(Actually, I'll be writing more about this. You should consider this a first chapter, pretty boy Chrissy...)

 So anywho, my half brother Christopher Shropshire, who recently enlisted in the War Crimes or Us American Army  like a fuckin' moron, posted this on his Facebook page.

So, you know, I think I wrote something but by my own standards of cruelty it was quite harmless. I can't check because I've been defriended by my own  by own half brother (big loss but more on this Facebook later...) and so I think I wrote:

"Well I think that enlisting was a mistake but nobody thinks you're a pussy for it. On the other hand, it's kinda cool having a half brother who can do consulting work for 'Burn Notice'."

And that's it. His wife responded and it was kind of sarcastic because it wasn't the Support the Troops Fox news bullshit that she's used to hearing. And that's all right. I think I said that I liked the post even when I didn't mainly as a friendly gesture because if Chris Shropshire wants to go off and murder Afghan civilians, accidentally I'm sure,  hey that's up to him. We all have different and ironic ideas of what constitutes "fun". I'm sure they'll all die justifiably. Yes I'm being sarcastic all those dead civilians notwithstanding.

So then I get this private message from Christopher Shropshire, possible future war criminal or Ranger School dropout or deserving casualty of the war -- because we never know what the wondrous future may bring -- which says this:

 " i saw you comment that my joing the army was a mistake. 1. nobody fucking asked you 2. you're a not even a has been you're just a never been. we're done I'm not going to waste anymore time on this shit because just being you is punishment enough.."

First, your grammar is just atrocious. But seriously almost every word that Chris writes is, almost, completely fucking wrong. Not to mention badly written...that's the worst offense.

Well, as they say in the movies, "allow me to retort".

1. nobody fucking asked you

Actually, you can screen your posts in Facebook so that certain people only see certain things. Unfortunately, because you're kind of dim witted about Facebook protocols the post was made available  to all your so-called "friends". So, as a matter of fact, you were asking me fuckwit. I hope you're getting the details better on munitions training. Gosh, it would just break my heart if something bad happened to you.  It's good to see that the army is still recruiting the Best and the Brightest Gomer Pyle.

2. you're a not even a has been you're just a never been.

Technically, this will require some tricky phrasing, but the truth of it is that I'm a "was been" and "still am". I am a prolific and widely published professional writer because, hey, I'm smarter and more talented than you Chris.  I've written about things that you and your deeply stupid twat wife (the war (many wars in fact if you consider the range of our drone strikes)  is about defending me Jen Shropshire...are you that naive?) can barely pronounce. I don't brag  about it because I'm not so insecure about my manhood and what I've accomplished as a writer  that  I have to defriend people on Facebook who say slightly sarcastic things to me. Semper Fi or whatever....

Oh, and for the record, I'm not that impressed by one time state congressional losers and insurance salesmen. You know the funny thing about that races is that they knew you well and they still voted against you. Perhaps they saw what I see in you: a vacuous privileged pretty boy materialistic lightweight who wouldn't understand the problems of ordinary people if they bit him in his scrawny little beige ass.

Just so you know...Hey, if working for newspapers and trying to help black folks while I was doing it makes me a loser then hey I'll take being a failure in your ever so discriminating eyes.

 we're done I'm not going to waste anymore time on this shit because just being you is punishment enough.."

Well, technically again, you never wasted time on me before. We haven't had a single conversation since Dad, the conscientious objector in the Vietnam War  who I'm sure would be brimming with pride over your enlistment, died. That was 11 years ago. I think we've had two discussions in over two years on Facebook. I usually don't comment on your silly vain materialistic posts about Kewl Cars because most of the world doesn't have enough to eat. Good to see you've got your priorities in order soldier boy. I mean, I sort of get that in that I wouldn't like the kids that my dad had from a previous life, either. So I never took it personally.

Oh, and just for the record,  here's a quick list why I have no respect for your enlistment.

1.) The main fighting is pretty much over. You'll be an occupying force essentially killing people who have the audacity to live on stuff that we want. It's like joining up to fight Hitler in 1946. (Update: I don't want to underestimate our capacity for new and unnecessary wars. You might get the distinct thrill of shooting a Nigerian freedom fighter. Then there's always Iran or the hills of Pakistan, which you're not supposed to be in...ahhh, the thrills of the military...)

2.) The wars we wage are mainly against people of color, of which I am one. I remember that apparently. I think those wars are extremely dishonorable and are not the vocations of decent or truly courageous men. Look up the terms "expropriation" and "good german". That's you in the mirror there winner. You're like a black guy who fights for the confederacy.

3.) I would be hesitant to fight and die for a country that clearly doesn't give a fuck about me or other black people.  And hey if you actually lived in a black neighborhood like I do then you would know this. The direction of this country for black Americans is privatized prisons. The fact that a black president is presiding over it doesn't necessarily make it better, although I will vote for him because he's better than Romney...who isn't? I mean, if the Nazis are back or you want me to stick a knife into a confederate soldier then, hey, sign me up. Poor colored folks abroad, backward ass theocrats though they may be, not so gung ho about that. And not for this country at this time...

4.) The wars are so blatantly about resource theft that, quite frankly, they are within their rights to kill you because you're the evil invader. They have every reason not to trust the United States. I mean, there is an informative website or a thousand if you can turn off the Hannity for awhile...


I hope that clears things up for you. You know, if something bad happened to you before this I probably could have faked a tear or two for someone I didn't know very well. Now my response would be this:






You reap what you sow. Oh and don't worry I won't come to the funeral and vice versa I would sincerely hope. It's probably not fashionable to spit on the corpse.

Labels: Christopher Shropshire, Fuck the troops and fuck their evil wars

July 17th, 2012 | by Chris Woods Following recent revelations by the New York Times that all military-aged males in Waziristan are considered fair game by the CIA in its drone strikes, many US journalists have been reassessing how they report on deaths in the attacks. So when CNN’s national security analyst Peter Bergen produced a graph claiming that no civilians have been killed in Pakistan this year by US drones, his views were bound to attract criticism. Conor Friedersdorf, a columnist at The Atlantic, accused CNN and Bergen of running ‘bogus data‘, for example. Bergen is also a director of the New America Foundation, which for more than three years has run a database on CIA drone strikes in Pakistan and produces estimates of numbers killed. That data is the most frequent source of statistics for the US media, including CNN itself. So the accuracy of its material is important. Yet there are credible reports of civilian deaths in Pakistan this year. And unlike the New America Foundation the Bureau actively tracks those claims. Up to July 16 for example, between three and 27 civilians have been reported killed in Pakistan this year, out of 148 – 220 deaths. Some were actively defined as civilians by news organisations including Reuters and AFP. But these are not necessarily the only civilian deaths. Ambivalent reports might sometimes refer only to ‘people’ or ‘local tribesmen’ killed. More research is needed. And of the remaining alleged militants killed, we have so far been able to name just 13 individuals.

Bergen’s claim of zero reported civilian casualties this year is therefore factually inaccurate. To be so categoric is also problematic. The Bureau’s own data shows that of at least 2,500 people killed by the CIA in Pakistan since 2004, we publicly only know the identities of around 500. Most of the others were reported to be alleged militants by local and international media. We can say no more than that. It is not just in NAF’s 2012 data that credible reports of civilian deaths have been missed or ignored. NAF’s Pakistan data also contains many other inaccuracies. A number of confirmed strikes are omitted, for instance, and its overall estimates of those killed are significantly below even the CIA’s own count. The consequence is a skewed picture of drone activity which continues to inform many opinion-makers. Subjective choices On July 13 Peter Bergen responded to his recent critics in a CNN article which stated that reported civilian casualties in Pakistan are in decline – as the Bureau itself recently noted. He also repeated his claim of no civilian casualties in Pakistan this year. And he attacked the Bureau for its own recording work in this area: The Bureau of Investigative Journalism’s high estimate of 24 civilian deaths in 2012 came in part from reports provided by an unreliable Pakistani news outlet as well as the claims of a local Taliban commander, which contradicted all other reports. It’s worth unpicking Bergen’s claims in some detail. His comments appear to refer to a CIA drone strike on February 9 in which local Taliban commander Badar Mansoor died. Citing just four sources, NAF’s data reports only that three to five ‘militants’, including Mansoor, died in the attack. But this is a misrepresentation which ignores credible claims of civilian casualties, as the Bureau’s own Pakistan database makes clear...

Good news for people who love freedom, hate terrorism, and people who do not live in Yemen and will never visit Yemen and do not appear to be from Yemen or its surrounding areas: the U.S. government is relaxing its rules for drone strikes in Yemen. When it comes to incinerating more or less inscrutable targets with unseen missile attacks like Zeus himself, why be encumbered by a bunch of bureaucratic rules? The new policy reportedly "includes targeting fighters whose names aren't known but who are deemed to be high-value terrorism targets or threats to the U.S." No more pesky hours of intelligence-gathering before you can vaporize that jeep from above. But do these rules go far enough in eliminating those who Hate Our Freedoms and Familes and Children, and Our Children and Families' Freedoms™? We think not. A few common sense edits for the future of warfare: * If someone is carrying a machine gun, RPG, or shoulder-fired missile that looks like an imminent threat to any Coalition soldiers, whether from the Western world or from the Muslim world, they may be killed. * If someone in an area known for militant activity appears to be transporting cargo with brown and grey markings consistent with databases of the graphic skin that covers the outside of missiles or rockets and moves with an intent to set up and fire those armaments at Coalition forces, they may be blown up. * If someone is determined through confirmed intelligence of a reliable nature to be forming a terrorist group with the intent and capability of causing mass casualties in America or in any territory of an American ally in the Middle East, and they cannot be apprehended without significant risk of loss of civilian life, they may be kabazongaed to bababooey with a fucking Hellfire, bro. A little common sense goes a long way.

People have been making a fuss about the domestic use of drones recently. Now the drone industry has come up with a 'code of conduct' to ensure the public's safety and privacy. [Evil robot laugh drifts through the air.] Huh? What was that? The Association for Unmanned Vehicle Systems International, which represents thousands of drone manufacturers all over the world released the document yesterday. It includes a pledge that the industry will ‘‘respect the privacy of individuals," along with guidelines like "We will be responsive to the needs of the public," and "we will not operate [drones] in a manner that presents undue risk to persons or property on the surface or the air."* "We understand as an industry that we've got a public relations problem," one association member told the Associated Press. That's nice and all, but it's not going to go far toward convincing a skeptical public, which largely believes we are hurtling toward a dystopian future where drones are omnipresent in American skies, beaming live surveillance film of citizens' every move to a shadowy Director, who stitches the best bits into a reality show to entertain Chinese real estate tycoons. A much more savvy public relations move by the drone industry would be to show the vulnerable, human side of drones. Have drones star in a series of viral YouTube videos where they're caught in hilarious awkward situations—you know, mysteriously crashing, being hijacked by hackers. *Offer not valid in Pakistan, Afghanistan and Yemen...

Labels: R.I.P.

"Our impulses are being redirected. We are living in an artificially induced state of consciousness that resembles sleep. (...) The poor and the underclass are growing. Racial justice and human rights are nonexistent. They have created a repressive society, and we are their unwitting accomplices. Their intention to rule rests with the annihilation of consciousness. We have been lulled into a trance. They have made us indifferent to ourselves, to others. We are focused only on our own gain. Please understand. They are safe as long as they are not discovered. That is their primary method of survival. Keep us asleep, keep us selfish, keep us sedated." Vigilant Citizen

Labels: propaganda, psychology, psyops, public citizen, punishment, religion, zombie nation

Labels: psyops

WASHINGTON, March 7—Under question from Sen. Sessions at a Senate Armed Services Committee hearing today, Defense Secretary Leon Panetta and Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Gen. Martin Dempsey indicated that "international permission," rather than Congressional approval, provided a 'legal basis' for military action by the United States

In its recent report entitled, "Breaking the Grip? Obstacles to Justice for Paramilitary Mafias in Colombia," Human Rights Watch (HRW) had specific recommendations for the U.S. Department of Justice. Specifically, HRW recommended that, in order to assist with the process of ending the ties between the Colombian government and paramilitary death squads, the U.S. Department of Justice should, among other things, "[c]reate meaningful legal incentives for paramilitary leaders [a number of whom have already been extradited to the U.S.] to fully disclose information about atrocities and name all Colombian or foreign officials, business or individuals who may have facilitated their criminal activities," and "[c]ollaborate actively with the efforts of Colombian justice officials who are investigating paramilitary networks in Colombia by sharing relevant information possible and granting them access to paramilitary leaders in U.S. custody."

Do not expect these recommendations to be carried forward if Eric Holder decides to forgo his lucrative corporate law practice at Covington & Burling and accept the U.S. Attorney General position for which many believe he is the top contendor. Eric Holder would have a troubling conflict of interest in carrying out this work in light of his current work as defense lawyer for Chiquita Brands international in a case in which Colombian plaintiffs seek damages for the murders carried out by the AUC paramilitaries - a designated terrorist organization. Chiquita has already admitted in a criminal case that it paid the AUC around $1.7 million in a 7-year period and that it further provided the AUC with a cache of machine guns as well.

Indeed, Holder himself, using his influence as former deputy attorney general under the Clinton Administration, helped to negotiate Chiquita's sweeheart deal with the Justice Department in the criminal case against Chiquita. Under this deal, no Chiquita official received any jail time. Indeed, the identity of the key officials involved in the assistance to the paramilitaries were kept under seal and confidential. In the end, Chiquita was fined a mere $25 million which it has been allowed to pay over a 5-year period. This is incredible given the havoc wreaked by Chiquita's aid to these Colombian death squards.

According to Mario Iguaran, the Attorney General of Colombia, Chiquita's payments to the AUC paramilitaries led to the murder of 4000 civilians in the banana region of Colombia and furthered the growth of the paramilitaries throughout Colombia and their violent takeover of numerous Colombian regions. Iguaran, in response to the claims of both Chiquita and Eric Holder himself that Chiquita was somehow forced to pay "protection" to the paramilitaries (see, Washington Post and Conde Nast Portfolio), stated unequivocally that "[t]his was not payment of extortion money. It was support for an illegal armed group whose methods included murder." See, Christian Science Monitor, "Chiquita Case Puts Big Firms on Notice."

One former paramilitary leader who is in federal custody in the U.S., Salvatore Mancuso, has stated that he has more knowledge about Chiquita's relationship with the paramilitary death squads in Colombia. Mancuso further claims that Dole and Del Monte also made payments to the paramilitaries, just as Chiquita did. Yet, Dole and Del Monte remain un-indicted. Query whether, as Human Rights Watch recommends, a Justice Department under Holder would be interested in pursuing this and other similar leads. This is a serious matter given the fact that the Justice Department has already come under great scrutiny for turning a blind eye to what appears to be rampant corporate support for terrorist groups in Colombia. See, L.A. Times, "U.S. accused of bending rules on Colombian Terror."

While Eric Holder is also known to be actively involved in laudable charitable activities, it should be of grave concern to those, like myself, who hope for change from the new Obama Administration, that the new Attorney General would be involved in not only defending corporations against serious corruption and human rights charges, but also publicly apologizing for such abuses. That is not the type of Attorney General we need in the wake of the recent economic collapse created by the unfettered greed of such corporate firms.

Quick! Name the veteran Department of Justice insider who, shortly after the USA Patriot Act was signed into law as the Bush administration was proposing to further erode barriers to governmental abuses, that dissenters should not be tolerated?

Who invoked September 11, explicitly referencing "the World Trade Center aflame," in calling for the firing of any "petty bureaucrat" who might suggest that proper procedures be followed and that the separation of powers be respected?

John Ashcroft? No.

Alberto Gonzales? No.

It was Eric Holder, the man who has reportedly been selected by President-elect Barack Obama to serve as the next Attorney General of the United States.

Appearing on CNN in June, 2002, the former Clinton administration Justice Department aide sounded as if he had just stepped out of the Bush camp: "We're dealing with a different world now. Everybody should remember those pictures that we saw on September the 11th. The World Trade Centers aflame, the pictures of the Pentagon, and any time some petty bureaucrat decides that his or her little piece of turf is being invaded, get rid of that person. Those are the kinds of things we have to do."

If that's unsettling, consider the fact that Holder was part of the legal team that in 2005 developed strategies for securing re-authorization of the Patriot Act.

Much will be made of Holder's role as a deputy attorney general in helping former President Clinton arrange for the last-minute pardon of fugitive/Democratic campaign contributor Marc Rich. (Holder said he gave Clinton a "neutral, leaning towards favorable" opinion of the proposed pardon.) And it will also be noted that Holder, as a corporate lawyer in private practice after leaving the Clinton team, played a key role in negotiating an agreement with the Justice Department that got Chiquita Brands International executives off the hook for paying protection money to right-wing death squads in Colombia.

But the first questions for Holder should go to the issue of his attitude toward the role of the attorney general in defending the Constitution.

Several years ago, Holder said, "The Attorney General is the one Cabinet member who's different from all the rest. The Attorney General serves first the people, but also serves the president. There has to be a closeness at the same time there needs to be distance."

What we need to know is this: How close would Holder, as attorney general, get to obeying his oath to defend the Constitution?

On December 13, the whistleblowing website Wikileaks did investigative- and citizen journalists a great service by publishing the Army Special Operations Forces FM 3-05.130, titled Unconventional Warfare.

Published in September 2008, the 248-page document though unclassified, is restricted "to U.S. Government agencies and their contractors only to protect technical or operational information from automatic dissemination under the International Exchange Program or by other means." The Department of the Army urges recipients to "destroy by any method that will prevent disclosure of contents or reconstruction of the document." Wikileaks has guaranteed that the disappearance of this critical primary source into the bowels of the Pentagon will not occur.

Special Warfare's Nazi Provenance

Since the end of World War II, the United States has acted through proxies either to defeat leftist insurgencies or to subvert "hostile" governments, e.g. those states viewed by Washington and the multinational corporations they serve as ideological competitors.

Historically, U.S. unconventional warfare (UW) doctrine was derived from Nazi experiences in countering "partisan warfare" across Europe during World War II. As analyst and scholar Michael McClintock detailed in his essential study on the topic,

American special warfare doctrine would draw considerably on Wehrmacht and SS methods of terrorizing civilian populations and, perhaps more importantly, of co-opting local factions to combat partisan resistance. The Department of the Army's A Study of Special and Subversive Operations (November 1947) was an early assessment of the lessons learned from World War II in the context of Cold War imperatives. (Instruments of Statecraft: U.S. Guerrilla Warfare, Counterinsurgency, Counterterrorism, 1940-1990, New York: Pantheon Books, 1992, p. 59)

But the United States did more than translate captured Wehrmacht and SS documents: they recruited many Waffen SS veterans, often with an assist from high Vatican officials. Tens of thousands of war criminals were spirited out of Europe along "ratlines" into U.S. hands for clandestine war against the new enemy: the Soviet Union and the international left.

Pathological killers such as SS veteran Klaus Barbie, the Butcher of Lyons, was instrumental when the CIA and the Argentine death-squad generals launched their 1980 "cocaine coup" in Bolivia. Barbie, along with operatives linked to the CIA, Sun Myung Moon's Unification Church and preexisting Nazi networks, "reorganized" Bolivia's intelligence services to reflect the Southern Cone's "changing realities." (For background, see Robert Parry's excellent series, Dark Side of Rev. Moon, The Consortium for Independent Journalism)

Even when the "competition" was peaceful and confined to the political-economic spheres, once the U.S. intervened, violence, civil war and chaos followed. This scenario was played out in Chile during the 1970s, Afghanistan, Angola, Mozambique, Nicaragua and El Salvador throughout the 1980s, in Yugoslavia and the Balkans generally during the 1990s, today in Bolivia and Venezuela and on a planetary scale under the rubric of the "global war on terrorism" (GWOT). The lesson for those who buck the global hegemon? U.S. political subversion and state terror will wreck havoc and halt independent development in its tracks.

And when the global Godfather's military forces directly intervene? Although the U.S. was defeated in Southeast Asia, target countries such as Vietnam, Laos and Cambodia were destroyed by the United States in the process. Devastated economically and socially, decades later these nations have yet to fully recover from the depredations wrought by their American "liberators." However, the U.S. military did learn certain unique skills, not least of which was the application of selective violence against the communist National Liberation Front's civilian infrastructure.

The Phoenix Program, meticulously analyzed in researcher Douglas Valentine's definitive account, was launched in 1967 by the CIA and U.S. Special Forces as a means to win "hearts and minds." But from its inception, Phoenix operators worked in tandem with drug-linked South Vietnamese and Laotian "allies" and morphed into an assassination and torture program that killed thousands. Long after the U.S. withdrew from Southeast Asia, lessons learned through Phoenix and related programs such as Condor and Gladio, were "refined" during the 1970s-1980s in Afghanistan, Italy, Turkey and Central America, and now constitute the bedrock on which the Pentagon's unconventional warfare doctrine operates today.

Throughout the Cold War, U.S. power in proxy states was exercised through repressive police, intelligence agencies and by far-right civilian allies (referred to as "foreign internal defense," FID). Such forces, trained and funded by the U.S., combined a neofascist political outlook with organized criminal activities generally, though certainly not limited to, the international narcotics trade.

NATO's infamous "stay-behind" Operation Gladio networks in Italy and Turkey for example, worked directly with international narcotics syndicates and pro-fascist political parties such as the Italian Avanguardia Nazionale (National Vanguard) founded by the terrorist drug trafficker Stefano delle Chiaie and the Turkish Milliyetçi Hareket Partisi (National Action Party, MHP) and the drug-linked terror gang, the Grey Wolves, founded by Alparslan Türkeş, a German sympathizer during World War II.

With links to those nations' intelligence services, the CIA and the Pentagon, these organizations waged a relentless war against the left through terrorist bombings, murders and assassinations in a bid to destabilize their governments and spark a full-fledged military takeover. Along with the CIA, the United States Special Operations Command (USSOCOM) have been instrumental in organizing and waging unconventional warfare with the express purpose of maintaining the economic-political status quo in target countries.

As long-time readers of Antifascist Calling are aware, among the more critical issues explored here are those relating to the intersection of corporate and military power and how those interactions play out on the contemporary political plane to subvert democracy and movements for social justice.

Indeed, reference is frequently made to what I have identified, following Peter Dale Scott and other analysts, as the corporatist deep state: that is, the objective interface amongst political elites, multinational corporations, the military, intelligence agencies and organized crime. Unlike Scott however, I contend these linkages do not "transcend" the left-right continuum, but rather are part and parcel of Washington's decades-long war against the left, social justice movements generally and in particular, democratic socialist movements from below.

As we will see in my analysis of FM 3-05.130, USSOCOM make these links explicit, arguing that "UW must be conducted by, with, or through surrogates; and such surrogates must be irregular forces."

As I averred, proxy forces, often aligned with far-right groups and organized crime-linked assets (for the most part interchangeable players) are the preferred "irregular forces" employed by Washington. USSOCOM states that this definition "is consistent with the historical reasons that the United States has conducted UW" and goes on to cite its "support of both an insurgency, such as the Contras in 1980s Nicaragua, and resistance movements to defeat an occupying power, such as the Mujahideen in 1980s Afghanistan." It doesn't get any more explicit than this!

Ideologically Coherent

The authors of FM 3-05.130, far from being militarist troglodytes are knowledgeable and erudite, presenting a broad and ideologically coherent narrative that is both informative and historically intriguing in its transparency and methodological purpose. In other words, unlike their political masters, they don't pull any punches.

Right up front they inform the reader that UW establishes a "litmus test" which is warfare conducted "by, with or through surrogates" and that their preferred assets are irregular forces:

Irregulars, or irregular forces, are individuals or groups of individuals who are not members of a regular armed force, police, or other internal security force. They are usually nonstate-sponsored and unconstrained by sovereign nation legalities and boundaries. These forces may include, but are not limited to, specific paramilitary forces, contractors, individuals, businesses, foreign political organizations, resistance or insurgent organizations, expatriates, transnational terrorism adversaries, disillusioned transnational terrorism members, black marketers, and other social or political "undesirables." (Unconventional Warfare, p. 1-3)

While "conventional warfare" is viewed as a conflict between states, Irregular Warfare (IW) and UW according to FM 3-05.130 is "about people not platforms." Irregular and unconventional warfare "does not depend on military prowess alone."

It also relies on the understanding of such social dynamics as tribal politics, social networks, religious influences, and cultural mores. Although IW is a violent struggle, not all participating irregulars or irregular forces are necessarily armed. People, more so than weaponry, platforms, and advanced technology, will be the key to success in IW. Successful IW relies on building relationships and partnerships at the local level. It takes patient, persistent, and culturally savvy people within the joint force to execute IW. (Unconventional Warfare, p. 1-5)

Indeed, FM 3-05.130 explicitly states that its "strategic purpose [is] to gain or maintain control or influence over the population and to support that population through political, psychological, and economic methods." While both IW and UW seek to influence "relevant populations," UW in contrast to IW, "is always conducted by, with, or through irregular forces." In other words, local surrogates drawn from relevant far-right and/or organized crime-linked assets are the means of eliciting "influence" over "relevant populations."

In Bosnia and Kosovo during the 1990s, "irregular forces" deployed during U.S./NATO destabilization operations in the former Yugoslavia included elements of the Afghan-Arab database of disposable intelligence assets, e.g. al-Qaeda, which have been linked to the CIA, Britain's MI6, Germany's Bundesnachrichtendienst (BND) and Pakistan's Inter Services Intelligence agency (ISI), as well as long-established drug, arms and human trafficking networks aligned with the Albanian and Turkish Mafias. Indeed, "irregular forces" such as the Kosovo Liberation Army (KLA) demonstrated all of these relationships in spades.

According to FM 3-05.130, the constituent elements of contemporary IW theory include: Insurgency; COIN (counterinsurgency); UW; Terrorism; CT (counterterrorism); FID (foreign internal defense); Stability, security, transition, and reconstruction (SSTR) operations; Strategic communication (SC); PSYOP; Civil-military operations (CMO); Information operations (IO); Intelligence and counterintelligence (CI) activities; Transnational criminal activities, including narco-trafficking, illicit arms dealing, and illegal financial transactions that support or sustain IW; and Law enforcement activities focused on countering irregular adversaries. (Unconventional Warfare, p. 1-5)

Its but a short step as far as it goes, from citing the elements of UW to deploying the most dubious players as strategic assets in planetary-wide U.S. destabilization operations.

The Media's Role

Explicitly stated is the media's role in advancing the goals of United States national power. As recent exposés in The New York Times and elsewhere have documented, "message force multipliers" such as retired Pentagon officials and former high-ranking officers, often linked to corporate defense firms that rely heavily on Pentagon largesse, have leveraged their expertise and conducted illegal domestic psychological operations (PSYOPS) and information warfare, with the complicity and full knowledge of the giant media firms.

It is important for the official agencies of government, including the armed forces, to recognize the fundamental role of the media as a conduit of information. The USG uses SC to provide top-down guidance for using the informational instrument of national power through coordinated information, themes, messages, and products synchronized with the other instruments of national power. The armed forces support SC themes and messages through IO, public affairs (PA), and defense support to public diplomacy (DSPD). The armed forces must assure media access consistent with classification requirements, operations security, legal restrictions, and individual privacy. The armed forces must also provide timely and accurate information to the public. Success in military operations depends on acquiring and integrating essential information and denying it to the adversary. The armed forces are responsible for conducting IO, protecting what should not be disclosed, and aggressively attacking adversary information systems. IO may involve complex legal and policy issues that require approval, review, and coordination at the national level. (Unconventional Warfare, p. 2-2)

Indeed, as the authors aver, since UW consists of operations conducted "by, with or through irregular forces," engagement with the "human terrain" is "fundamentally a conflict of ideas"! In a nutshell, the "human terrain" explicitly includes the American public who are also the targets of Pentagon propagandistic "information operations." This is stated explicitly:

By contrast, USG-controlled specific instruments of informational power, while narrower in scope, can achieve specific and measurable results useful to prosecuting UW. ARSOF [Army Special Operations Forces] can work with DOS [Department of State] counterparts to identify and engage select TAs [target audiences] that are able to influence behavior within a UWOA [unconventional warfare operating area]. Such TAs may be inside the UWOA itself or outside but able to influence the UWOA. The USG can then subject these TAs, directly or indirectly, to a DOS public diplomacy (PD) campaign coordinated to support the UW effort. Similarly, since UW may be a long-duration or politically sensitive effort, ARSOF and its DOS partner, the Bureau of Public Affairs, can craft a PA campaign intended to keep the U.S. domestic audience informed of the truth in a manner supportive of USG goals and the effective prosecution of UW. (Unconventional Warfare, p. 2-3)

Economic Subversion

For the authors of FM 3-05.130, "properly integrated manipulation of economic power can and should be a component of UW." Never mind that such "manipulation" can and did result in the deaths of hundreds of thousands of human beings in Iraq prior to the 2003 U.S. invasion and occupation as well as in a score of other nations that have defied the U.S.

The cases of Chile and Nicaragua are instructive in this regard, where the disgraced president, Richard Nixon, vowed to "make the economy scream," prior to the 1973 coup, or the crippling sanctions and economic embargo imposed on Nicaragua's Sandinista government. Various sanctions regimes unambiguously "can build and sustain international coalitions waging or supporting U.S. UW campaigns." A similar methodology is being applied today against Iran as "punishment" for its legal development of civilian nuclear power.

Like all other instruments of U.S. national power, the use and effects of economic "weapons" are interrelated and they must be coordinated carefully. Once again, ARSOF must work carefully with the DOS and intelligence community (IC) to determine which elements of the human terrain in the UWOA are most susceptible to economic engagement and what second- and third-order effects are likely from such engagement. The United States Agency for International Development's (USAID's) placement abroad and its mission to engage human groups provide one channel for leveraging economic incentives. The DOC's can similarly leverage its routine influence with U.S. corporations active abroad. Moreover, the IO effects of economic promises kept (or ignored) can prove critical to the legitimacy of U.S. UW efforts. UW practitioners must plan for these effects. (Unconventional Warfare, p. 2-7)

Indeed, ARSOF plans for waging UW take an integrated approach and assert that they "can and should exploit the active and analytical capabilities existing in the financial instruments of U.S. power." The application of financial warfare however, including the "persuasive influence" of state and nonstate "actors" regarding the availability and terms "of loans, grants, or other financial assistance" is predicated on towing the U.S. line. The authors aver that "such application of financial power must be part of a circumspect, integrated, and consistent UW plan." In other words, threats, bribery and economic subversion generally can work wonders in getting the attention of recalcitrant states not "on board" with the U.S.

Narcotrafficking Networks and the "Global War on Terror"

For decades, investigative journalists, researchers and analysts have noted the symbiotic relationship amongst international narcotrafficking syndicates, neofascist political groups, U.S. intelligence agencies and U.S. Special Forces in the war against leftist adversaries.

Dozens of books and hundreds of articles by journalists and writers such as Alfred W. McCoy, Peter Dale Scott, Henrik Krüger, Robert Parry, Gary Webb, Jonathan Marshall, Douglas Valentine, Daniel Hopsicker, Bill Conroy as well as exposés by former DEA investigators such as Michael Levine and Celerino Castillo III, have documented the long and bloody history of U.S. complicity in the global drugs trade.

While the United States has pumped billions of dollars into so-called drug eradication programs in target countries such as Colombia, Peru, Bolivia, Afghanistan and Mexico through ill-conceived projects such as Plan Colombia and the Mérida Initiative, also know as Plan Mexico, recent reports, most notably by The Narco News Bulletin, have documented the close interrelationships amongst narcotraffickers, rightist extremists, political elites and U.S. intelligence agencies.

Indeed, investigative journalist Bill Conroy recently documented how a U.S. trained and equipped special operations group within the Mexican army (the Zetas) "is now assisting the Mexican military in its narco-trafficking operations along the border."

None of this however, phases the authors of Unconventional Warfare. And why should it. As they themselves describe the doctrine, unconventional warfare is "conducted by, with, or through surrogates; and such surrogates must be irregular forces," the next logical step in the equation is the utilization of transnational criminal networks to advance U.S. national power. The section, "Law Enforcement Instrument of United States National Power and Unconventional Warfare," states this explicitly: no tinfoil hat needed here!

Actors engaged in supporting elements in the UWOA may rely on criminal activities, such as smuggling, narcotics, or human trafficking. Political and military adversaries in the UWOA will exhibit the same sensitivity to official exposure and engagement because criminal entities routinely seek to avoid law enforcement. Sometimes, political and military adversaries are simultaneously criminal adversaries, which ARSOF UW planners must consider a threat. At other times, the methods and networks of real or perceived criminal entities can be useful as supporting elements of a U.S.-sponsored UW effort. In either case, ARSOF understand the importance of coordinating military intelligence preparation of the battlefield (IPB) for specific UW campaigns with the routine intelligence activities conducted by U.S. law enforcement agencies. (Unconventional Warfare, p. 2-7)

During subversive operations by U.S. ARSOF soldiers in target areas, indigenous networks, many of whom are linked to far-right and narcotrafficking groups (Nicaragua, Bosnia, Kosovo), including "former" allies such as al-Qaeda, are referred to as "The Underground" and "The Auxiliary" in FM 3-05.130. Details however, are few and far between and the authors state unambiguously:

There is more SF participation in developing and advising underground [and auxiliary] elements than is widely understood or acknowledged. Most such participation is classified and inappropriate for inclusion in this manual. (Unconventional Warfare, p. 5-5)

Preparing the ground for U.S. attacks and/or subversive operations by proxy forces aligned with American goals are a key component of UW theory. Whether a population is "on-board" with U.S. geostrategic goals or the tactical modalities employed in such campaigns is irrelevant to the new cold warriors of the GWOT. When "persuasion" fails the muscle moves in to get the attention on the "natives."

Organization of the larger indigenous population from which the irregular forces are drawn--the mass base--must likewise be conducted primarily by the irregular organization itself under indirect guidance of SF. The primary value of the mass base to UW operations is less a matter of formal organization than of marshaling population groups to act in specific ways that support the overall UW campaign. The mass base, or general population and society at large, is recognized as an operational rather than a structural effort for ARSOF in UW. Elements of the mass base are divided into three distinct groups in relation to the cause or movement--pro, anti/con, and those who are uncommitted, undecided, or ambivalent. ARSOF, the underground, and the auxiliary then conduct irregular activities to influence or leverage these groups. These groups may be witting or unwitting of the UW nature of the operations or activities in which they are utilized. (Unconventional Warfare, p. 5-5)

In Colombia for example, U.S. "counterdrug" assistance to the corrupt Uribe government flowed directly to the narcotrafficking far-right death squad, the Autodefensas Unidas de Colombia, or AUC. Though designated a Foreign Terrorist Organization by the U.S. State Department, the Uribe government's military high command, directly advised by the Pentagon, funneled weapons and intelligence that was used by the narcofascists to murder union organizers, often after payment by U.S. multinational corporations such as Chiquita Brands International, of anyone the group identified as a "guerrilla."

In ARSOF parlance, AUC "influence"--dragging unsuspecting citizens off a bus and beheading them in front of their children, for example--is what is meant when corporate- or drug-linked death squads "conduct irregular activities" to "leverage these groups." But the international community has another term to describe these activities: state terrorism.

In 2004, as part of broad U.S. efforts to unseat Venezuela's socialist President Hugo Chávez, Venezuelan authorities arrested some 100 AUC fighters who were planning to attack specially-selected targets in Caracas. According to published reports, several high-ranking American and Colombian military officers were implicated in the operation.

The parapolitical scandal which continues to rock Bogotá, revealed high-level involvement by Colombia's political and military elite with the narcofascist AUC. But the scandal also revealed the involvement of the U.S. 7th Special Forces Group and the 1st Psychological Operations Battalion in directly training and advising Colombian military units responsible for the worst human rights abuses.

Numerous reports have emerged that detail these linkages, including the 2007 disclosure by the National Security Archive that Colombian Army commander General Mario Montoya "engaged in a joint operation with a Medellín-based paramilitary group. 'Operation Orion' was part of a larger military offensive in the city during 2002-03 to attack urban guerrilla networks. The sweep resulted in at least 14 deaths and dozens of disappearances. The classified intelligence report confirmed 'information provided by a proven source,' according to comments from the U.S. defense attaché included in the document."

This is but the tip of the proverbial iceberg, however.

In Afghanistan, the world's number one producer and processor of opium and its finished "product" heroin, bound for European and U.S. markets, drug trafficking according to the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (UNDOC) in their 2008 World Drug Report, is "out of control." According to UNDOC, drug money is used as "a lubricant for corruption, and a source of terrorist financing: in turn, corrupt officials and terrorists make drug production and trafficking easier."

Indeed, since the 2001 U.S. invasion and occupation, opium production has skyrocketed some 1,000% and accounts for a large percentage of the country's gross domestic product. Tellingly, some of the staunchest U.S. allies in the area are directly tied to international narcotics organizations. According to UNDOC, the global increase in opium production "was almost entirely due to the 17% expansion of cultivation in Afghanistan, which is now 193,000 ha [hectares]" reaching 8,700 metric tons in 2007, accounting for a staggering 92% of global opium production!

Despite these horrendous statistics, the authors of FM 3-05.130 can asset that "the methods and networks of real or perceived criminal entities can be useful"! Indeed they can, as a seemingly limitless source of black funds earmarked for U.S. planetary subversion in the interest of expanding American corporate power.

According to a June 2008 report by The Times, after last year's bumper crop sent the price of opium spiraling downwards, the Taliban and U.S.-connected drug lords linked to Hamid Karzai's government, are stockpiling vast quantities of opium in order to induce a rise in world prices. And Time Magazine reported in October that the value of hoarded opium may be as much as $3.2 billion.

Celebrated by the Pentagon and the U.S. media as a "splendid victory," the 2001 invasion and occupation of Afghanistan quickly spiraled out of control and the country now faces a resurgent Taliban, a new base of operations for al-Qaeda in the tribal areas of Pakistan and evidence of Pakistani ISI involvement in aiding the fundamentalist insurgents and the global drugs trade. But for American unconventional warriors, a full accounting of war crimes that ARSOF supervised and their Northern Alliance "allies" carried out have yet to be answered.

As Peter Dale Scott noted in 2002,

It's a bitter irony: The largely successful U.S. campaign against the Taliban and al Qaeda in Afghanistan is resulting in an increase of funds for terrorists around the globe.

It is true, as President Bush has insisted, that global terrorism is financed by the flow of illicit drugs. Yet by installing and rewarding a coalition of drug-financed warlords in Kabul, the United States has itself helped restore the flow of Afghan heroin to terrorist groups, from the Balkans and Chechnya to Tajikistan, Pakistan and Kashmir. ("Poppy Paradox: U.S. War in Afghanistan Boosts Terror Funds," Dissident Voice, August 3, 2002)

Indeed, among the staunchest U.S. allies in the region, characters such as Hazrat Ali and Gul Agha, "have been 'bought off' with millions in deals brokered by U.S. and British intelligence." But while America was happy to endorse a drug-linked status quo that relied on its so-called "warlord strategy" to "stabilize" Afghanistan, part of the blowback from these dubious alliances included allowing bin Laden to escape into Pakistan in 2001 after the "battle" of Tora Bora.

But for Pentagon proponents of unconventional warfare, the "price is always right" when it comes to strategic and tactical alliances with narcotraffickers and international terrorists. After all, since "UW must be conducted by, with, or through surrogates; and such surrogates must be irregular forces," everything is permitted.

Exposed: The handbook of American State Terrorism

Timothy Bancroft-Hinchey 04.03.2012

Special Forces Unconventional Warfare is the name of the document. November 2010, 97 pages long, it is a manual which exposes the modus operandi of the United States of America's foreign policy; in it we can read the recent Libyan history and understand what is planned for Syria and Iran. "Destroy by any method what will prevent disclosure". Hmm...

Special Forces Unconventional Warfare. Wow, what an interesting publication that I have discovered. I found a copy of it lying on the floor at the...er... airport (cough). I wonder whether it is a novel...let us see. Certainly, this is the end of the American colour revolutions.

Well, it has a destruction notice right on page one: "DESTRUCTION NOTICE: Destroy by any method that will prevent disclosure of contents or reconstruction of the document." Shall we see why? Let's see what the United States of America gets up to...

Here is the preface: "Training Circular (TC) 18-01, Special Forces Unconventional Warfare, defines the current United States (U.S.) Army Special Forces (SF) concept of planning and conducting unconventional warfare (UW) operations. For the foreseeable future, U.S. forces will predominantly engage in irregular warfare (IW) operations."

Well that sort of sets the tone of the rest of the document ladies and gentlemen, doesn't it? It also gives us a pretty good insight into what happened in Libya, where a socially progressive government was unseated by terrorists armed by the author-country of this document and supported by the FUKUS-Axis (France, UK, US and Israel).

Chapter One, Overview. A quote: "There is another type of warfare-new in its intensity, ancient in its origin-war by guerrillas, subversives, insurgents, assassins; war by ambush instead of by combat, by infiltration instead of aggression, seeking victory by eroding and exhausting the enemy instead of engaging him. It preys on unrest.

President John F. Kennedy, 1962"

Guerrillas, subversives, insurgents, assassins. Unrest. Basically, a policy based upon illegal intrusion and murder. How legal is that?

Chapter One 1.2: "1-2. Enabling a resistance movement or insurgency entails the development of an underground and guerrilla forces..."

Page 7: Definition of Insurgency: "An organized movement aimed at the overthrow of a constituted government through use of subversion and armed conflict. Code: JP 3-05"

Section 1-22: "1-22. A genuine willingness to collaborate and cooperate with the United States must exist within the leadership of the indigenous force."

Section 1-28, on feasibility: "1-28. The normal areas of concern that make up a feasibility assessment are as follows:

Are there groups that could develop into a viable force with assistance?

Is the United States in contact with or can it make contact with individuals representing the resistance potential in an area?

Are there any capable leaders, whose goals are compatible with U.S. goals who are willing to cooperate with the United States?

Can the United States influence the leaders to remain compliant with U.S. goals?

Are the groups' tactics and battlefield conduct acceptable by the standards established in Field Manual (FM) 27-10, The Law of Land Warfare, and to the U.S. population?

Will the environment geographically and demographically support resistance operations?
Is the enemy effectively in control of the population?

Is the potential gain worth the potential risk? Is this group's participation politically acceptable to other regional partners?"

Interesting, bullet point 5. So acceptable to the US population would be illegal detention of prisoners without right to due legal process, without the right to see a lawyer, without an accusation even. Acceptable to the US population is sodomy of prisoners, urinating in food, forcing Moslems to eat pork, sleep deprival and water-boarding? Which medieval torture chamber or Nazi concentration camp did THESE monsters crawl out of?

There is more, much, much more. The immediate response ladies and gentlemen will be a hacking attack, after which there will be attempts to intimidate me through threats on my life, after which there will be attempts, real. I have been there before.

I would prefer to die fighting against evil than be silenced through cowardice. The document here exposed is the blueprint of US foreign policy and what is stated here is the tip of the iceberg. Perhaps the allies of the USA will consider their relationship through NATO, but then again, perhaps they won't. After all, a coward is a coward.