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."

Did any of this need to be confirmed?

[damburger (981828)]

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?

Re:Did any of this need to be confirmed?

[Nursie (632944)]

We need some sort of government to protect peope from each other.

Otherwise I couldn't agree more, it just sems to be a bunch of rich, cantankerous old killjoys at the top of each country, making up reasons to kill people that are under the influence of another bunch of rich old bastards.

Re:Did any of this need to be confirmed?

[kestasjk (933987)]

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.

Re:Did any of this need to be confirmed?

[sesshomaru (173381)]

No point mistaking bad intelligence and unquestioning politicians for malice.

Ok, as you are speaking of Australia, this may not apply to you. After all, I could see the government of Australia accepting intelligence from their ally the United States in good faith. However, citizens of the United States, you should understand that there is a difference between cooked intelligence and bad intelligence.

Bad intelligence is when Achmed is giving you information, but he is actually secretly working for the Taliban. Cooked intelligence is when there is no Achmed, and the information you supposedly got from him was actually created by the Office of Special Plans [guardian.co.uk] out of whole cloth. Basically, black propaganda aimed at your own populace.

Bad intellegence can be incompetence (or it can just mean the other side is better than you), but cooked intelligence is definitely malice.

Re:Did any of this need to be confirmed?

[alexgieg (948359)]

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.

Re:Did any of this need to be confirmed?

[Pig Hogger (10379)]

If the good guys outnumber the bad guys, then things will eventually settle down

Please define "good guys".

Re:Did any of this need to be confirmed?

[Suzuran (163234)]

"Good Guys", noun: The group of people who believe the same things I believe.

Re:Did any of this need to be confirmed?

[blahplusplus (757119)]

"I mean, where are the true believers now? Does anyone seriously think that western governments have any kind of moral credibility"

Talk to the average north american, and you'll find out that there are many that would rank you with steretype of the crzzy-type 'conspiracy theorists'.

This is just more example of fascism plain and simple, when business tools government for it's own interests.

Re:Did any of this need to be confirmed?

[stewbacca (1033764)]

Facism? Every western government has some sort of Special Operations system in place with all the same provisions. I think it is more telling that the slashdot crowd is just now "discovering" what has been known about black operations since the beginning of time.

Re:Did any of this need to be confirmed?

[AHuxley (892839)]

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

What's really scary...

[by Anonymous Coward]

many of those special forces folks come back and become your local police. Police departments and many security firms have a preference for ex-military.

Also, doesn't anyone else find it ironic that those folks are supposed to be fighting for freedom and the American way?

Re:What's really scary...

[betterunixthanunix (980855)]

"Also, doesn't anyone else find it ironic that those folks are supposed to be fighting for freedom and the American way?"

I didn't realize that censorship, surveillance, union busting, and silencing political parties had become un-American; let me pull out the champagne, this calls for a celebration. Our government has been slowly but steadily stepping it up on all of the above fronts, but in countries like Iraq they just happen to have an advantage: there is no existing legal framework standing in the way, so they are free to re-create society in a manner that suits them.

Re:Did any of this need to be confirmed?

[Saint Fnordius (456567)]

The sad thing is that huge swathes of this read as if they were redacted to fit an ideology, not truly written based on pragmatic achieving of a goal. It's all about doing the "dirty work" that the chairborne rangers with their neckties and air-conditioned offices dream about.

I am going to read this in more detail, but right now it depresses me that counterinsurgency tactics have fallen so deeply into doing the "glamourous", "badass" stuff and ignoring the repercussions. Current lack of success in Afghanistan and Iraq should have been a wake-up call to how important treating the locals is, how accepting moral limits can reap tactical benefits later on.

Re:Did any of this need to be confirmed?

[call-me-kenneth (1249496)]

Bill Hicks said it best, of course [www.last.fm].

Hey, aren't y'all a bunch of hired killers? Of course they're evil manipulative bastards, that's their job. You didn't really think they were there to spread democracy and peace did you?

Re:Did any of this need to be confirmed?

[Stellian (673475)]

Who actually believes that our governments have any reason to exist anymore beyond their existence itself?

"We are not interested in the good of others; we are interested solely in power. Not wealth or luxury or long life or happiness: only power, pure power. What pure power means you will understand presently. We are different from all the oligarchies of the past, in that we know what we are doing. All the others, even those who resembled ourselves, were cowards and hypocrites. The German Nazis and the Russian Communists came very close to us in their methods, but they never had the courage to recognize their own motives. They pretended, perhaps they even believed, that they had seized power unwillingly and for a limited time, and that just round the corner there lay a paradise where human beings would be free and equal. We are not like that. We know that no one ever seizes power with the intention of relinquishing it. Power is not a means; it is an end. One does not establish a dictatorship in order to safeguard a revolution; one makes the revolution in order to establish the dictatorship. The object of persecution is persecution. The object of torture is torture. The object of power is power."
Any resemblance is purely coincidental.

Re:Did any of this need to be confirmed?

[Bombula (670389)]

It's a terrible tragedy that such a foolhardy strategy has been embraced by our current adminstration. The simple fact is that the garbage advocated in this 'doctrinal' guide is not counter-terrorism, it's merely counter-productive. You can leave aside the entire philosophical argument for fighting fire with water instead of with fire, leading by example, winning over others through cooperation and conversation rather than conflict and so on, and instead simply crunch the numbers: we could save far more American lives for far less money with a War on Drunk Driving or a War on Idiots Driving While Talking On The Phone than we ever will with the War on Terror, to pick just two examples off the top of my head.

We lost 3000 souls on 9/11. Yet we've lost nearly 5000 in Iraq. Meanwhile, we steadily lose 50,000/year to drunk driving, another several thousand to those fools driving while talking on their phones. The numbers simply don't support a War on Terror no matter how you juggle them. This war of abstraction is, in fact, a Campaign of Terror to frighten our citizenry into submission in order keep the current military-industrial complex in power. It is as shameless as it is sickening, and the perpetrators leading the charade should be behind bars instead of in the White House.

Now that everything that everybody already knew ..

[YeeHaW_Jelte (451855)]

... has been proven, what are Americans going to do to make sure the government and the military practices what they preach?

I thought the plan was to export democracy, free speech, human rights and other such goodies ... oh boy, was I wrong!

in the end

[sveard (1076275)]

The United States will lose more than can ever be gained with war. It's a question when, not if.

Figures.

[Fractal Dice (696349)]

So in other words Saddam Hussein was the ideal leader to have in Iraq?

Re:Figures.

[Simon Brooke (45012)]

So in other words Saddam Hussein was the ideal leader to have in Iraq?

We put him there, so presumably we thought so.

Absolutely

[goldcd (587052)]

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.

Re:Figures.

[IBBoard (1128019)]

Exactly. The west is perfectly happy with him when we help [wikipedia.org] him to [wikipedia.org] power [wikipedia.org] because "our enemy's enemy is our friend", but once he does his own thing then he's some evil who should be destroyed, conveniently ignoring the history of how he got there.

I can see why it might be a shock to some that this document got out, but given that it's for Special Forces then it doesn't really surprise me. Why have your elite forces actually playing by the book when you can fight dirty, be more effective and just blank over it if you're ever asked? That's not to say I condone it, just that it seems like an obvious military tactic when you're working in smaller and elite teams.

Is anyone actually shocked?

[Satis (769614)]

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.

You can't be this naive ...

[Syncerus (213609)]

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.

Re:You can't be this naive ...

[by Anonymous Coward]

Then what are your feelings about the French and Polish resistances during WWII - they had no uniforms, "hid" among the populace, etc. Now their countries had no armies or real government, but neither does Iraq or Afghanistan.

I'm not saying that Iraqi insurgents are anything like the French Resistance, but explain to me how you would draw the line justifying what happened in WWII and what's going on now.

As far as I can tell, it's simply whoever survives and tells their story that becomes the hero.

In other words

[Stickerboy (61554)]

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.

One important detail

[by Anonymous Coward]

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..)

Obvious

[Just Some Guy (3352)]

It directly advocates training paramilitaries,

Chapter 23: Recruiting The Locals

pervasive surveillance,

Chapter 1: Know What The Enemy Is Up To

censorship,

Chapter 15: Maintaining Classified Data

press control

Chapter 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.

Does anyone...

[DnemoniX (31461)]

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.

Clean up after your war crimes...

[mrraven (129238)]

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.

What we learned about running death squads...

[js_sebastian (946118)]

From TFA:

The manual, Foreign Internal Defense Tactics Techniques and Procedures for Special Forces (1994, 2004), may be critically described as "what we learned about running death squads and propping up corrupt government in Latin America and how to apply it to other places". Its contents are both history defining for Latin America and, given the continued role of US Special Forces in the suppression of insurgencies, including in Iraq and Afghanistan, history making.

This has nothing to do with "war is war". These are tactics for keeping a corrupt government in place by killing, torturing and otherwise terrorizing any opposition (this includes legitimate, non-violent opposition, labor unions, etc) and the general population. This was applied in places like el Salvador or Nicaragua, and please remember that THE US WERE NOT AT WAR WITH THESE COUNTRIES. In fact, there is no war in Iraq either, right? Mission accomplished...

People sleep peaceably in their beds at night

[aquatone282 (905179)]

". . .only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf." George Orwell, assholes.

Re:War is hell.

[Nursie (632944)]

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.

Re:War is hell.

[DrLang21 (900992)]

The problem is that we should never go to war to bring people freedom. No one is going to like it. When you do need to go to war, the only strategy of war that should ever be waged is total war. The only way success in war can actually be achieved is by the complete submission of the enemy population (which also includes those not hostile). It's ugly and messy, but that's war. The idea that we're going to "bring freedom" to a region that is so hostile towards us is rediculous.

Re:War is hell.

[Patoski (121455)]

"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.

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.

once again

[ClintJCL (264898)]

the original Gulf War was not declared either, so your point is moot and GP's point stands

Re:War is fun!

[meringuoid (568297)]

Who ever said war was a fun thing?

Jools, Jops and Stoo, for a start. War has never been so much fun!

Re:War is fun!

[GodsMadClown (180543)]

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 [reuters.com] ) ...
"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".

Re:War is fun!

[AioKits (1235070)]

"War is delightful to those who have not experienced it."
-Erasmus

Re:War is fun!

[by Anonymous Coward]

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?

Re:War is fun!

[Elldallan (901501)]

War is ugly ... but freedom is worth it. It is worth it now, like it was in 1916 and 1942.

The problem is that to the local populace all the United States and allies did was replace "Oppressive Bad Guy 1" with "Oppressive so called democatic puppet regime of Democracy 1"
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.

Re:War is fun!

[by Anonymous Coward]

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

Big Deal!!! Counterinsurgency Manual not new.

[QuantumSam (1069182)]

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.

Re:War is fun!

[goombah99 (560566)]

Who ever said war was a fun thing?

amen.
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.

Re:War is fun!

[Kohath (38547)]

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.

Re:War is fun!

[Scratch-O-Matic (245992)]

This document was signed in 1994. Thanks for playing.

Re:War is fun!

[by Anonymous Coward]

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"...

Re:Compare to The Art of War

[Ngarrang (1023425)]

The cynicism of this counterinsurgency manual, and willingness to use ordinary people as material for war, is quite stunning.

Such cynicism is necessary, though, for the greater good of the country. The terrorists from the Middle East want to kill all Americans. Why? Because of something our government did decades ago, because something a corporation did, because you aren't a muslim, because you the devil! The mere fact of being a terrorist means a lack of respect for human dignity and right to life, and thus sometimes, tactics that seem wrought with constitutional issues will be used and condoned by groups who don't want you to know what tactics are being used to keep YOU safe.

Re:Those sound like war tactics

[value_added (719364)]

Does this mean you can't win wars by giving the enemy a lollipop?

No, but if the overthrow [wikipedia.org] of the popularly elected democratic government [wikipedia.org] 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.

Re:Those sound like war tactics

[Kohath (38547)]

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?