Wikileaks Gets Hold of Counterinsurgency Manual

HeavensBlade23 writes in to let us know that Wikileaks has published a US Special Forces counterinsurgency manual, titled Foreign Internal Defense Tactics Techniques and Procedures for Special Forces (1994, 2004). "The document, which has been verified, is official US Special Forces doctrine. It directly advocates training paramilitaries, pervasive surveillance, censorship, press control and restrictions on labor unions & political parties. It directly advocates warrantless searches, detainment without charge and the suspension of habeas corpus. It directly advocates bribery, employing terrorists, false flag operations and concealing human rights abuses from journalists. And it directly advocates the extensive use of 'psychological operations' (propaganda) to make these and other 'population & resource control' measures more palatable."

Did any of this need to be confirmed?

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

We wag our fingers at China for their actions in Tibet, but by any measure what they have done there is far more humane than what we have done in Iraq. We lecture Russia about corruption and they simply retort with examples of western corruption.

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

Re:Did any of this need to be confirmed?

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?

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

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

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

Re:Did any of this need to be confirmed?

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.

What's really scary...

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

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

Re:What's really scary...

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

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

Re:Did any of this need to be confirmed?

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

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

Re:Did any of this need to be confirmed?

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?

Now that everything that everybody already knew ..

... 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

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

Figures.

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

Re:Figures.

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

We put him there, so presumably we thought so.

Re:Figures.

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

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

Is anyone actually shocked?

Special Forces are trained to work behind enemy lines in war to destabilize the government and cause as much damage as possible to the enemy's war effort. Since when have the niceties of the US constitution applied to an enemy, in war, in the enemy's territory? Regardless, war is uncivilized. Anyone that thinks otherwise should do some research. If you try to apply peacetime's morals to a war zone you're just going to lose a lot of lives and accomplish nothing.

You can't be this naive ...

War is about imposing YOUR will on your enemy. If you read von Clausewitz, or Sun Tsu, you will find nothing but a ringing endorsement of the techniques described in your indignant lead in.

Even beyond the observation that the manual describes nothing but techniques used in war since the dawn of time, I'll observe that it is the insurgents who cynically hide behind an unarmed populace. They make the fundamental decision to deliberately cause civilian casualties when they refuse to abide by the Geneva Convention and fight in uniform, away from civilian population centers.

A uniformed military must counter the insurgents in some way; would you prefer that we burn down the house to kill the bed bugs? What do you suggest? Asking the insurgents nicely to go home? Take a long hard look at places like Somalia or the disaster in Bosnia and then tell me there are realistic options other than the judicious application of force.

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

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

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

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

In other words

War is hell, film at 11.

Insurgencies/counterinsurgencies are a fight over the support of a population. The notion, which is implied in the summary, that wars can be fought in an environment devoid of the infrastructure of law and order with an attention to civil niceties that peacetime domestic civilian police forces can't live up to is ridiculous. The population will realize that your side is hamstringing itself while the other side has no such qualms and choose sides accordingly. That is what happened in Iraq for the first year or so of the Iraq insurgency - domestic Sunni and foreign jihadist groups terrorized the population whenever the American flag wasn't around, while the American occupation went around promising new water plants and soccer parks. No wonder the American intelligence gathering efforts were so effective back then - new soccer park vs. we will kill you and every member of your family if you cooperate.

One important detail

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

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...

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:War is hell.

So it's by any means necessary then?

When we go over there to bring them freedom, we can do whatever the fuck we like because we're the "good guys", right?

Whilst i can see some justification for some of these techniques in an actual war of defence against an aggressive power, you know this shit's going on in our wars of adventure and speculation too.

Re:War is hell.

"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:War is fun!

Who ever said war was a fun thing?

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

Re:Compare to The Art of War

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

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

Re:Those sound like war tactics

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.