Certain Doubt

Nothing is certain in life except doubt

  • Home
  • About Me
  • Book Reviews
  • Personal Plea
  • Statement of Purpose

Posts Tagged ‘wikileaks’

What’s so dangerous about Wikileaks, anyway?

Friday, December 24th, 2010


The furor over the material in the diplomatic cables released by the whistle-blowing site Wikileaks has been shrill and all pervasive. Virtually everyone in the U.S. government from the president to the Secretary of State and even the Attorney General has pilloried and condemned Wikileaks. In particular the government has focused its ire on Wikileak’s founder, Julian Assange, labeling him as everything from an unprincipled hacker to an out and out terrorist.

But in all this scorn two questions have been suspiciously absent from the US government comments, at least in the American press:

Is the material in the cables true? And if so, how does exposing the truth constitute a threat to the United States?

With any revelation of acts that border on – and in some cases actually step across the line with both feet – illegality, usually there are self-righteous denials of innocence from the accused. In the case of the diplomatic cables, from the government we get nada, zero, bupkus.

It is always much easier to attack the messenger than to deal with the message he brings. But by its vicious attacks on Wikileaks – attacks which have included calls from some for Assange to be assassinated – the United States Government seems intent on ignoring the content of the cables entirely. The Obama administration is happy to scream about the “illegality” of Wikileaks release of sensitive government information. But as for the possible illegality of the acts the documents reveal? Not a peep. In the movie script they are writing about the saga, the Obama administration is treating the cables as a kind of Mcguffin, an artifact that is referred to throughout a film but that is ultimately not really important to the story. (Google Alfred Hitchcock for a further definition of McGuffin)

Whether the US is guilty of illegal acts is an interesting question. However, as the information from the cables continues to seep out, one central truth about American foreign policy becomes harder and harder to ignore:

The United States has been shitting on the rest of the world.

To be sure, most countries, including our allies in Europe, have known for some time that the United States plays diplomatic hardball as well as military hardball. All the cables really do is make it practically impossible for the rest of the world not to see the extent of United States meddling in other countries affairs. Much like the oil from the recent spill in the Gulf of Mexico with its constant stream of soiled beaches and oil-soaked birds, the constant drip of Wikileaks documents gives lie to the myth that the United States in any way has the rest of the world’s interests at heart. It’s hard to pretend you’re a white knight when you’ve got crude oil dripping from your visor.

The latest revelation about Monsanto in Europe is one more goo encrusted albatross that the government will have to wear around its neck. In the words of Juan Gonzales of Democracy Now:

U.S. diplomatic cables released by WikiLeaks reveal the Bush administration drew up ways to retaliate against Europe for refusing to use genetically modified seeds. In 2007, then-US ambassador to France Craig Stapleton was concerned about France’s decision to ban cultivation of genetically modified corn produced by biotech giant Monsanto. He also warned that a new French environmental review standard could spread anti-biotech policy across Europe.

In the leaked cable, Stapleton writes, quote, “Europe is moving backwards not forwards on this issue with France playing a leading role, along with Austria, Italy and even the [European] Commission…Moving to retaliation will make clear that the current path has real costs to EU interests and could help strengthen European pro-biotech voice.”

It is hard to overstate the implications of this revelation. That the United States and companies like Monsanto are “joined at the hip” is not news. But the fact that a US ambassador should propose threatening retaliation against a sovereign nation on behalf of a large multinational corporation is chilling. It means that the United States government is so set on defending the profits of Monsanto that they would actually retaliate against a European ally for having the temerity to stake out a position that would affect the corporation’s bottom line.

The point here is that the only way the United States government can claim that it is harmed by the release of the Wikileaks documents is if the information they contain is false. If everything our diplomatic corps has been doing is open and above board, if we have been dealing fairly and openly with our friends and foes alike, then we have nothing to fear from the details of our diplomacy being revealed. It is only if the ugly and shameful secrets revealed by Wikileaks are falsehoods then our country has a case against Assange and company. If they are true then our country can’t be harmed unless one decides that the truth is damaging to our country in some way. The reality is that our country hasn’t been harmed by the Wikileaks documents. Shamed, perhaps, Embarassed certainly. But it is only our pride that has received a black eye, not our security.

For columnists like Jeffery Kuhner to claim that: “Julian Assange poses a clear and present danger to American national security. The WikiLeaks founder is more than a reckless provocateur. He is aiding and abetting terrorists in their war against America… “ is ludicrous. How on earth can the revelation of plans by the US diplomatic corps to make heavy handed duplicitous threats against France be considered in any way a “clear and present danger to American national security?”

Certainly, revelations that the United States used their diplomatic corps to collect personal and biometric data on members of the UN is embarrassing, and possibly illegal. But it in no way rises to the level of danger that justifies Mr. Kuhner’s veiled threats: “The administration must take care of the problem – effectively and permanently…. We should treat Mr. Assange the same way as other high-value terrorist targets.”

Once again, like the government and a vast majority of the press corps, Kuhner ignores the content of the cables entirely. He says Assange is dangerous, so dangerous that he should be targeted the way we target high value terrorists, but nowhere does he make any mention of what information Assange has revealed that is so dangerous to America that it justifies assassination.

The only part of Kuhner’s editorial that bears any resemblance to the truth is the passage which reads:

The world is witnessing the absurd, almost surreal spectacle of the American superpower standing helpless in the face of a lone hacker. Her diplomatic secrets are no longer safe; her allies and friends are being betrayed; and her cyber-enemies are free to roam with impunity. America is no longer feared or respected.

At the risk of sounding snarky, my reply to Mr.Kuhn would be that if the release of a few diplomatic cables results in America no longer being feared or respected by other countries, then our status as the world’s lone super power in the world can’t have been all that solid to begin with.

To all those who agree with Mr. Kuhn that Julian Assange is a dangerous terrorist who should be rubbed out, my final question is as follows:

If it doesn’t even stop the release of the secrets you consider so dangerous, what possible good will result from imprisoning, torturing and killing the man responsible for making them public?

Or even more to the point:

How does the assassination of one man restore our status as a world super power that must be “feared and respected?”

Tags: Assange, Assassination, dangerous, Democracy Now, diplomacy, diplomatic, Ethics, government, illegal, information, Kuhner, leaks, mcguffin, Politics, revelations, secrets, Thomas Vincent, truth, Vincent, wikileaks
Posted in Daily Rant, Ethics, Politics, government, law, media | No Comments »

He had me at “Yes We Can”

Wednesday, December 8th, 2010

Barrack Obama had me. He had me at “yes we can.” he had me at “Change is coming to America.”

He had me. But he has me no more.

Over the past two years as president, Obama’s confident message of “change we can believe in,” has morphed into a mumbled: “…uh, let’s have change everyone agrees on, okay?… please?” Gone is the dynamic speaker who inspired hope in so many of us. In its place is a weak, indecisive man whose policies seem little differen tfrom those of his predecessor. We wanted an FDR. What we got was Mr. Rogers.

Go down the list. On the domestic front we have had hundreds of billions in continued bailouts of banks and insurance giants. Bailouts of large corporations like General Motors. All this largess has come with no strings attached. There has been virtually no oversight over who gets the government handouts and what it is used for. The cave in to health insurance corporations and big Phrma in the health-care bill is a blatant example of an administration that surrenders before the battle has even started. Add in continued record unemployment, massive home foreclosures and individual bankruptcies coupled with incredible multi-billion dollar bonuses for corporate executives and you have a growing divide between rich and poor that Obama seems unwilling to do anything to change. The President says he is trying to promote compromise. However, the astonishing alacrity with which he continues to give in to republicans and their corporate paymasters makes him seem like a weak, cowardly, unprincipled man who is unwilling to stand up and fight for anything.

Americans love a good scrap. We’ll even support a hopeless underdog if that underdog is willing to stand up to the bully and poke him in the eye. By giving in to republicans like Mitch McConnell and John Boehner, Obama is coming off looking like a weakling who is so afraid of the bully on the beach that he will lie down and kick sand in his own face. Compromise is not a bad thing. However, the President’s seeming unwillingness to fight against conservatives on any issue is revolting in the extreme.

As bad as the domestic front is, the international situation is worse. We have a continuous war in Afghanistan with no end in sight. We have undeclared wars in Pakistan and Yemen, and the ramping up of rhetoric for war in Iran and possibly North Korea. We continue to print money to fuel our out of control military spending, and we continue to exhibit an unsustainable imperialistic foreign policy that is, in many ways, even more pronounced than it was under George W. Bush. Even Guantanamo which Obama promised to close within a year of becoming president is not only still open with lots of prisoners still being held without even the hope of a trial.

Now we have the flap over the release of “confidential” diplomatic cables by the whistle blowing site “Wikileaks.” The Obama administration’s response to the release of these documents has been appalling. That Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and the entire diplomatic core received a huge black eye over the release of the documents is undeniable. The Wikileaks cables demonstrate convincingly that the United States government under Obama is continuing down the same path of imperial hubris that was the hallmark of his predecessor. The U.S. continues to meddle in the affairs of other countries even to the point of engaging in unethical and immoral illegal acts like spying on members of the United Nations and engaging in sabotage of climate control talks in Denmark.

The government’s response to the revelations is equally revealing. Just as under George W. Bush the Obama administration’s reaction is not to apologize or admit error. It is not to change its behavior. Instead, the government’s only action is to circle the wagons and attack, destroy or at least silence the founder of Wikileaks, Julian Assange, by any means possible. On an individual level, viewing the revelation of one’s unethical and even illegal behavior as a personal attack is not the reaction of one who possesses strong moral character. On an international level, any country that reacts to its secrets being revealed by launching attacks on the whistle blower who revealed them is not exhibiting courage. Is the Obama administration so desperate to appear strong and tough that they can’t own up when a few of their secrets get revealed?

Reacting to someone who exposes you as a fool by clobbering them over the head does not make you any less of a fool. It just makes you a bully.

Subsequent posts will deal with why I believe further support for Obama is futile. For now let me just say that hope as a commodity is not infinite. I’m afraid my supply for Obama has been exhausted. Somewhere between now and the next election President Obama may grow a spine and start fighting for the things in which he believes. He may. But given his actions to date, I very much doubt it.

Tags: Assange, certain, change, corporations, courage, doubt, hope, influence, money, Obama, Politics, republican, Thomas Vincent, Vincent, wikileaks
Posted in Daily Rant, Ethics, Politics, law, warfare | No Comments »

Secrets

Tuesday, November 30th, 2010


I am growing increasingly sick to my stomach over the “outrage” by government officials and members of Congress over the release of diplomatic cables by the watchdog group Wikileaks.

Sen. Joseph Lieberman weighed in first. In fiery language he:

“…condemned the release, saying, “Wikileaks’ deliberate disclosure of these diplomatic cables is nothing less than an attack on the national security of the United States, as well as that of dozens of other countries. By disseminating these materials, Wikileaks is putting at risk the lives and the freedom of countless Americans and non-Americans around the world. It is an outrageous, reckless, and despicable action that will undermine the ability of our government and our partners to keep our people safe and to work together to defend our vital interests. Let there be no doubt: the individuals responsible are going to have blood on their hands.”

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton went even further:

“Let’s be clear. This disclosure is not just an attack on America — it’s an attack on the international community,” Clinton said Monday at a State Department news conference. Such leaks, she said, “tear at the fabric” of responsible government.
“There is nothing laudable about endangering innocent people, and there is nothing brave about sabotaging the peaceful relations between nations,” she added.

But the loudest vitriol came from New York’s Rep. Peter King, the ranking Republican on Homeland Security, who said that: “This is worse even than a physical attack on Americans, it’s worse than a military attack…”

King maintained that WikiLeaks is “engaged in terrorist activity.” He said that by releasing secret documents, the organization is “enabling terrorists to kill Americans.”
“… if the lives of some Americans are endangered by the illegal release of classified information by the Wikileaks website, then the government should “go after” the people who control WikiLeaks for violating the espionage act.” 1

King wants Attorney General Eric Holder “to prosecute Assange under the Espionage Act and has also called on Clinton to determine whether WikiLeaks could be designated as a Foreign Terrorist Organization.”

It is astounding to me that anyone who has the slightest connection to these released cables should have the unmitigated gall to stand up and decry their release. Comparing Julian Assange and Wikileaks to a terrorist group for making public acts of diplomatic indiscretion, hubris, and outright governmental duplicity is like seeing Hannibal Lechter stand up and express outrage that his recipes have been published online.

Am I calling the U.S. State Department a bunch of cannibals? Of course not. I am merely saying anyone who has committed acts they are not proud of – acts that could even be illegal – has no right to express outrage when those acts are made public.

The silly part about Clinton, Lieberman, and King’s vitriolic attack on Wikileaks is the innocuous nature ofmost of the material released. For example, according to the Guardian the cables contain such earth shattering revelations as:
-alleged links between the Russian government and organized crime.
-claims of “inappropriate behavior” by an unnamed member of the British Royal Family.
-the fact that Muammar gaddafi never goes anywhere without his “voluptuous blonde” Ukranian nurse.

Even the potential bombshells such as the revelation that the State Department has been engaging in clandestine spying against members of the UN and the fact that London and Washington has grave fears over the security of Pakistan’s nuclear program are not all that shocking. While the scope of both of these revelations – collection of biometric data such as DNA from UN officials and even plans to remove nuclear material from Pakistan – will undoubtedly raise some eyebrows around the world, they are not exactly news.

For example, in a New York Times article from May 2009, David Sanger wrote:
“As the insurgency of the Taliban and Al Qaeda spreads in Pakistan, senior American officials say they are increasingly concerned about new vulnerabilities for Pakistan’s nuclear arsenal, including the potential for militants to snatch a weapon in transport or to insert sympathizers into laboratories or fuel-production facilities.

And this from the Observer in March 9, 2003:
The United Nations has begun a top-level investigation into the bugging of its delegations by the United States, first revealed in The Observer last week…The operation is thought to have been authorized by US National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice, but American intelligence experts told The Observer that a decision of this kind would also have involved Donald Rumsfeld, CIA director George Tenet and NSA chief General Michael Hayden.

The fact that so much of the content of the cables that has been released is of the mundane, watercolor gossip variety – Prime Minister Silvio Belusconi is described as the “mouthpiece of [Vladimir] Putin”, Nicholas Sarkozy is “an Emperor with no clothes” and North Korean dictator Kim Jong-il is called a “flabby old man,” – makes Secretary Clinton’s protestations seem even more bizarre.

The real damage, if damage there is, from the Wikileaks revelations is better described by Rep. Peter Hoekstra of Michigan, the senior Republican on the House Intelligence Committee:

“The catastrophic issue here is just a breakdown in trust,” he said Monday, adding that many other countries — allies and foes alike — are likely to ask, ” ‘Can the United States be trusted? Can the United States keep a secret?’ “

Here lies the real nut. Like a shiny porcelain cap that falls off revealing the stub of a rotten tooth, the real sore point for the U.S. Government is simply that the cables give the world a clear look at just what a bunch of duplicitous liars we are.

In the Words of historian and writer Norman Solomon:

“No government wants to face documentation of actual policies, goals and priorities that directly contradict its public claims of virtue. In societies with democratic freedoms, the governments that have the most to fear from such disclosures are the ones that have been doing the most lying to their own people.
The recent mega-leaks are especially jarring because of the extreme contrasts between the government’s public pretenses and real-life actions.”

As Solomon rightly points out, the standard response when leaks occur is to blame the leaking messengers. Like that scene in “Casablanca” where Claude Rains says: “The major has been shot, round up the usual suspects.” The U.S. Government is saying “We got a custard pie in the face. Round up Wikileaks and accuse them of attacking our national security.”

Solomon’s response is as poignant as it gets: “…what kind of ‘national security’ can be built on duplicity from a government that is discredited and refuted by its own documents?”

In the end, the Representative Hoekstra comes close, but he doesn’t win the cigar. The question revealed by the diplomatic cables shouldn’t be “can the United States keep a secret?” The real question is: “should the United States be keeping secrets?”

Tags: Clinton, diplomacy, duplicity, Secretary of State, secrets, spying, Thomas Vincent, Vincent, wikileaks
Posted in Daily Rant, Ethics, Politics, law, technology, warfare | No Comments »

Sweden: Wikileaks Safe Haven?

Tuesday, September 7th, 2010

When Wikileaks made the decision to base their servers in Sweden, the media all dutifully reported that the site was choosing the country “to take advantage of laws protecting whistleblowers and a culture supportive of online mavericks.” The inference was that Sweden would be some kind of neutral safe haven from which Assange and his fellow compilers could ply their trade, free from the slings and arrows (both literal and figurative) that the C.I.A. and the Pentagon would surely unleash.

Assange and Wikileaks’ reasoning seemed sound enough. To quote an AP article of August 18,

“The Pirate Party, a small Swedish political group that holds a seat in the European Parliament, on Tuesday offered Wikileaks to use its servers. Their reasoning was that it would be even more difficult for authorities to seize servers owned by a political group.
Assange has said WikiLeaks routes its material through Sweden and Belgium because of the whistleblower protection offered by laws in those countries. He was in Sweden this week in part to prepare an application for a publishing certificate that would make sure the site is fully protected by the Swedish laws…

However, the AP article goes on to note that while: “…Swedish laws allow prosecutors to intervene against publication of material deemed harmful to national security. It’s unclear whether that could also include the security of a friendly nation. The U.S. argues the secret documents risks the lives of coalition forces and Afghans helping them.”

The article stresses that: “Foreign Minister Carl Bildt said the U.S. has not contacted Sweden about WikiLeaks.” And, “Any complaint against the site would be a matter for Swedish judicial authorities — not the government, Bildt said…”

Given Assange’s inability to get those same judicial authorities to dismiss rape charges against him, one wonders just how sympathetic they will be when it comes time to stand up against the tsunami of lawyers, lobbyists, and diplomats the White House will flood the country with to stop Wikileaks from continuing to release embarrassing documents.Of course the AP article notes that, “Swedish ministers typically refrain from getting involved when foreign governments complain about material published by the country’s media. Last year, Bildt dismissed demands by Israel for the government to condemn a Swedish newspaper article that claimed Israeli soldiers harvested organs from dead Palestinians.”

Nevertheless, with all the Justice ministry officials’ independent sounding statements, it must give Wikileaks pause when they read the following headline in “The Local:”

Swedish police Raid Filesharing ‘Scene’

“The Local: Swedish police raided locations across the country on Tuesday, including WikiLeaks’ ISP PRQ, acting on information from Belgian police in an international operation targeting the filesharing network known as “The Scene”.

While the raid was not aimed specifically at Wikileaks, the fact that PRQ, Wikileaks’ server was raided at all means when push comes to shove, the Swedish Justice Department may not be as independant as Wikileaks might hope.

“The purpose of the raids in the Stockholm area and in Umeå were to gather information about specific IP addresses,” said Fredrik Ingblad. He added that police also seized computers and servers in the raids.

As the AP article demonstrates, the existing laws in Sweden do provide some protections for sites like Wikileaks.

Swedish law enforcement cannot issue an injunction to close a website before a court has convicted the publishers of a crime, but can seize a server as part of a criminal investigation, said Johan Lundmark, deputy director at the Justice Ministry. He questioned whether it could be considered a crime in Sweden to leak classified U.S. documents…
That indicates U.S. officials may only be able to target WikiLeaks’ servers by demanding legal assistance from Swedish police for their own criminal investigation.

“At the end of the day, it will all boil down to some kind of interpretation by some authority, which will consider … if there is a possibility to assist the American police with the support of existing rules,” Lundmark said. “This is a complicated issue and there are loads of questions that could pop up.”

Still, the existing rules proved no obstacle in the case of file sharing website The Pirate Bay after: “…extensive communication took place between lobby groups for the U.S. entertainment industry and the Swedish government before the prosecutor pressed charges against the operators.” As the article notes: “The four men behind The Pirate Bay last year were sentenced to one year in prison each and ordered to pay combined damages of 30 million kronor ($4.1 million). They have appealed and the website is still running while they await a retrial.”

If the U.S. entertainment industry can achieve such success at convincing the Swedish Justice ministry to crack down on a bunch of guys swapping movies, imagine the full court press that the Pentagon and C.I.A. will be able to muster, arguing that Wikileak’s release of classified material constitutes a “War Crimes.”

Assange’s personal problems in getting the Justice department to drop rape charges would pale in comparison to the legal challenges he and Wikileaks face should the Swedish Justice department bow to pressure from the White House. Assange’s bold prediction in August that “The will of the Swedish people is with us,” not withstanding, it is ultimately the Swedish Government – specifically the Justice Ministry – that will decide whether Sweden proves to be the safe Haven that Wikileaks needs.

Julian Assange may feel comfortable leaving his fate up to “the will of the people,” but if Wikileaks is staking all their hopes for the future on a bunch of Swedish bureaucrats standing up to the will of the United States….

Let’s just say, I hope for Wikileaks sake, they have a back up plan in place.

Tags: AP, Assange, government, justice, law, rape, ssfe haven, Sweden, The Local, Thomas Vincent, Vincent, White House, wikileaks
Posted in Daily Doubt, Ethics, Politics, law, media, warfare | 1 Comment »

Wikileaks Exposé: Special Forces Counterinsurgency Handbook

Monday, September 6th, 2010

NOTE: In an effort to finally get past the “wikileaks/rape” fiasco I will devote the next few posts to analyzing some of the content the brave folks at Wikileaks have unearthed.

Special Forces Afghanistan Counterinsurgency Handbook:


If anyone wants to really get a handle on what’s going on in Afghanistan, I heartily suggest you look up author Nick Turse’s outstanding piece on Alternet on September 3rd. Entitled: “5 Jaw-Dropping Stories in Wikileaks’ Archives Begging for National Attention,” Turse outlines several of the documents uncovered by the Wikileaks gang that have gotten little to no mention in the mainstream media.

The first one to catch my eye – and the topic for this piece – is the “U.S. Special Forces Southern Afghanistan Counterinsurgency Handbook of 2006.” This document, which according to its introduction, “provides guidance to the commanders and staffs of combined-arms forces that have a primary mission of eliminating insurgent forces…,” offers a stunningly clear example of why the United States will never achieve success in Afghanistan.

The handbook begins by defining insurgent groups as: “…all types of unconventional forces and operations… and includes guerrilla; partisan; insurgent; subversive; resistance; terrorist; revolutionary; and similar personnel, organizations, and methods.” It goes on to state that “Insurgent activities include acts of a military, political, psychological, and economic nature… for the purpose of eliminating or weakening the authority of the local government or an occupying power(ital. mine) and using primarily insurgent and informal groupings and measures. An insurgent force is the outward manifestation of a resistance movement against the local government by some portion of the population of an area.”

The problem with this definition of course is that it is broad enough to cover just about any kind of uprising imaginable from roadside bombings and actual armed attacks to peaceful protest marches. Ironically, it is so complete and all encompassing it even includes uprisings that seek to throw off the yoke of an occupying power.

In this case folks, that would be us.

To put this document into perspective, we invade Afghanistan, we throw out the existing government – such as it was – we occupy the country with soldiers, and install a corrupt puppet government. Now, according to this handbook, any citizen of Afghanistan who resists the rule of that puppet government or our military occupation is, by definition, an insurgent and thus a legitimate target for “elimination.”

From a practical standpoint, the fact that this document lumps active fighters such as guerrillas and terrorists together with more passive resisters such as partisans and subversives means “coalition soldiers” are faced with the daily task of having to identify which Afghans among the general population are friends and which are enemies. The assertion that supposed insurgent activity includes acts of a “political, psychological, and economic nature,” means that virtually anything anyone does in the country to change the status quo can be viewed as an act of an insurgency. Given the fact that Afghanistan’s population is around 29 million with support for the Karzai government around 52% and support for America’s soldiers at 38% that’s a shitload of potential “insurgents.”


As if the ambiguity of who is an enemy isn’t bad enough, at times the handbook’s instructions for how to deal with insurgency seem positively schizophrenic. Consider the following two passages:

“Civic action can include assistance to the local population as construction or rehabilitation of transportation and communication means, schools, hospitals, and churches; assisting in agricultural improvement programs, crop planting, harvesting, or processing; and furnishing emergency food, clothing, and medical aid in periods of natural disaster.”

Contrast that touchy, feely, hopey, changy directive with the following:

“Use of fires: Coalition forces enjoy a large advantage in the availability of fires, indirect and aerial, to influence the battle. Using such fires wisely can dramatically affect the outcome of tactical engagements and offer a tool, which with careful use can alter the strategic outcome of the fight against the ACM. (Anti Coalition Militants.)”

So, our soldiers are to take part in agricultural improvement programs, crop planting and harvesting, but only after we’ve burned all the fields to wipe out anyone who takes up arms in an effort to convince us to go home.

It is hard to overemphasize the bizarre nature of this document as a guide for soldiers in the field. In the first chapter the handbook presents the perfectly reasonable statement that: “Resistance movements begin to form when dissatisfaction occurs among strongly motivated individuals who cannot further their cause by peaceful and legal means.”

But where a reasonable, rational person might conclude that the way to defuse resistance movements would be to find some way for those “strongly motivated individuals” to find peaceful and legal means to advance themselves, the Handbook’s solution leaves no doubt that peace is not where its true priorities lie:

“The best method of separating an insurgent force from the populace is by killing the insurgent… The planning, preparation, and execution of the operation are aimed at sudden, complete encirclement that will totally surprise the guerillas… once the encirclement is firmly established, the guerilla force is methodically and thoroughly eliminated.”

In other words, you can shoot, blow up and kill anyone that looks like a militant, but only if you go back and build a post office after you’re done. This is completely crazy. It is a mission that is self defeating from the word go. But the craziest part is yet to come.

Psychological Operations (PSYOPS) is quite literally the battle for hearts and minds of the people fought not with guns or with civic deeds but with PR. (Public relations is an idea that is extremely difficult in a place like Afghanistan where the literacy rate is so low and where the population lives in rural areas with no radios or TVs, much less internet.) But not to worry, the handbook has the answer.

Mobile radio stations. Stations on wheels that can: “…pass messages on to the most remote villages through word of mouth, allowing friendly forces to tailor messages and programming to specific villages…. Currently, radio stations broadcast command information, deception messages, and PSYOP messages that follow approved themes.”

The most bizarre strategy in the PSYOPS arsenal is the “mobile mullah,” a cleric or religious leader friendly to coalition forces who can use his influence to convince local tribal leaders that, for example: “Now is the time to stop fighting and rejoin your families.”

The Counterinsurgency Handbook contains lots of perfectly good strategies for killing people. It quite convincing that the United States Army has the capability to roast and toast anybody in Afghanistan they come across who might be classified as an insurgent. The problem is, by creating such a broad definition for who is a terrorist, the Handbook creates a scenario where soldiers on the ground are faced with the unenviable task of deciding whether the people they meet on a daily basis deserve a daycare center or a daisy cutter.

Perhaps the most telling factoid about the document is the fact that while the word “guerrilla” is used 34 times and “insurgent” is used 151 times, words like “maybe,” “perhaps,” “ethical,” and “moral” do not appear at all. Mass murderers on death row have more questions raised about the rightness of their executions than do the nameless, faceless, Afghans both militant and civilian, who continue to die as a result of this handbook.

For me, this document is absolutely frightening. Not because it lacks morality but rather because it is not unique. The Handbook is merely the latest in a long series of tactical and strategic planning documents for executing a militaristic and imperialistic foreign policy that sees imposing our military might on the world as the United States manifest destiny. Because it defines insurgents as anyone around the world who resists our military might, it is quite simply a manual for perpetual war.

That the handbook doesn’t once question the right or even the wisdom of a foreign policy that calls for our soldiers to fight “insurgencies” wherever they find them is worse than immoral. It represents the ultimate in Hubris. Authors such as Andrew Bacevich and Chalmers Johnson have pointed out, counterinsurgency as a foreign policy was thoroughly discredited in past conflicts like Viet-Nam. And yet here it is, alive and well in the pages of a military handbook that is currently being used in Afghanistan.

The release of documents such as this Handbook is one more example of why Wikileaks and other “whistle blowing” sites like it are so important. It is also one more example of why everyone has a responsibility to open sites like this to see for themselves what is really being done in their names around the world.

In the words of Pierre de Vos: “Secrecy is the enemy of Democracy.”

Tags: afghanistan, AlterNet, COIN, counterinsurgency, Handbook, insurgent, Taliban, Thomas Vincent, Turse, Vincent, wikileaks
Posted in Daily Rant, Ethics, Politics, warfare | 2 Comments »

<< Previous

  • Categories

    • Daily Doubt (48)
    • Daily Rant (47)
    • economics (39)
    • Ethics (53)
    • government (24)
    • humor (13)
    • law (20)
    • media (33)
    • Politics (91)
    • satire (5)
    • technology (3)
    • Uncategorized (31)
    • warfare (35)
  • Other Writings

    • Book Reviews
  • Blogroll

    • Antiwar.com
    • Aphelion Webzine
    • Daily Kos
    • Freaking News
    • imgur
    • Impermanent Media
    • Olympia Newswire
    • Photobucket
    • Real Change Newspaper
    • The Ethical Spectacle
    • The Real News
  • Networking Sites

    • Digg.com
    • Reddit
  • News Sites

    • Antiwar.com
    • Common Dreams
    • Freaking News
    • Olympia Newswire
    • Raw Story
    • Wikileaks
  • Archives

    • December 2011
    • November 2011
    • October 2011
    • September 2011
    • August 2011
    • July 2011
    • June 2011
    • May 2011
    • April 2011
    • March 2011
    • February 2011
    • January 2011
    • December 2010
    • November 2010
    • October 2010
    • September 2010
    • August 2010
    • July 2010
    • June 2010
    • May 2010
    • April 2010
    • March 2010
    • February 2010
    • January 2010
    • December 2009
    • November 2009
    • October 2009
    • September 2009
    • August 2009
    • July 2009
    • June 2009
    • May 2009
    • March 2009
    • February 2009
    • January 2009
  • Admin

    • Log in
    • Entries RSS
    • Comments RSS
    • WordPress.org

Copyright © 2012 - Certain Doubt | Entries (RSS) | Comments (RSS)

WordPress theme designed by web design