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."

War is fun!

[sir_eccles]

Who ever said war was a fun thing?

Did any of this need to be confirmed?

[damburger]

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?

Now that everything that everybody already knew ..

[YeeHaW_Jelte]

... 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]

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

Figures.

[Fractal Dice]

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

War is hell.

[Wulfstan]

As General William Sherman said;

"I've been through two wars and I know. I've seen cities and homes in ashes. I've seen thousands of men lying on the ground, their dead faces looking up at the skies. I tell you, war is hell!"

You aren't fighting a war to be nice. You are fighting to win and to do so you need to do whatever it takes.

These things mentioned are unpalatable but then again - so is war. Moral of the story - avoid it. But sometimes you will have to fight, and when you do, fight hard and fight to win.

Re:Did any of this need to be confirmed?

[Nursie]

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?

[blahplusplus]

"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.

Wow, thats creepy

[oh2]

If this was a CIA manual noone would lift an eyebrow, but this is apparently a field manual for an Army unit. But I keep forgetting, unless you are an american citizen you lack rights in the eyes of Uncle Sam. Sad, really.

What's really scary...

[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:War is hell.

[Nursie]

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.

Is anyone actually shocked?

[Satis]

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.

Compare to The Art of War

[pieterh]

Sun-Tzu's book was in many ways similar, explaining how to conduct war, but the difference seems to be that 2,500 years ago in China there was no pretense of democratic government, and perhaps also the tactics described in that book were more successful.

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

Re:Did any of this need to be confirmed?

[malignant_minded]

We wag our fingers at China for their actions in Tibet

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

Civil War - Not Domestic Policy

[N8F8]

All these are valid tactics for civil war. Armchair generals.

Re:Did any of this need to be confirmed?

[value_added]

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

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.

You can't be this naive ...

[Syncerus]

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.

The scary thing is:

[Ihlosi]

The manual is probably for situation where the world (and the press) might be watching you. If that isn't the case, you can whip out the really effective counterinsurgency measures (purges, ethnic cleansing, random killings to keep people afraid, retribution quotas, death camps, etc).

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

[Nursie]

"I'll observe that it is the insurgents who cynically hide behind an unarmed populace."

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:Did any of this need to be confirmed?

[Saint Fnordius]

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.

So?

[overshoot]

It's not like it hasn't been obvious that this has been US domestic policy for several years.

Re:Figures.

[piemcfly]

For about 20 years, yes.

Then he invaded Kuwait, and the USA / West decided he suddenly wasn't such a good idea anymore.

Re:Did any of this need to be confirmed?

[call-me-kenneth]

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:Compare to The Art of War

[Ngarrang]

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.

It's about war

[Olentangy]

News flash: during war armies also advocate killing people.

We're talking about war here.

In other words

[Stickerboy]

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.

Re:War is hell.

[Patoski]

"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.

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

[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.

Re:What's really scary...

[betterunixthanunix]

"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:Figures.

[Simon Brooke]

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

We put him there, so presumably we thought so.

No holds barred

[overshoot]

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.

There are a few details in the way of your plan. Mostly treaties (such as the Geneva Convention) to which the USA is signatory, but there are still a few laws passed by Congress that also apply, depending on how creative you want to be with your redefinition of terms.

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.

Re:Did any of this need to be confirmed?

[Missing_dc]

"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.

I have been skimming the PDF, it is scarily like what they are doing in the US. while skimming, I found this gem:

  "The average peasant is not normally willing to fight to his death for his national government. His national government may have been a succession of corrupt dictators and inefficient bureaucrats."

That sounds about right for us Americans.

Re:Those sound like war tactics

[value_added]

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:Figures.

[IBBoard]

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.

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

[nickname29]

Asking the insurgents nicely to go home?

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:Did any of this need to be confirmed?

[stewbacca]

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.

One important detail

[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]

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]

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.

Re:Did any of this need to be confirmed?

[The Anarchist Avenge]

Yeah, looks like our government did a great job of protecting Iraqis from my friend in high school, who joined up specifically to kill the towelheads.
Oh, wait. They gave him a .50 and sent him across the pond.

Absolutely

[goldcd]

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:Those sound like war tactics

[Kohath]

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?

Re:Servers?

[Culture20]

I hope their servers can take the load.

The load? I'm sorry, but between Scientologists and U.S. Special Forces, I'd rather leak Scientology material. Wikileaks just earned legitimate interest from several three-letter agencies. There are going to be spies from many countries trying to find out how Wikileaks got this document (to prevent or encourage more leaks). Some of the countries will be less pleasant in their methods than others and despite the nature of this document, I don't think the U.S. is at the top of that list.

Re:Is anyone actually shocked?

[stewbacca]

That was about the only post in this thread that should be modded up.

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

[piemcfly]

Oh please. Give me a break with all this military realism.

Notice that Von Clausewitz and Sun Tzu were part of military authority. Their single job is to propose anything they think might win a war, no matter how horrible.

Then there is civilian authority, which has the job of making sound, balanced decisions between things like winning a war and being morally right.
Civilian leadership has to make decisions that ensure that they dont go all Pinochet/electrodes-to-the-testicles just to impose their power.

The fact that there are 'insurgents' (quite a loaded term these days) that do no 'play fair' does not matter in this regard.
As a democratic, supposedly enlightened nation that cares for human rights and dignity, you should be willing to take a step back and implement rules against such amoral behavior, even if this means being a little less efficient in wartime.
Otherwise, you might as well get it over with and implement totalitarianism/communism tomorrow, because that has been proven to be quite effective during wartime.

Your comparison with Bosnia also shows a lack of knowledge, since the genocide and other atrocities commited there, were in fact largely commited by two uniformed, institutionalised, warring armies, not 'insurgents hiding within the population'.

Re:It's about war

[I confirm I'm not a]

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.

Re:War is hell.

[Culture20]

Yes, but there is one small problem... We never declared war.

Technically, we never declared peace from the Gulf War, and Saddam kept shooting at our fighter jets. No war declaration needed.

Sherman was The Man

[PeeAitchPee]

He truly was the first modern general. Right before he kicked everyone out of the town and burned Atlanta, he also said, "You cannot qualify war in harsher terms than I will. War is cruelty, and you cannot refine it . . . But, my dear sirs, when peace does come, you may call on me for any thing. Then will I share with you the last cracker, and watch with you to shield your homes and families against danger from every quarter." Sherman hated newspaper reporters too, and wanted to have them all hanged as spys. I wonder if the Iraq War wouldn't have been over long ago if the US had banned all press before the invasion? Like it or not, if you want to WIN, that's how it's done. Thousands of years of human history don't lie. It's all about denying the enemy a support base and destroying the population's will to resist.

I've often said that if Sherman were in charge (I mean *really* in charge as an independent command, and allowed to conduct it as he did the March to the Sea and beyond), the Iraq War would have lasted about six months tops. But because we place the lives of civilians over victory, we have had a long and protracted war in Iraq . . . which is ironic because the "Sherman approach" has higher initial civilian casualties but is over much faster with many fewer total civilian casualties, and the country can be rebuilt that much faster.

once again

[ClioCJS]

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

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

[Strangely Familiar]

MMMM. Good points, King George. Have you ever heard of someone named George Washington? I think he was rather successful in fighting a war without using Sun Tsu or Clausewitz, Machiavelli, Nietsche, or any of the other instinctual morons with no sense of Grace. Washington wasn't particularly nice, attacking drunken soldiers on Christmas eve, but he did maintain his principles, which is important in a long war or occupation. The insurgents have a principle: foreigners out. What principle do we have? No labor unions? Oh... no labor unions for the peasants. Tax them, and we'll decide what rate. They don't need representation in Parliament... No, the original poster is correctly indignant. We have lost our principles. Too many of our militaristic voters think Tsu had the best lessons, not Payne, Washington, Franklin, Jefferson, and Madison.

Re:Did any of this need to be confirmed?

[belligerent0001]

Thanks! I was going to mention the fact that the "standard" Special Forces/Green Beret training has included this stuff since it's founding. A GB's primary task is to train partisan fighters and conduct unconventional/guerrilla warfare.

I also love it when people who are not citizens of the US comment on how "bad" we are. I think that people really need to start following the money trail because while our elected officials seem to make questionable decisions, they are not really the one formulating the decisions. Businesses are the ones who pull the strings. Lobbyist were never meant to have the power that they display.

You want to change the government? Stop buying shit and convince everyone else to stop buying shit. Perhaps become Amish. The other option is way to radical for the likes of slashdot because there are too few with the stones to pick up a weapon and say "Live Free or Die". The "Live Free" part is easy to say but most people choke of the "Or Die" part.

Re:War is fun!

[kz45]

"Are you stupid or what? Of course war is never something fun. But if you read that manual or only the description of its contents here, its a fucking al-Qaeda manual and if its done no fucking wonder that iraq is a fucking breedingground for terrorist and haters of USA!"

If you had even a hint of intelligence, you would have known that iraq and the middle east has been a breeding ground for terrorists many years before the united states was involved.

Forgive me if I'm mistaken

[Datamonstar]

but I read over a good portion of the .PDF and aren't the things it endorses tantamount to terrorism, that evil scourge the nation is supposed to be so against? Just asking, but isn't it basically saying that it's okay for them to do it, but others cannot? And, if they can keep it a secret they'll support terrorism as long as it's against an enemy?

Do you really need this kind of proof?

[TerribleThing]

It's amusing that Americans need a written document to believe in something that they can learn by themselves if they dare to go around the world just asking!

Go to Chile and ask who (and how) helped Pinochet's coup d'etate? and what about Argentina's militar Junta in '76? San Salvador, Nicaragua, Panama, etc., etc. And that is only in Latin America.

Re:Did any of this need to be confirmed?

[Pig Hogger]

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

Please define "good guys".

#1 Rule of Combat

[joecasanova]

"If you are fighting fair you are doing something horribly wrong."

Re:War is hell.

[fitten]

So it's by any means necessary then?

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.

[DrLang21]

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:Did any of this need to be confirmed?

[Stellian]

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.

looks pretty standard

[Anonymous Coward]

its pretty much what I would expect a book like this to be. you do realize we KILL people in wars...everything else is of a lesser degree.

Re:Is anyone actually shocked?

[damburger]

The one against the Native Americans would be the first example that springs to mind.

Re:Did any of this need to be confirmed?

[Elky Elk]

my democratic government is made up of man eating lizards

This should not be a surprise to Americans...

[Anonymous Coward]

I mean seriously, it seems that everyone except the majority of American citizens has known for decades that this is how the US operates. The very dirtiest of tactics and a complete disregard for human rights against any group or any nation that dares to stand in the way of American corporate hegemony in any significant way.

It seems that anywhere in the world that there's a profit to be made, it is the God given right of an American to be there making that profit. Never mind that, just perhaps, countries may want to control their own resources for the benefit of their own people. Such countries should always be disabused of any notion that they are anything other than an American profit centre. Unless, of course, such country is big enough and with an effective enough armed forces to seriously fuck up any US attempt at military coercion.

Fortunately for the rest of the planet, this whole "America as World Police" thing will be the downfall of the US. Trillions of dollars are being used for military expenditures without acknowledging the fact that changes in foreign policy would mostly achieve the same security objectives. America will be a lot less vicious and coercive after the economic meltdown it will face within a few years.

Re:Did any of this need to be confirmed?

[Kamokazi]

I highly recommend you leave the country then, and go somewhere where there are pure dictators and effecient bureacrats. While you seach in vain for a utopia, I'll be here making the best of this horrible, corrupt government that allows me to live at a standard above the rest of the world.

Re:War is fun!

[hughesjr]

it IS those things for the people there. They see what is going on and for MOST of them, they are PROUD to help create a democracy where there was once an evil dictator. That used to be the policy of the United states ... Freedom around the world. Luckily for World Wars I and II, the anti-war liberals did not exist in their current numbers. War is ugly ... but freedom is worth it. It is worth it now, like it was in 1916 and 1942.

No stomach for reality.

[Shivetya]

That is exactly what we did in World War 2. It is why it ended in only six years. People today have taken on such an unrealistic view of the world and worse on how wars need to be fought. As we found out in the forties you cannot talk to the unreasonable. They will make their threats and when they are ready they will act on them. Of course those who thought they could talk it out will act all confused and such but the end still remains the same, the unreasonable did what they said they would and now instead of containment we have to first kick them out.

Wars only end when one side loses the stomach to fight it. That is done by demoralizing the populace which supports it. Unfortunately that means raining death and destruction on what is a civilian population.

Look, it would be nice if we could afford to not mind other people's business but unfortunately many of these countries make it imperative that someone does mind their business. Are you suggesting the world ignore Iran's leadership constant threats to wipe Israel off the face of the earth all the while telling the UN to bugger off when it comes to their nuclear program? I guess we are going to ignore China the day it overruns Taiwan too. After all its only "yellow/brown/red" people - not whites, not in our own backyard, etc.

Sheesh, how many people must die before it becomes okay to act. When will people realize that proactive actions will cost lives too but more likely less than in the long run. Why is it okay to suggest intervention in darfar or zimbabwe but not somewhere else? Who decides which is which? What about Burma. I guess its okay to let nearly a quarter million die because we need to mind our own goddamn business.

Well we are doing it and they are still dieing. You can't win, you can only make losing less painful. Minding our own goddamn business doomed hundreds of thousands to death during the Hutsi/Tutsi fighting, millions are starving in Darfar, and how many hundreds of thousand do we not know about in Burma.

Turning away does not make it not happen. It sucks but its the truth

Re:Did any of this need to be confirmed?

[oldhack]

Dude, that's a pathetic apology. It may have had modicum of relevance if we were not out there to "spread democracy". So like Iran that "killed" their kids, we killed our kids by drafting them and shipping them to Vietnam? And we were not even invaded.

People sleep peaceably in their beds at night

[aquatone282]

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

Re:Did any of this need to be confirmed?

[Suzuran]

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

Re:Did any of this need to be confirmed?

[internewt]

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.

WWII pilot briefing documents look better than this "official" document.

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:War is fun!

[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?

I hate to point this out, but ...

[Anonymous Coward]

War isn't Ultimate Frisbee. No `spirit' points awarded.

Re:Did any of this need to be confirmed?

[Nursie]

Stuff and nonsense.

I mean seriously, what utter fucking rubbish. I take it you've never heard of any country ever where a small group of evil people took charge through fear or monetary means? Or facism or organised crime. 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.

This is the whole reason we delgate powers to governments.

Re:Did any of this need to be confirmed?

[OeLeWaPpErKe]

So you think the following 2 actions are equivalent :

arming kids with a stick (not *even* a sword, much less any type of firearm) and sending them into a place you know is basically a minefield with a cardboard "key to heaven".

Recruiting soldiers, training them, equiping them with multiple firearms, radios, jeeps, naval and areal support. And sending them to a battlefield where they work together to defeat an army that was threatening to kill massive numbers of people, and *did* kill 30 million people right after the democrats forced those americans to depart.

If those 2 are morally equivalent in your mind, you need to see a shrink. Today, not tomorrow.

Re:What's really scary...

[kalirion]

I don't think that's any scarier than the average bully/thug becoming my local police.

Re:War is fun!

[AioKits]

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

Re:Did any of this need to be confirmed?

[tehdaemon]

You need to read a little more history - and do a little analysis.

The government that allows you to live at a standard above the rest of the world is not the one that we have now. It is the one that we had 100 or more years ago. The government we have now is setting the standard for 2108 or so....

T

Re:Sherman was The Man

[gad_zuki!]

>I wonder if the Iraq War wouldn't have been over long ago if the US had banned all press before the invasion?

Makes sense, right? Bad strategy, bad decision, not understanding your enemy, no post-invasion planning, calling it a cakewalk internally... all faults of the media, eh?

Re:Did any of this need to be confirmed?

[Bombula]

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.

Re:War is fun!

[baldass_newbie]

My first reaction was, "So, someone else has just learned the level of contempt the Executive branch has for us all; and I do mean All." Chainey, Bush, and McCain are really, really trying hard to make this Conservative Republican to vote Democrat in November.

While I somehow doubt you are a 'Conservative Republican', you do realize the document was written in 1994? Just like Bush 'faked' the Iraq WMD stuff in 1998, two years before he was elected so Congress would pass the Iraq Liberation Act, now he's being blamed for a 1994 (purported) anti-terrorism manual?
You libs are too much.

cognitive dissonance

[circletimessquare]

there is a major specious assumption underlying a lot of the shock in the comments in this thread: butt out and mind your own business, and everything will get better. fact: in any conflict, on any scale, from the interpersonal on up to the international, it is always better to get involved. it is better for yourself, it is better for other people, and it is morally superior. it is naive and morally inferior to believe that not getting involved makes things better, anywhere, on any issue, in any place

take any issue or region of the world you care about, anywhere in the world, and it is obvious the solution involves getting more involved

Re:Sounds like Republican / Corporate tactics

[Scratch-O-Matic]

This document was signed in 1994. Where do these policies fit in Clinton's playbook?

Re:War is fun!

[Anonymous Coward]

Except Iraq. Which wasn't a breeding ground for terrorists.

Re:War is fun!

[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:Did any of this need to be confirmed?

[smittyoneeach]

Does anyone seriously think that western governments have any kind of moral credibility?

Absolutely, and that's why I think Universal Health Care will be an absolute, smashing
The US Constitution used to require a formal declaration of war from the Senate before the President could go galavanting.
The US needs to either become the UnitedState, with a single capitol and treating the former 50 as counties, or return to a more traditional, federalist separation of powers.
The half-measures are what is tedious.

Re:Is anyone actually shocked?

[Anonymous Coward]

Since when have the niceties of the US constitution applied to an enemy, in war, in the enemy's territory?

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. That whenever any form of government becomes destructive to these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness." -Declaration of Independence

Our Constitution is not based on the concept of American citizens being more deserving of basic human rights than other people. It's based on the idea that everyone possesses certain unalienable rights. The Constitution outlines what WE believe those rights to be. It is wholly counter-intuitive to suggest that these rights are somehow less fundamental because of where you are born. To actively guide and support any foreign government in attempts to deny their people those fundamental rights is a gross violation of the spirit of this country.

Re:Did any of this need to be confirmed?

[ednopantz]

"The average peasant is not normally willing to fight to his death for his national government. His national government may have been a succession of corrupt dictators and inefficient bureaucrats."

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. ..expects to be modded down for disagreeing with the waah! America sucks! groupthing.

Re:War is fun!

[es330td]

Last time I checked, McCain is a member of the legislative, not executive, branch of the US Government.

Re:War is fun!

[goombah99]

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:Did any of this need to be confirmed?

[jalet]

> iranian administration killed 500.000 kids

Well, I'm living in a country which is PROUD of having sent millions (yes) of its children to death, and killed millions (yes) of children from several other countries, aguably with the generous help of some other western countries.

In a few days the USA killed or injured hundreds of thousands of people : Nagasaki, Hiroshima, Dresden, to name a few...

And you seriously think there's a problem with Iran ?

The only problems are greed, political power and religion (all), especially whenever they mix together. Not a lot of countries still mix these three anymore, and the chief of them is certainely not Iran.

Re:Did any of this need to be confirmed?

[Mr. Slippery]

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.

Thornley was right: "Universal Enlightenment [is] a prerequisite to abolition of the State, after which the State will inevitably vanish. Or - that failing - nobody will give a damn."

Until everyone's "enlightened", governments are inevitable.

Re:Did any of this need to be confirmed?

[scubamage]

Ah ok, in that case we should wage war on the Jews because the Talmud states that Gentiles should be slaughtered like livestock - specifically Christians. We should also wage war on Christians because the bible states that every thankless child should be stoned, and a man who lay with another man should be killed.

Lots of religions talk about killing people for zany reasons, and the only ones who seem to really care are the crazies or nitpickers - you seem to fall into the second category. No religion is perfect, most poeple just realize that its more of an allegory than something to be taken word for word. As much of a barrier as you would like to place between 'us' and 'them,' and claim they are so barbaric, their society predates ours for a good 2-3 thousand years. I would guess that they understand that these are allegories as well... at least most of them. Granted, their religion is newer, but the people are much more cultured with a much richer history.

You, my friend, need to read some of Edward Said's writings on Orientalism and Occidentalism.

Re:War is fun!

[Elldallan]

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:What's really scary...

[Mr. Slippery]

Sometimes steps have to be taken, and I think we would all agree the Civil War turned out as well as a war can be expected to turn out.

Really? The death of 600,000 people followed by the continuation of segregation for a century, after a war that was ostensibly to free the slaves, is as well as we could have expected things to turn out?

The Civil War was a battle of the landed aristocracy of the South (which relied on slavery) versus the new industrial aristocracy of the North. While freeing the slaves - though "just sort of on paper", as George Carlin put it - was indeed a Good Thing, we ought not overly romanticize the war; like most, at root it was all about control of money and power.

Re:Did any of this need to be confirmed?

[krilli]

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

And today, the only way to be sure that we won't be killed by a foreign terrorist ... is to kill our own morally retarded political leaders.

OUR political leaders use perverted diplomacy, violence and evil to create hatred towards us — in countries we've seen on postcards, at best.

Especially when concrete proof of true evil comes out, such as this insurgency manual. More than a few moderate folks around the world will now become angry at US foreign policy and its implementation.

Re:War is fun!

[Stavr0]

Oh it's much simpler than that:

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:Big Deal!!! Counterinsurgency Manual not new.

[failedlogic]

The Special Forces have been doing this since the Second World war and perhaps well before then. I don't know much about older warfare, but in what I've read of Samurai culture, I think Ninjas did pretty much the same thing. In any case, the more "modern" and well-documented use of these tactics were used (in my limited knowledge of) the Vietnam War and the Cold War.

Re:War is fun!

[wfeick]

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.

Let's Hear an Alternative

[boatboy]

Seriously, I hear many critics, and can partly agree with some of their points. Any self-respecting conservative should believe in 'staying out of foreign entanglements'. But what I don't hear is an alternative. What should the policy be for handling groups of people with the stated goal of destroying our country? Dialog? Ok, what when the dialog comes to a standstill? What when the groups are loosely organized and not tied directly to a country, treaties, etc.? So, all you complainers need to get together on a wiki and come up with an alternative manual for anti-terror policy.

Re:Did any of this need to be confirmed?

[qw0ntum]

I shouldn't be feeding the troll, but it's obvious you don't really know too much about Islam with the way you've selected and interpreted those passages. If you've read the entire Koran and the Hadiths and gotten the message "lying is good!", then I'm sorry, but I don't think I can cure that kind of stupid.

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.

No such thing as fair.

[harl]

Once you've decided to kill to accomplish your goals the idea of outlawing lesser acts than killing seems a little absurd.

Re:War is fun!

[Hydian]

There is a world of difference between a war like WWII that was a necessary evil and the current conflict which was completely unprovoked.

I'm sure that people would be able to stomach a lot more if we were fighting a just war that had clear and noble goals or that was in actual defense of our country.

Re:War is fun!

[Guppy06]

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

A war between the Houses Hohenzollern, Hapsburg, and Osman against Houses Romanov and Windsor. Yay, freedom.

If we had kicked back, relaxed and let these statist colonial empires melt down further, the cause of "freedom" would have been a lot better off, rather than letting the winners hang on to their colonies and in fact colonize the territories of the losers. Probably could have avoided the next war altogether.

Re:No stomach for reality.

[aCC]

I'm sorry, but your analogy to WW2 is so flawed it's not even funny. In WW2 there was a terrible war GOING ON and people were being killed on a grand scheme beyond comprehension. What war was going on in Iraq when the US marched in? Or in Afghanistan? Or now in Iran? Or North Korea? (Notice, I'm talking about war, not suppression of people.)

It is one thing to go somewhere to stop a terrible war or even to stop mass killings (which noone does anyway as we see in Darfur), but it is a completely different thing to START, yes, START a war where there wasn't one. If you want to compare it to WW2, then you have to compare the US to the aggressor of that war, i.e. Nazi Germany, because that was exactly what they did (and they had the rhetoric to paint their actions as morally right in a similar way to your rhetoric). I pray to God the next administration will lead the USA onto the right path, so that it is a respected country representing freedom not terror.

Re:War is fun!

[Solandri]

They also supported Isreal against Palistinians who've become the Middle-Eastern gypsies as a result.

Dude, you need to read a bit of history beyond the past 60 years [wikipedia.org]. The Palestinian people were Middle-Eastern gypsies loooong before modern Israel ever got there. They've been a stateless socio-ethnic group for nearly a thousand years. It was the (imperialist) British who first brought up the idea of a Palestine in the 1920s. The other Arab states simply didn't give a damn, at least not until Israel got plopped in their midst and suddenly the Palestinians became a good reason for opposing Israel.

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!

[chriso11]

But, surprise! Saddam wasn't harboring Al Queda. So why do you support 'vengeance' against someone who wasn't responsible (who was admittedly a bad man)?

Re:Amazon

[sl3xd]

Yet more evidence that wikileaks needs more editorial oversight.

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:War is fun!

[fredrated]

He lost? By empowering Iran, driving up the cost of oil, throwing away our armed forces and their equipment, our good name and our treasury, WE lost. Big time. Figure it out.

Re:War is fun!

[Kamots]

People are outraged about Iraq and not about Afghanistan.

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:In other words

[Anonymous Coward]

yeah, right... this may come as news to you, but the US had special forces (& CIA) on the ground running these ops in both Afghanistan and Iraq before either invasion "officially" began.

Re:War is fun!

[Anonymous Coward]

Not to disagree with the overall sentiment, but it's amazing how any war we get into solely to defend Europe's interests is seen as "right" and any for our own "wrong"...

Re:War is fun!

[cayenne8]

"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?"

Geez.....first you get mad when we try to stay out of a war, then, you get mad when we get into one and take the lead on starting it.

Will you make up your fucking mind??

Re:War is fun!

[NMerriam]

I'm pretty sure the French (and related areas) were bloody happy to see us at the time.

Indeed, just as the Kuwaitis were happy to see us when we helped them reverse an invasion of their land. Getting help from an ally is usually a pretty good thing.

Remind me, which foreign army did we push out of Iraq? Oh, wait, WE ARE the foreign army in Iraq.

I can't imagine the average Iraqi is any happier about their Vichy government than the average Frenchman was.

Re:Compare to The Art of War

[DahGhostfacedFiddlah]

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.

I don't know what morons you've been talking to, but I've never seen that view espoused, or even the moderate view you've hyperbolized to make your point. No one's saying the mideast doesn't (and hasn't for a long time) had its problems.

The biggest problem I - and a lot of people - have had with GWB's rule is how incomprehensibly stupid it's been. He kicked a hornets' nest with no plan to deal with the consequences. He's managed to set up a situation in Iraq where more people are killed than under Saddam. By just about every measure, Iraq is worse today than it was in 2002. It is more dangerous today than it was in 2002. Whatever the long-term goals were, they have not been achieved (no, "getting rid of Saddam" is not a long-term goal. It is a step in a longer plan to, say, bring peace to the middle east, or cheapen oil, or whatever).

There is a world of difference you do not seem to see between "thinking the world is made of fluffy bunnies who love us", and recognizing that war is not the best answer to 99.9% of the world's problems. War has been tried in the middle east for centuries, and really hasn't worked out.

In short, you're creating an idiotic charachiture of those who believe different of you. I have never seen the views you ascribe to those who view Bush in a negative light. *Never*. We all recognize that there are severe problems in the middle east - some old, some new. There is some very justified anger at actions taken by the US and other foreign agents. There is also very unjustified and stupid anger that you get in poverty-stricken theocracies. And the entire thing is a shade of gray.

You do yourself a disservice by characterizing your opponents this way. You'll only serve to harden those who disagree with you, as they'll think your views so far from reality that you can't be reasoned with.

Re:War is fun!

[7 digits]

Well, as an European, I am really glad about what the American did on WW1 and 2 (of course, we also did things for you before, but nonetheless, that was great).

> any war we get into solely to defend Europe's interests is seen as "right" and any for our own "wrong"...

This is absolutely not true. The war in Afghanistan is seen as "right". The very very wrong war is Iraq.

Furthermore, you didn't "get into" the Iraq war, you started it. It is a war of aggression, and the US is the aggressor, with a pretty thin justification. It is quite different from entering a war to protect allies victim of a war of aggression.

I understand that the American people have been lied to and driven into an illegal war (your congress never approved it), but don't refuse the face the truth: this is not a war that you will be proud of.

Btw, the war in Vietnam wasn't a very good idea either. Even if the French were already there defending their own interests. So, yes, you can do wrong even when you protect Europe's interests :-)

Re:War is fun!

[vandan]

Unfortunately for your arguement, Saddam was the US's biggest ally in the Middle East ( aside from Israel of course ) for decades. They backed his rise to power, and gave him WOMD to experiment with. You can't cry about him now without first admitting that you created the problem. And of course now you've executed him so he couldn't spill the beans on the details of the WOMD stockpiles he was given.