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."

Re:Did any of this need to be confirmed?

[crossmr]

Hi,
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 was a joint US/Canadian military manual. Yes our carrier planes suck and we occasionally bum a ride but we don't partake in all military activities together.

Re:War is fun!

[OeLeWaPpErKe]

Unless it was - you know - either a fake or inaccurately reported.

Like Bush' supposed "service record" from 73 that turned out to have been made with word 2003.

What we learned about running death squads...

[js_sebastian]

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...

Wow. Just wow.

[sm62704]

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.

Re:Did any of this need to be confirmed?

[Nursie]

"(just like the majority of people) thought it was necessary at the time."

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?

[sesshomaru]

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.

Not exactly a "leak"

[Anonymous Coward]

I like their claim to have "leaked" the document. Its a 'sensitive' document, not classified, and you can google for it and find the full text on the web in several locations, all posted before wikileaks. Anyone in the US Army had access to it through multiple websites for soldier education.

Re:Compare to The Art of War

[Snocone]

The terrorists from the Middle East want to kill all Americans. Why? Because of something our government did decades ago,

Point of information: Whilst you are not actually inaccurate, you are imprecise. By a factor of half a millennium. The "terrorists from the Middle East" got particularly pissed with American troops remaining in Saudi Arabia after the first active phase of the still ongoing Gulf War, true, but long before the nation of America even EXISTED, let alone anything remotely recognizable as "our government" there were fatwas against the West, in particular Spaniards, to reclaim the "Muslim lands" of "Al Andalus". Which most of us know as "Spain", and have since the Reconquista was completed. In 1492.

Or, talk to some Hindus. Whose post-9/11 reaction was basically "Um, guys? We've been battling Muslim terrorists for over a millennium on THIS side of the world? Nice of you to finally get on board?"

However, this kind of historical knowledge and context is not only rare but deemed undesirable by many. "Bush lied, people died" is more suited to their cognitive talents.

OK ... I flamebait unreasonably. The actual issue is not people's stupidity. It's that they wish to reduce the problem to one that they can control. Accepting the lessons of history would make that impossible; pretending that the world was a perfect place and Islam spread out of the Arabian peninsula with flower garlands and fluffy bunnies right up to the election of George Bush who is the sole source of evil anywhere in the entire world -- that frames the problem in terms they can affect, and thus empowers them, and therefore all reality which contradicts that is denied.

Indeed, I think that the single best reason for President Obama to be elected is that the shock of these people's delusions running smack into their Messianic Figure dealing with the world as it actually is will be a positive delight to behold...

The Suspension Clause

[thesaurus]

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.

Re:War is fun!

[Scratch-O-Matic]

This document was signed in 1994. Thanks for playing.

Big Deal!!! Counterinsurgency Manual not new.

[QuantumSam]

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!

[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

Re:once again

[Nimey]

Yes, we in the USA haven't had a properly declared war since World War II.

Re:Big Deal!!! Counterinsurgency Manual not new.

[krilli]

There's nothing secret in the book and those "warrantless searches" are done on the battlefield overseas, not in this country.

LOL

First, here's one for your egotistical worldview -
Just because some of these tactics are MAYBE not employed on the same landmass you sit your ass on, doesn't mean you're any safer. Those tactics have pissed off A LOT of people, a percentage of whom will be coming after you, with everything from being impolite to bombs down your chimney.

Second, what about these tactics:
"detainment without charge, the suspension of habeas corpus and concealing human rights abuses from journalists"

These familiar? Maybe your local gazette doesn't carry news from your capital.

Third, the US gov't has defined "evil" to be "necessary evil" OK on the "battlefield". Then they define "battlefield" as ... whatever? Then, by definition, they will perform evil anywhere. And you may be safe, some kinda unlucky people across a few oceans wont.

Re:Big Deal!!! Counterinsurgency Manual not new.

[mizhi]

Well, to be fair, the particular manual WikiLeaks posted was restricted on 5 DEC 2003 to Army personnel only. So, while it's not classified, it's not generally meant for public consumption. That doesn't mean you can't find it with a little searching.

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.

Counter insurgency tactics have to be dirty

[Maudib]

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.

Re:War is fun!

[ericspinder]

Like Bush' supposed "service record" from 73 that turned out to have been made with word 2003.

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!

[Shakrai]

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!

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.

Re:Big Deal!!! Counterinsurgency Manual not new.

[Zeek40]

This field manual was never classified. The entire world saw it at the same time that it became US doctrine. Perhaps you should actually read the thing instead of relying on the wildly inaccurate summary from wikileaks. Here are some quotes from the field manual:

Insurgencies arise when the government is unable or unwilling to redress the demands of important social groups. These groups band together and begin to use violence to change the governmentâ(TM)s position. Insurgencies are often a coalition of disparate forces united by their common enmity for the government. To be successful, an insurgency must develop unifying leadership, doctrine, organization, and strategy. Only the seeds of these elements exist when an insurgency begins; the insurgents must continually nurture and provide the necessary care if the insurgency is to mature and succeed. Insurgencies succeed by mobilizing human and materiel resources to provide both active and passive support for their programs, operations, and goals. Mobilization produces workers and fighters, raises funds, and acquires the necessary weapons, equipment, and supplies. Mobilization grows out of intense, popular dissatisfaction with existing political and social conditions. The active supporters of the insurgency consider these conditions intolerable. The insurgent leadership articulates its dissatisfaction, places the blame on government, and offers an alternative. The insurgent leadership then provides organizational and management skills to transform disaffected people into an effective force for political action. Ultimately, the insurgents need the active support of a majority of the politically active people and the passive acquiescence of the general populace.

Psychological Operations: To defeat an insurgency, the HN government must retain or regain the confidence and support of its people. The objective of an IDAD [internal defense and development] program is not to kill or even capture the insurgents. It is to convince them to abandon a hopeless or worthless cause and support the HN government. PSYOP must therefore be an integral and vital part of an IDAD program. SF soldiers may have to educate their HN counterparts in the value and role of PSYOP in FID. They must then advise and assist HN forces in developing and implementing an effective PSYOP program.

Thats the type of stuff that's in there. Explaining how insurgencies are caused because insurgents are put in a bad position, and the solution is to fix the bad position they're in. After you've read this one, find some of the infantry tactics field manuals (They're all unclassified, and available straight from the US Government). They're actually much more graphic. In summary, you should really read the source, rather than trust the abstract pulled from it by a website who's main goal is to sensationalize things to gain advertising revenue.

Link to doc

[ehack]

http://www.fas.org/irp/doddir/dod/jp3_07_1.pdf [fas.org]

Re:Now that everything that everybody already knew

[why-is-it]

Practicing what they preach would be saying openly that it's OK to suppress dissenting speech,

Did you ever hear of Free Speech Zones [wikipedia.org]

violate human rights,

What about Guantanamo Bay [wikipedia.org], Abu Ghraib [wikipedia.org], and extraordinary rendition [wikipedia.org] 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...

and hire terrorists

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.

Do you hear the administration publicly admitting to all that?

Actions speak much louder than words.

Otherwise the talk is all about freedom, liberty, democracy, and fighting terrorism.

Talk is cheap. The actions of this administration suggest less-than-noble intentions.

Re:What's really scary...

[Anonymous Coward]

Most people who join the special forces are "lifers", I have yet to meet a cop that did anything more interesting then be a MP or some other kind of support MOS. I have met a few people who got a chance to do the "entry level" special forces training and then run around telling people they were in the SF.

Re:War is fun!

[fredrated]

"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.

Re:Did any of this need to be confirmed?

[halber_mensch]

The good guys almost always outnumber the bad guys, but most won't do a single thing about it becauase they have their own lives to worry about.

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

Your ass had better be posting from a Darfur refugee camp, if you're going to make that kind of claim.

Re:bullshit

[speedtux]

you are entitled to your opinion and me mine ... however, nothing I said is factually incorrect.

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 :D

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.

You Spin Me Right 'Round Baby, Right 'Round

[Anonymous Coward]

Editor could make a living pitching breaking balls for the MLB.

Since I'm bored:

"The document, which has been verified, is official US Special Forces doctrine."

WAS official doctrine. The 1994 version has been superceded by the version dated Feb. 2007. Furthermore, the document does not actually have a printed security classification, which means it is either Unclassified or For Official Use Only, the lowest classification level. It does have a distribution restriction (correctly excerpted) which is not the same thing, and only to protect other classified information. Furthermore, Wikileaks is incorrect in claiming it is the first to publish to the web. A quick Google search reveals several sites that have had it posted, not the least of which is FAS.org, which maintains a comprehensive library of military manuals. In short, not much of a leak.

"It directly advocates training paramilitaries, pervasive surveillance, censorship, press control and restrictions on labor unions & political parties."

Based on the severity of the situation, true. None of this is unusual however, for a student of either history, or the student of law who recognizes that civil law may be superceded by martial or "emergency" law (the conditions under which the document in question advocate these actions). Furthermore, special legislation is emplaced at the will of the foreign nation, not by the US.

"It directly advocates warrantless searches, detainment without charge and the suspension of habeas corpus."

Again, true if the foreign nation enacts the legislation. The assumption being made by Wikileaks is that normal civil law should operate without respect to any civil strife, which is questionable at best. Certainly no government of a nation under civil strife has attempted it. Wikileaks also fails to point out that these are advocated as measures of last resort.

"It directly advocates bribery, employing terrorists, false flag operations and concealing human rights abuses from journalists."

False. The manual discusses monetary motivation without making a recommendation. It does not advocate employing terrorists. Wikileaks has bolded "attacking infrastructure" without making clear that this refers to the insurgent organizations. It also has bolded a sentence on drawing the insurgency into terrorist acts, but this is clearly not advocating terrorism by US or the supported foreign-nation forces. "False-flag operations" are not discussed, unless Wikileaks is refering to operations by paramilitary forces, but these are citizens of the foreign nation and would only be operating under their own flag. As for concealing human rights abuses, the manual says that US personnel are not to discuss them, but nowhere does it instruct them to lie--this is not instruction to conceal.

"And it directly advocates the extensive use of 'psychological operations' (propaganda) to make these and other 'population & resource control' measures more palatable."

True, by explaining what the measures are for. As the US found out the hard way in Iraq, not explaining what you are doing gives free reign to insurgent propoganda to paint every action as evil.

I give this story a 1/10.

- The Captcha is "generals." Irony.

Re:Figures.

[Danny Rathjens]

I didn't think so either. But apparently the CIA was involved in the failed assassination plot Saddam was a part of. http://archive.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2003/4/10/205859.shtml [newsmax.com]
So we didn't put him there, but we helped his party to power. :) To summarize:

• Qasim overthrows the monarchy and becomes PM.
• A Baath group of 6 including Saddam - with CIA help - try to assassinate Qasim and fail - he flees the country - also with CIA help, and eventually goes back.
• A different Baath group successfully performs a coup a few years later - also with CIA help. Arif becomes president. Saddam put in jail.
• Saddam escapes and joins yet another coup by a Baath group - this one resulting in the Al-Bakr as president and Saddam as deputy.
• Saddam becomes power behind the throne - seizes western-owned oil companies and uses money to develop modern Iraq infrastructure.
• He becomes a general, eventually forces Al-Bakr to resign. Saddam takes over and does his famous video-taped "weeding" of the Baath leadership - calling out names and leading them away one by one(22 eventually executed)