugoslavia contributed more during WW2 than the US or UK?
World War II began in 1939. The Battle of Britian was fought in 1940. The Americans, after A LOT of wembling about "other peoples' problems", finally joined the war in December of 1941 (having essentially sat-out half of the conflict).You might want to consider reading some history before you bemoan how the United States "sat out" the first half of WW2. Even if the American people were inclined to get involved (they weren't) the United States didn't really have much of a military to speak of in those years. The only branch of the American armed forces that was remotely ready for war was the US Navy. The US Army and Army Air Corps were a joke and meaningful American intervention simply wasn't possible until late 1942/early 1943.
FDR did what he could with the cards that he held -- he sent arms to the Allies (a blatant violation of the concept of neutrality), attempted to keep Japanese aggression in check and ordered the US Navy to escort conveys in the Atlantic and to sink u-boats on sight -- months before we were formally at war with Nazi Germany.
I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
"War is ugly ... but freedom is worth it. It is worth it now, like it was in 1916"
A war between the Houses Hohenzollern, Hapsburg, and Osman against Houses Romanov and Windsor. Yay, freedom.
If we had kicked back, relaxed and let these statist colonial empires melt down further, the cause of "freedom" would have been a lot better off, rather than letting the winners hang on to their colonies and in fact colonize the territories of the losers. Probably could have avoided the next war altogether.
The Kurds (in Turkey/Syria/Iraq/Iran) are in a similar position with a greater population and an even longer ethnic history, only they're not anywhere near Israel. The other Arab states aren't exactly falling over each other trying to create a Kurdistan.
"the intelligence may well have been flawed, but Bush didn't do it."
In fact he and Cheney's "office of special plans" did exactly that: they blocked information that was not favorable to war, provided 'intelligence' from expatriots that was nothing more than lies and wishful thinking, provided 'intelligence' from torture victims that was worthless... and engineered the whole thing with only war in mind.
"What was important was the Saddam comply with inspectors which he did not do"
Dude you live in a fantasy world. The inspectors were in the process of inspection when they were driven out by the comming war. In addition, the UN 'resolution' fig leaf under which we went to war called for all countries to provide information the inspectors could use to locate the WMD. All the while the inspections were going on, Rumsfeld and others kept saying "we know where the weapons are" but refused to provide this information to the inspectors. This placed the US in violation of the resolution. It's easy to understand why we didn't provide this information: when inspection proved it wrong it would have made it a lot harder to justify why were going to war.