Even Military Manuals warns not to Crush Down Protest with Violence
So what the hell are cops doing?
FM 3–24: Counterinsurgency
The year 2020 may have proven to be a wake up call to many Americans, with much civic dysfunction caused by police lack of accountability, capable of murdering people in plain sight, suffering minimal to no repercussions. With much civic dysfunction such as rebellions (you might be trained to call these riots) occurring, many people have ran behind totalitarian authority figures, such as Donald Trump and over conservative figures, and police, for answers.
Many of these citizens, holding an adversarial disposition towards civil rights, openly advocated for more police violence, such as a call for crackdowns on the public in Washington D.C., and Portland, Oregon.
When Trump, a fascist president, attempted to beat, batter, maim and mutilate American citizens with police and ambiguous law-enforcement-adjacents such as his unmarked protest-Gestapo, conservatives cheered him on.
The problem I had (and arguably still have) with this standpoint is how even military professionals in the workplace and social media also had a large preference to inflicting harm with state-sponsored violence onto American protesters.
The problem lies in the fact that those military professionals were wrong.
Those military folk I knew were racist, no doubt. What I want to do here is point out how horrendously wrong they are with our own American military doctrine. As in, military tactics dictates that harming protesters as police have been doing, is tactically and strategically incorrect, flawed, wrong and stupid.
In the U.S. Army, one can find a myriad of doctrines, regulations and practices in two primary publications: U.S. Army Regulations and Field Manuals. Regulations govern the regular law, order, discipline and tradition in in military. The Field Manuals are a little more interesting; they concern themselves with military tactics, strategy, and other actions.
There is no U.S. military field manual or regulation that says, “inflicting violence upon an unarmed public is a good idea.”
As a matter of fact, looking at FM 3–24, it actually states the reverse — these tactics fascists are committing are strategic and tactical failures that will make a more significant, more vigorous movement. In other words, this type of police violence will further radicalize the public.
Anyone acting like Trump’s Gestapo is a great idea are not only fascists who love white supremacy, but also folk who co-sign failure and clearly don’t know strategy and tactics. These people never actually read a field manual on counterinsurgencies or stability operations. Sure, many of our peers have been to war and all, but they aren’t readers, planners, warfare intellectuals, strategists — you know, “Officer shit.”
…Combat operations must therefore be executed with an appropriate level of restraint to minimize or avoid injuring innocent people. Not only is there a moral basis for the use of restraint or measured force; there are practical reasons as well. Needlessly harming innocents can turn the populace against the COIN effort. Discriminating use of fires and calculated, disciplined response should characterize COIN operations. Kindness and compassion can often be as important as killing and capturing insurgents. ~ U.S. Army FM 3–24: Counterinsurgency, 5–38
It’s in the books. (For context, “COIN” means “counterinsurgency.”)
These people don’t know FM 3–24. The U.S. Army Bible on Counterinsurgency operations. This is a sad mess, especially for military types who threw all their credibility away in support of a totalitarian political figure. The fact that the Trump administration, conservatives, Republicans, do not follow the military science engaging in decidedly military actions tells you it’s not about law or order. It’s about something else.
“Not only is there a moral basis for the use of restraint or measured force; there are practical reasons as well. Needlessly harming innocents can turn the populace against the COIN effort” ~ FM 3–24
Trump’s gestapo efforts are doomed from day one.
Make a genuine partnership between counterinsurgents and host-nation authorities…
When it came to Portland Oregon, the totalitarian right-wing failed here, with mayors saying get Trump’s Gestapo out of town. If the protesters are in the “insurgents” placeholder, and the local government is in the “host-nation authorities placeholder, then what the hell are the Trumpians are doing, forcing their Trump gestapo all over Portland, Oregon? Same proves true everywhere else. So what are police doing beating up unarmed civilians, if even military science proves their tactics unfit for rebellions or stability operations?
Stability Operations, Protection of Civilians
1–53. Army leaders must always have situational understanding of an operational environment, relevant actors, and dynamics. The staff’s analysis of the operational variables (political, military, economic, social, information, infrastructure, physical environment, and time, known collectively as PMESII-PT) contribute to understanding threats to civilians and ways to protect them. ~ U.S. Army FM 3–07: Stability Operations
^That’s not what Trump’s secret police did in Portland. That’s not what police are doing in Washington, D.C.
If anything, it can be argued that they (Trump’s acolytes) are intentionally misinformed on understanding the situation concerning protesters, civil rights and justice. However, one can only claim ignorance but so far.
If you are carrying an exaggerated amount of military weapons thinking your using “military tactics” beating the crap out of civilians (with zero accountability) and by doctrine you are not doing anything in military science that maintains stability, then what the hell are you doing?
Looking tough? Quelling dissent? Doing totalitarian violence?
So this is two military science concepts that evades Trumpians and those of right-wing politics: FM 3–07 (Stability Operations) and FM 3–24 (Insurgency Operations).
Dare we read ATP 3–07.6; Protection of Civilians.
Protection of civilians refers to efforts that reduce civilian risks from physical violence, secure their rights to access essential services and resources, and contribute to a secure, stable, and just environment for civilians over the long-term. Protection of civilians is important for moral, political, legal, and military reasons and must be addressed during unified land operations regardless of the primary mission. ~ ATP 3–07.6; Protection of Civilians, Chapter 1 Overview
Finally, during most operations, Army units are concerned with civilian welfare while achieving the desired outcomes to a conflict or crisis. Operational objectives may include a safe and secure environment, good governance, rule of law, social well-being, a sustainable economy, and ensuring the protection of civilians from future threats. Under certain circumstances, other urgent human security threats are the main operational focus of Army units as they support other actors. In any case, it may be unlikely that a peaceful political settlement can be achieved unless the protection of civilians is adequately addressed. ~ ATP 3–07.6; Protection of Civilians, Chapter 1–7
If a Soldier, Marine or anyone military support Trump’s efforts in Portland, then they are objectively military science-illiterate. These military Field Manuals, Technique, and procedure books are free to the public. Stuff a Soldier should know, and if they don’t, they learn to reference from.
If a Soldier supports wanton violence from a uniformed service, then what’s stopping Abu Gharaib from happening again? Tortures overseas? Bodies disappearing like Fort Hood? Criminal acts? War crimes?
If you make it to chapter 1–77 in FM 3–07, you can see that for stability operations to be successful, one has to place accountability upon police forces and demilitarize/defund the police. In much military doctrine, an oppressive, nonaccountable police force is the reason for instability.
Overall
This is American military doctrine that understand this down to a military science. So why are American police forces across the country recklessly assault the unarmed civilian populace, up to and including attacking free press? Wouldn’t one logically conclude that superficial moments on instability isn’t going to be remedied with more instability?
The military gets it. Military science dictates that a humane, just and accountable police force (i.e., “security forces”) are the guarantors of stability, not wanton violence at the hands of police to quench a sadistic sociopolitical lust for suffering.
So what does it mean, to have a a police force who demands more militarization in equipment and weaponry, but not doctrine, tactics and discipline to be effective? If politicians in charge actually have read the manuals, is it possible that they actually want to destabilize targeted communities?
Only time will tell. One thing that is certain is the fact that assaulting the public in times of protest is not an effective strategy for stability operations, and we all know it.
Work Referenced:
· Counterinsurgency Field Manual: FM 3–24.2
· Stability Operations Field Manual: FM 3–07
· Protection of Civilians Army Techniques Publication: ATP 3–07.6
· Peace-Keeping and Stability Operations Institute (PKSOI), U.S. Army War College
