WikiLeaks Releases - Dec 2014
Articles in relation to the new WikiLeaks releases (above).
Had a quickie look at the travel article. Undercover travel doesn't sound fun at all. Travel is crap as it is, without worrying about covering all bases when it comes to being picked up and questioned.
Don't know what to make of the 'High Value Target' assassinations article. Should this even be a legitimate agenda of any government?
The French colonists supposedly made mistakes in Algiers and through their actions wound up with popular insurgents in the occupied territory, as well as losing domestic and international support. But I'm inclined to think that it wouldn't matter what actions the French took: they're foreign occupiers. Of course, the occupied people are going to support their own kind. Why would an occupier expect to have support, apart from the support of the few at the top that they may collude with to maintain control?
I haven't read the linked documents. It's my first impression on that subject. But who am I to argue with the experts?
If CIA want to know about suppressing revolution, they should have a chat to the British. Think WikiLeaks put out a military manual on that subject some time ago.
Yep. UK Counter Insurgency Operations 2007.
I started a summary of types of insurrections, but didn't get far. Why? Just something that seemed interesting at the time. Became one of those things that I started and forgot about.
Guerilla warfare. Rural insurgents versus own government:
Only x3 achieved victory in open fighting against govt regular army:
China – 1949
Cuba – 1959
Nicaragua – 1979
Think that was more of an analysis of tactics of insurgents. Couldn't find anything about elimination of leaders. But I only did a quickie word search.
Went back to doc for another look. Page 70, point 18, advocates physical destruction -- but limiting the numbers to what is required to achieve ends (rather than wholesale elimination of the insurgents). Soft methods should prevail, to avoid negative consequences.
It goes on to say that physical attrition course has blow-back and the consequence is that the costs lead to domestic displeasure. Maybe that's why drones are so popular.
"Hearts and Minds campaign" is a really sick phrase, when you consider that this is ultimately just a game of domination and exploitation.
Almost all of the the population (90%) will be neutral, according to UK estimates. At the beginning of the campaign this mob will support whoever is strongest. It is this bunch of sheep that need to be won over.
Targeting the support networks is key to bringing down the insurgent -- it's vital, as it then exposes the insurgent group to vulnerabilities.
Captured support network members make the best informants on the insurgent group.
This is really fascinating, but I'm going to have to stop here. Not up for over 200 pages of reading at the moment.
No, wait. There's more. Discovered 'neutralising' insurgents. No wonder my word search didn't reap results. I was looking for 'assassination'.
Scrolling through, I must have missed the neutralising bits. Couldn't be bothered persevering.
The propaganda section looks really interesting, though. Black, grey, white, cohesive and divisive are the spin choices.
Black - held out as being from some fake source (true source withheld).
Grey - doesn't identify a source.
White - source out in the open & acknowledged.
Cohesive - targets the neutral / uncommitted.
Divisive - targets the hostile.
While checking out counter-insurgency strategies, it's hard not to be confronted by the might of the machinery that rules the masses. People have no hope. People can't resist armies. Armies are there to control the people; to put a stop to any resistance.
Revolutions are seldom successful without the outside assistance of a sympathetic state. So imagine the degree of planning and work that was put into the US backed Ukraine coup.
|
EU-NATO IMPERIALISM ❌ 