Wikileaks Gets Hold of Counterinsurgency Manual 999
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."
War is fun! (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:War is fun! (Score:5, Funny)
Jools, Jops and Stoo, for a start. War has never been so much fun!
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:War is fun! (Score:5, Interesting)
( 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
What a shame he's otherwise "employed".
Re:War is fun! (Score:5, Insightful)
-Erasmus
Re:War is fun! (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:War is fun! (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:War is fun! (Score:4, Insightful)
Because the people that were behind the attacks were harbored by those in charge in Afghanistan. The American public is 100% behind the actions carried out there.
The fact that you would have been ok with him claiming that about Iraq, given that they had no connection to 9/11, concerns me.
The fact that you're willing to advocate killing people (like Sadaam) for something that it's public knowledge they weren't involved with (like 9/11), *really* concerns me.
Re:War is fun! (Score:5, Insightful)
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! (Score:5, Insightful)
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."
Re:War is fun! (Score:5, Informative)
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
Re:War is fun! (Score:5, Informative)
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?
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.
Re:War is fun! (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Big Deal!!! Counterinsurgency Manual not new. (Score:5, Informative)
Amazon (Score:5, Interesting)
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 [fas.org]
No story. move along.
Re:Amazon (Score:5, Insightful)
The other problem I have with wikileaks in general is that there's no way to know anything posted there is authentic.
For all you know, some guy at IP address www.xxx.yyy.zzz is posting some creative writing, propaganda, defamatory stories, whatever.
The original story on slashdot is pretty biased to begin with: warrantless searches, habeas corpus, detainment without charge? They're military units at war in a foreign land - they're not the local police department, they're not there to serve & protect the interests of the locals, but the interests of the USA - or more accurately, its commander in chief.
War is hell, and military is an instrument of war. It's amazing that people get prissy about an organization whose purpose is to kill and destroy until a government or people is either destroyed or decides it's better off agreeing with the terms for peace.
You shouldn't get mad at a lion for eating your child on main street USA; the lion is merely doing what lions do. It is far more sensible to go after the person(s) who released the lion into a city.
Re:Big Deal!!! Counterinsurgency Manual not new. (Score:5, Informative)
What is currently available on Amazon's website is the Operational Techniques (link [amazon.com]) Manual. This is more of a "what sf does" type of book. The WikiLeaks article links to a TTP which is like a "HOW TO" manual. And in reality, while it's no secret what SF or any other type of Army unit does, specific TTP are sensitive because they have pretty specific guidelines and checklists on how certain tasks are accomplished.
They're not classified, but they're also not something an Army unit would necessarily want widely distributed.
Oh, and for people complaining about the format of the manual - this is what Army manuals look like. They have lousy formatting, and it's pretty common to find typos and other errors.
WikiLeaks didn't really scoop anything, so it's not some sort of coup.
Re:War is fun! (Score:5, Insightful)
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! (Score:5, Funny)
Re:War is fun! (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Like Bush' supposed "service record" from 73 that turned out to have been made with word 2003.
Re:War is fun! (Score:4, Informative)
Yea, that may have been made up, too bad it overshadowed the very real issue of Bush's questionable National Guard service [factcheck.org].
Re:War is fun! (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:War is fun! (Score:5, Insightful)
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:War is fun! (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:War is fun! (Score:4, Insightful)
Bullshit. It's about belief, not provable fact. By your definition, everyone would have to be an agnostic since neither the believers nor the non-believers can provide proof of existence or non-existence of god.
Re:War is fun! (Score:5, Informative)
Re:War is fun! (Score:4, Interesting)
While i agree tying this document directly to Bush's foreign policy is a non-starter, I have to counter your claim re: WMD. Between Hans Blix's investigations in Iraq (inconclusive at best) and the CIA's complete refute of the Nigerian uranium story, W Bush's Iraq policy was based on false evidence used to mislead supporters.
Re:War is fun! (Score:5, Informative)
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.
Did any of this need to be confirmed? (Score:5, Insightful)
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? (Score:5, Insightful)
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: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Did any of this need to be confirmed? (Score:5, Interesting)
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? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Did any of this need to be confirmed? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Did any of this need to be confirmed? (Score:4, Informative)
Those who sit idle while evil happens are not "good guys". The "good guys" are those who will actually get up off their asses to help out others, even at some risk
Re:Did any of this need to be confirmed? (Score:5, Interesting)
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: (Score:3, Informative)
Are we talking about in Australia?
because in the UK the sentiment was thoroughly anti-war, to the extent that we the largest protests in the history of the country.
Re:Did any of this need to be confirmed? (Score:5, Informative)
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? (Score:4, Insightful)
Why does the layout make the government stupid? It looks very much like any corporate document, and the military will be using corporate methods for some processes within the military these days. They will definately have access to the same software as the corporate world have too.
And WWII pilot briefing documents are nearly 60 years old. Do they look real because they weren't word processed?
And this document isn't aimed at modern pilots.... its for special forces and occupiers - people with a very different role in the military. From skimming through the document, it covers methods and tactics employed since world war II. You don't appear to have compared like with like.
Please can you substantiate your claim this is fake?
Re:Did any of this need to be confirmed? (Score:5, Insightful)
Oh, and could you please verify the authority of your translation? Because no Muslim would accept a non-Arabic version of the Koran or the Hadith as authorative, since so much is lost in translation. Arabic is a notoriously difficult language to translate due to the complexity of the ideas contained in many of the words. But you know that, of course, as I'm sure you've read Islamic holy documents in their original language, right?
But wait! Maybe you haven't. "Islam" = military domination in Arabic? Wow, never knew that. Astasalama? What the hell are you talking about, is this some kind of blend of "ma salama" ("go with peace") and "hasta la vista"? Seriously man, if you're going to be a critic of Islam from primary texts, at least learn the language.
No, sir, Islam isn't what needs to be destroyed in order to stop terror. It's intolerance, ignorance, and bigotry from people like YOU (whether in Iraq, America, or elsewhere) that has to die to stop terror.
Re:Did any of this need to be confirmed? (Score:5, Insightful)
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: (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
I have been skimming the PDF, it is scarily like what they are doing in the US. while skimming, I found this gem:
Way Offtopic (Score:4, Funny)
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.
Re:Did any of this need to be confirmed? (Score:4, Insightful)
That sounds about right for us Americans.
Talk about lack of perspective. Go spend thirty seconds with Google. Pick a dictator, any dictator: Castro, Somosa, Saddam, Ceausescu, whatever.
Look at their record in office and compare to any US president of any era--Bush, Carter, Ford, Coolidge, Harding, whatever. The level of violence, corruption, intimidation, whatever aren't even in the same league.
I know it is cool to be all downtrodden, but really: get out of the dorm and get a sense of perspective. You have it orders of magnitude better than anyone who ever lived under those governments. On his worst day, chimp boy is better than any government in any developing country on their best day.
Re:Did any of this need to be confirmed? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Did any of this need to be confirmed? (Score:5, Interesting)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Gladio [wikipedia.org]
What's really scary... (Score:5, Insightful)
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... (Score:5, Insightful)
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: (Score:3, Insightful)
We lecture Russia about corruption
get the feeling its all for the children? these things are probably just seen as a reason to justify our need for more guns and bombs, it works as long as the truth doesn't come out
Re:Did any of this need to be confirmed? (Score:4, Insightful)
An insightful comment if ever I read one.
Also worth pointing out this gives lie to the "They hate us for our freedom" rubbish repeatedly heard from our leaders when conflicts and violence occur in unfamiliar parts of the world. The really sad thing is that any student of American history could say this is a non-story.
Sometimes it's a bitch looking into the mirror.
Re:Did any of this need to be confirmed? (Score:5, Insightful)
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? (Score:5, Insightful)
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: (Score:3, Informative)
This is a common mistake made by many Americans, but please remember that Canada is not actually one of your states. You see we're an independent nation. If you need help finding us on a map its that really big spot above you where you get your maple syrup and you used to get cheap shopping. Since we're laterally north of you, we're also a "western government". Unless you're specifically talking about Alaska, then I suppose it is more west than us.. This was a US special force book. I don't believe it wa
Re:Did any of this need to be confirmed? (Score:5, Insightful)
Any resemblance is purely coincidental.
Re:Did any of this need to be confirmed? (Score:5, Insightful)
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 .. (Score:5, Insightful)
I thought the plan was to export democracy, free speech, human rights and other such goodies
Re: (Score:3)
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.
in the end (Score:5, Insightful)
Figures. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Then he invaded Kuwait, and the USA / West decided he suddenly wasn't such a good idea anymore.
Re:Figures. (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:Figures. (Score:5, Insightful)
Absolutely (Score:5, Insightful)
Oh you just cannot take this stuff seriously any more.
War is hell. (Score:4, Insightful)
"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.
Re:War is hell. (Score:5, Insightful)
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. (Score:4, Insightful)
Uh... yes? When you fight a war, you need to fight to win it. Otherwise, you get into a situation like Vietnam where the people on the ground don't know what they're supposed to be doing and just end up getting killed. Similarly, you shouldn't be sending soldiers into a situation where you should have police. Police and soldiers aren't the same thing.
Now, there *are* options that typically aren't on the table like nuclear weapons and chemical agents, but other than that, yeah... fight to win, otherwise, you're just wasting lives.
Re:War is hell. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:War is hell. (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
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.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
once again (Score:5, Insightful)
No holds barred (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Sherman was The Man (Score:3, Insightful)
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 a
Wow, thats creepy (Score:3, Insightful)
Is anyone actually shocked? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Compare to The Art of War (Score:4, Insightful)
The cynicism of this counterinsurgency manual, and willingness to use ordinary people as material for war, is quite stunning.
Re:Compare to The Art of War (Score:5, Insightful)
Civil War - Not Domestic Policy (Score:4, Insightful)
You can't be this naive ... (Score:5, Insightful)
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: (Score:3, Insightful)
So fucking what, does that make it all well and good to murder tens of thousands of civilians?
"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?"
I would suggest getting the fuck out of other people's countries and minding your own goddamn business.
Re:You can't be this naive ... (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
In Iraq, most of the insurgents are in their home. It is the US forces that are not in their home (or their home country).
Basically you want all the insurgents to stand in formation the sand in full uniform waiting for the USA to bomb them into oblivion?
So, by your requirements, the French resistance during WW2 was wrong (since they did not wear uniforms and hide in the general population)?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The scary thing is: (Score:3, Insightful)
So? (Score:4, Insightful)
In other words (Score:5, Insightful)
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 (Score:5, Insightful)
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 (Score:5, Insightful)
Chapter 23: Recruiting The Locals
Chapter 1: Know What The Enemy Is Up To
Chapter 15: Maintaining Classified Data
Chapter 15: Maintaining Classified Data
Chapter 8: Building A New Government (new since Iraq mission)
Chapter 2: The Element Of Surprise
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... (Score:5, Insightful)
Clean up after your war crimes... (Score:5, Funny)
What we learned about running death squads... (Score:5, Informative)
Wow. Just wow. (Score:3, Informative)
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.
Counter-Insurgency is needed (Score:4, Interesting)
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.
People sleep peaceably in their beds at night (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Those sound like war tactics (Score:5, Insightful)
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 (Score:5, Insightful)
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?
Re:Servers? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Really, I got the impression we were talking about counter-insurgency?
If an enemy nation invades my home country I'll give carte blance to the armed forces. I'll pick up a tyre iron and attack the invaders with my bare hands.
But that's a far cry from counter-insurgency. I will not condone the armed forces I pay for propping up a foreign despot against insurgents. I especially will not condone the tactics outlined in this document.