Holden Caulfield (the_pathogen) wrote,
Holden Caulfield

A brief on Counter-Insurgency

Someday soon I've got to sit down and write something about Counter-Insurgency models. It's really a fascinating way to analyze and predict political actions by the American federal government. In short: the term "Insurgents" refers to any "subversive" organization, i.e. any group seeking to change the status quo. Back in 2004, you could call the Democrat ideals "Insurgent/Subversive" for the simple fact they were advocating change, now that title has shifted to Republicans. Basically, if you don't like the government or big business, you're considered an Insurgent/Subversive/Radical/Dangerous. Counter-Insurgency is the various methods in which governments and elites maintain power within a society, often times utilizing force.

There are 3 levels of Insurgent/Subversive/Advocacy groups: the first being non-organized supporters: where community members identify problems within a community and begin building support for political organization, often times this is spreading educational information. The second level is non-violent actions: this is basically petitioning the government, trying to get representatives from the community in political office, or otherwise attempting to solve the issue. The third level is violent actions: if the community cannot get results from the other two methods, and the community feels strongly enough about the issue, they will inevitably fight for it, using any means necessary but often resulting in terrorism.

All of the pictures are taken from FM 3-24 "Counterinsurgency Field Manual"

This model, as described above, is natural within every human colony that's ever existed: from contemporary American culture, to the Greeks, and probably back to the pre-stone age. Government and elites within a community are held accountable by their people at some point within this model. Ideally, government representatives should be aware of (by soliciting for) problems within a community, and addressing those problems within the first stage.

In ideal American Democracy, this would be preformed at the "Town Hall Meeting", where people would interact directly with their government representative, and thus eliminate the need for an organization to form and commit to non-violent actions. In the real America (and for that matter, the real world), government is instituted to protect the wealthy from the poor - and so we can see the necessity of communities with needs to engage in non-violent and violent actions to get what they need.

This doesn't mention "propaganda", another method of controlling civilian temperament.

Counter-Insurgency is methods in which government suppresses Insurgent/Subversive/Advocacy groups, i.e. how governments suppress community needs. You would assume, if you've completed 8th grade civics classes, the the American Government counter-insurgency model only addresses groups at the Violence Level - this is completely untrue, and the governments of the world have published numerous methods of suppressing communities in various manuals. The American government views all Insurgent/Subversive/Advocacy groups as eventually becoming violent, as described in the American Field Manual, and so the American Government/Elites attempts to identify and remove the insurgent groups long before they even begin non-violent actions by monitoring alternative culture, i.e. communities of need. Therefore, it should not be surprising when communities of need, particularly poor communities, are given disproportionate scrutiny by government - in America, this is preformed primarily with Law Enforcement and state-control of the media, but there's other methods as well: tolerated racist law enforcement, the drug war, FISA, the PATRIOT Act, "Global War on Terror" - all counter-insurgency in practice.

Government has an interest, a very intense interest, preventing leadership in poor communities, and monitoring radical groups and people in general. Therefore, it is not surprising to read news like this, from DemocracyNow.org:

Justice Dept. Subpoenaed Indymedia Site for Web Visitors
[The] Justice Department is coming under criticism for demanding information on visitors to the independent progressive news website Indymedia. A US attorney in Indiana reportedly subpoenaed the records from Indymedia earlier this year and then ordered the site to keep silent about the request. The Electronic Frontier Foundation says the subpoena demanded the individual internet protocol addresses of every single Indymedia visitor. The group says the subpoena was ultimately dropped.

I assume the subpoena was dropped because the Justice Department learned they could get this information through the federal agencies already monitoring internet traffic: to preform counter-insurgency within the frame work of the Bill Of Rights is extremely inconvenient (and the reason it was so advocated).

If you know anything, you should be detained

Another example is the police killings in Seattle: the police were likely killed because of law enforcement abuse - the communities reacted by carrying out the typical "insurgent" model, first realizing a problem, organizing non-violent demonstrations, and ultimately resorting to violence and the execution of a police officer.

Who is being blamed? Christopher John Monfort, a guy who volunteered his time to teach children about the criminal justice system. I'm amazed he's alive - I would think the cops would have been better served with him dead. Anyways, this story has all sorts of interesting turns: one source claims the police found "massive amounts of child pornography on Monfort's personal computer" yet this is not widely mentioned in the other news stories, so it's likely a fabrication by an unnamed "official source". It's also claimed that Monfort pulled a handgun on detectives when they arrived, but a bullet was not in the chamber...right, and conversely we're told he's a bomb-making gun nut - but he can't figure out to use his safety? In addition, "DNA" was found at the scene of the police firebombings, as if this student of terrorism didn't prepare his attack weeks in advance and take necessary precautions to remove traces. Moreover, "Bombs left behind" at the arson scene have now surfaced - completely unmentioned in news stories up until this week.

With an understanding of predictable counter-insurgency models, we could speculate that law enforcement is fabricating evidence, we could speculate that the police stormed the home of a social-justice activist and attempted to execute him, we could speculate the Monfort will end up dead before he pleads "not-guilty". It's all speculation really.

Do you have a facebook?
Do you wonder about the connection between the CIA and facebook

[UPDATE:] Here's a picture that probably won't help you.
It's intended to show the relationship between non-organized, non-violent, and violent actors.
Tags: law, theory
  • Post a new comment


    default userpic

    Your IP address will be recorded 

    When you submit the form an invisible reCAPTCHA check will be performed.
    You must follow the Privacy Policy and Google Terms of use.