Army Counterinsurgency Manual Gives "Graduate Level" Instruction to our Enemies

The timing of the Pentagon’s recent release of a newly overhauled counterinsurgency manual could not have provided a more appropriate illustration of the point I made in one of yesterday’s posts: we are our own worst enemy in the War on Terror. While our intelligence agencies, including the military’s own Defense Intelligence Agency, spend billions on efforts to infiltrate and/or monitor terrorist organizations worldwide in order to learn their methods and culture, those same terrorists can get far more detailed information about our military methods and predictable courses of action at no cost.

Our intelligence field operatives and support personnel risk their lives to obtain information about our enemies, yet those enemies can perform the same tasks from the comfort of their homes, hideouts, tents, caves, or wherever their Internet connections can reach. One click on this link (be forewarned the downloaded manual is over 12Mb) will open the U.S. Army’s counterinsurgency doctrine manual in full to your view. Of course, it is also now available to the entire world, so terrorists and nation-states who desire our destruction have a literal playbook to use in planning how best to thwart our stated goals and strategies. Newt Gingrich, in his Sunday interview on Meet the Press, stated that our adherence to free speech liberties in some instances may be suicidal. While I disagreed with the example he used to illustrate his point, the Internet availability of the new 282 page unclassified counterinsurgency manual certainly could be considered a suicidal practice for a nation engaged in a War on Terror.

If this is in fact a war, far more scrutiny should be given to what documents are released for public use. How much easier is it for our enemies to formulate effective strategies, political and military, when we provide them with a guidebook containing a complete explanation of all of the options available to our military and which ones are most likely to achieve victory? In the interest of fairness, should the Ohio State Buckeyes willingly provide the Florida Gators with their BCS Championship Game playbook with plenty of time for Florida to study it and develop plays to counter Buckeye intentions? Common sense would suggest this would not be a wise decision for Ohio State, and of course the Buckeye coaching staff is sufficiently wise to keep all strategy and operational planning close to the vest, revealed ONLY during the game at the opportune moment to achieve maximum effect.

The above example may seem ridiculous, and one would surmise that no team would be foolish enough to give away its playbook. The Defense Department, on the other hand, has for years published its field manuals, operational manuals, and military doctrine manuals for public consumption. The new counterinsurgency manual begins with a quote from a Special Forces Officer in Iraq: "Counterinsurgency is not just thinking man's warfare -- it is the graduate level of war" [emphasis added]. Accepting this statement as being accurate, I suppose that means the Defense Department, by releasing this manual for public use, is now offering insurgents and other enemies PhDs in Defeating the American Military.

The argument is always put forth that citizens need to have the ability to monitor the military, to make certain it is not becoming too powerful on its own. The fear of military coups is certainly justified by history. Pakistan is now led by a man who came to power through a military coup. General Musharaff later became President Musharaff after “elections” were held. If a coup can occur in a country with nuclear arms such as Pakistan, it is reasonable to fear one could take place anywhere, even here. This argument for public military publication is well-intentioned but fundamentally misguided. The wisdom of our Founding Fathers resulted in the inclusion of many protections against concentration of power in any one branch of government or in the military. With a civilian Commander in Chief elected by the people, the likelihood of a strong military figure gathering a sufficient following to overthrow our government is very small. With Congress, also elected by the people, controlling the funding of military operations, the military is required to fully justify its operations and weapons programs, mainly through appearing before Congressional committees where Top Secret and higher classifications of information are shared.

It is in this context that the argument for open military publication unravels. The public is given control of the military through Congressional oversight and executive control. Of what use is an Army counterinsurgency doctrine manual to the average citizen? Would it be interesting reading? The answer for many would be yes. However, there are a lot of documents read in Washington DC every day that would truly fascinate everyone, especially our enemies. Interest alone is an insufficient reason for public release. Unprecedented access to information and facilities has been granted by the Defense Department to authors, Hollywood film crews, and reporters, usually in the interest of the Department “tooting its own horn.” In fairness, nearly every federal department is just as enamored with self-promotion, but this does not justify the practice, it merely exacerbates the problem of excessive openness.

While our intelligence agencies struggle to determine the intentions and capabilities of our enemies, we are, quite literally, an open book to them. If this is a War on Terror, then let us act as if it were a war and suppress the publication of military manuals for public use. Let us fully prosecute those (of either party) who leak sensitive documents, and above all let us make our enemies expend time, money, and personnel to fight us. Let us fight to win by keeping our playbooks out of enemy hands.

 counterinsurgency
 Defense Department
Newt Gingrich

Newt Gingrich on Jihad Web Sites: Meet the Press Part II

Newt Gingrich appeared on Meet the Press yesterday, and in an interview covering a broad range of political topics, commented on the Global War on Terror, specifically the various surveillance tools used by our intelligence agencies to identify and track known and potential terrorists. The former Speaker used the example of the recent arrest of a home-grown Jihadist in Illinois to argue that free speech liberties should not include Jihadist web sites or material that encourages and provides instruction for killing Americans and other “infidels.” A portion of the exchange follows:

FMR. REP. GINGRICH: You close down any Web site that is jihadist.
MR. RUSSERT: But who makes that judgment?
FMR. REP. GINGRICH: Look, I—you can appoint three federal judges if you want to and say, “Review this stuff and tell us which ones to close down.” I would just like to have them be federal judges who’ve served in combat.
MR. RUSSERT: Are you concerned, however, that with carte blanche, that the government could move in and say, “This mosque is closed, this Web site is shut down”?
FMR. REP. GINGRICH: No. You have—you have more censorship in the McCain-Feingold bill, which blocks the right of free speech about American campaigns than you have from the FBI closing down jihadists. We’ve already limited the First Amendment right of free speech by a set of rules that are stunningly absurd. In California, you can raise soft money to run negative commercials attacking your opponent through the state party and you cannot raise soft money to run a positive commercial on behalf of your own candidate. That’s California state law. It’s stunningly stupid and a clear infringement of free speech. So we’ve had a 30-year period of saying it’s OK to infringe free speech as long as it’s about politics. But now if you want to be a jihadist, and you want to go kill people, well who are we to say that’s morally wrong? I think that’s suicidal.

Perhaps even more ironic (and "suicidal") than Gingrich’s political example is that free speech rights have been held by various courts to include recipes for explosives, Ricin (and other poisons), methamphetamine, modifications to make semiautomatic firearms fully automatic, instructions for “booby traps” including poisoned spikes, methods for fashioning silencers, and even the basic physics behind rudimentary atomic bombs. All of these are easily found through simple Internet searches on Google or any other popular search engine. The following titles are available through Amazon and are even conveniently linked together through the “Customers who bought this item also bought” section: The Anarchist Cookbook, The Poor Man’s James Bond, Improvised Munitions Handbook, Get Even, the Complete Book of Dirty Tricks, and Boobytraps Fm5-31. All of these works contain specific detail on lethal tactics that have been used in countless incidents to murder intelligence and law enforcement personnel worldwide.

Sometimes we are our own worst enemy, as the Improvised Munitions Handbook and Boobytraps Fm5-31 are Department of Defense publications once provided only to Special Forces and other specialized components of the military. Predictably but foolishly, a new version of a Defense field manual arrives in print and the old versions are discarded and made available for public consumption. There are handbooks for snipers, dated documents used by our own snipers, available in public libraries. Are terrorists browsing these materials and implementing them against our own troops? Of course they are. As the author of the terribly misguided Anarchist Cookbook revealed, he compiled his book in anger over the Vietnam War and the idea of being drafted into a war he opposed. The book has been a bestseller among militia and anti-government groups in the United States, and many brave law enforcement personnel have been victims of boobytraps, mines, chemical bombs, and countless other tactics because the material in the book was used as intended. Although he now regrets having published the book, he, like the Defense Department, must face the consequences of having placed these recipes and tactics in print for mass distribution.

While I agree that the First Amendment does not protect speech that calls for the overthrow of the U.S. Government or that is treasonous, I respectfully disagree with the former Speaker on the necessity of removing all Jihadist web sites from the Internet for three reasons:

1. It is not practical. There is no shortage of web sites that distribute freely or sell for profit detailed instructions for how to kill, whether that is in reference to “infidels” or law enforcement officers, or the kid in gym class that teases. Most of the web sites visited by Illinois Jihadist Talib Shareef were likely operated in foreign countries that are not bound by our First Amendment and that do not cooperate with our investigations into Jihad incitement. Unless we are willing to systematically remove any and all materials in libraries and on the Internet that contain instructions involving weapons, hand to hand combat tactics, or other means for killing, we cannot ONLY remove web sites that provide such instruction in the context of Jihad. That would, in essence, be the equivalent of sending the message, “it is OK to build bombs, cook up poisons, and learn how to snipe others as long as you are not involved in an Islamic jihad.”

2. Do guns kill people or do people kill people? This argument, usually used in the context of the 2nd Amendment right to bear arms, applies most readily to this issue. Do the materials that instruct readers how to build bombs and concoct poisons kill people, or should those who read and implement the tactics be responsible? The War on Terror is an ideological war. It is not the availability of this material that foments Jihad or encourages young disillusioned men to act even in a suicidal manner. The materials may serve to make his task easier once determined to carry out an attack, but they are not responsible for placing in his mind the idea that “infidels” must be killed. That came from an ideology that he learned and studied, a religious ideology, albeit a radical and evil one

3. How do we wage war on an ideology? Web sites, like our presence in Iraq, do not foment anti-Americanism or jihad. Those were preexisting conditions. If what President Bush and others in both parties have repeatedly stated is true, that terrorists represent a radical version of an otherwise peaceful religion, then “closing down” any Jihadist web site would constitute a government suppression of religious expression, as odious and evil as that religious ideology may be.

We should enlighten, instruct, edify, and convert those who hate us through living up our founding principles, while always being prepared to defend ourselves quickly and convincingly when necessary. This approach embodies the political savvy of another great Republican, Teddy Roosevelt, who aptly stated, “walk softly, but carry a big stick.” While the Internet is certainly used to spread hateful ideologies, it is an equally effective tool for spreading the culture and tenets of democracy. The Iranian government is working feverishly to block satellite TV and the Internet from its citizens, particularly young students, precisely because the Internet means choice. The presence of hate-filled material is not responsible for terrorism. What we should ask ourselves and our leaders is, “what are we doing to fight the ideology itself, the motivating factor that foments Islamic terrorism?” Platitudes and censorship are not effective tools in the War on Terror.

Perhaps before we "close down" jihadist web sites we should eliminate books and web sites through which our own military and law enforcement entities are making instructions for killing our intelligence operatives and military personnel readily available to the world. If the terrorists cannot learn the methods from a jihadist web site, they will simply visit their local American library, or ship directly from Amazon.com.

Defense Department Newt Gingrich Anarchist Cookbook Meet The Press War On Terror McCain-Feingold Jihad Amazon.com Illinois

Newt Gingrich on Iraq: Meet the Press Part I

Newt Gingrich appeared on Meet the Press yesterday, and in an interview covering a broad range of political topics, offered a concise explanation for why the Iraq War is plaguing the current administration.

Gingrich, never one to speak in generalities, stated explicitly why he believes the execution of the Iraq War has been a failure from the beginning and will continue to fail unless this administration adopts one of the originally proposed strategies:

But Captain Travis Patriquin. P-A-T-R-I-Q-U-I-N. He did a stick figure briefing on how to win in Al Anbar and it will break your heart. Because he said, ‘Look, there are sheiks in Al Anbar who’ve been the local power structure for 1300 years and they know how to run the place. They know how to track down the, the, the bad guys. They know what to do. And a bunch of 26-year-olds come in with Bremer and write a law that said, “The sheiks are irrelevant. We now represent modernity.” And we’ve now spent three years not knowing what we’re doing, not knowing who the bad guys are, not knowing who the good guys are. And you, and you see this stick figure presentation by this young Marine who was killed just a few weeks ago and it makes you want to cry because we, starting in June of ‘03, violated virtually every principal I know about how to be effective in this kind of country.

Gingrich made it abundantly clear that military commanders and civilian appointees, including General Abizaid and especially L. Paul Bremer, ultimately chose not to work with the local sheiks to root out the extremists and “insurgents” in Iraq. Instead the administration and its military leaders chose to impose a distinctly American regime-change operation.

The tragic (although this situation can still be remedied) consequence of that decision was that while the poor Iraqi citizens who were overjoyed to see Sadaam Hussein toppled were not joined in celebration by the more wealthy sheiks who found themselves tribally emasculated and replaced by a foreign military presence. As well-meaning as our military presence may have been and continues to be, to the sheiks it was viewed as an affront to their long-held power and ability to control radical elements of all sects within their local regions. Instead of utilizing these sheiks, the administration’s strategy marginalized them and no one should be surprised that the sheiks have offered only marginal assistance in identifying, tracking, or capturing terrorists ensconced in regions the sheiks previously controlled.

Unfortunately, now that Democrats have won the majority in the House and Senate, there is no talk of a move toward inclusion of the sheiks. The only strategy under consideration is to see which Senator or Congressman can set the earliest withdrawal date so he/she can take credit for bringing the troops home.

Newt Gingrich Paul Bremer Meet The Press War On Terror Iraq War