6 ms·

U.S. Army Techniques Publication 3-39.33: Civil Disturbances

63 points by taivare 12y ago

trhway 12y ago
>Often in the media, protesters can gain sympathy for their cause by prompting authorities to take physical action against them. "blame the victim" right from the start (2nd paragraph). I guess that sets the tone for the army people who are normally pretty isolated from social issues and don't have very well informed opinion of their own. >The level of violence is determined by the willingness of demonstrators to display and voice their opinions in support of their cause and the actions and reactions of the control force on scene. "the willingness of demonstrators to display and voice their opinions in support of their cause" as a major leading factor determining level of violence - blame the witness again, these hippies/african-americans/whoever brought it upon themselves. If you think about it - a willingness to display and voice your opinions is a major existential threat to the established order and, given such level of the threat, violent response by the established order would be a reasonable (from the order's POV) thing. Major point here seems to be as usually is to take all responsibility issues on the part of enforcers/army out of picture and just make them follow the orders with full surety that they going the right thing. Typical brainwash.
- marktangotango 12y ago
  Nice, you totally cut and pasted out of context: >>Often in the media, protesters can gain sympathy for their cause by prompting authorities to take physical action against them. >"blame the victim" right from the start (2nd paragraph). I guess that sets the tone for the army people who are normally pretty isolated from social issues and don't have very well informed opinion of their own. Sentence immediately before this in the same paragraph "During unified action, U.S. forces should never violate basic civil or human rights. Most protesters are law-abiding citizens who intend to keep their protests nonviolent, but some protest planners insist that the event involve violence." >>The level of violence is determined by the willingness of demonstrators to display and voice their opinions in support of their cause and the actions and reactions of the control force on scene. Again, the sentence before this one: "Violence can be the result of demonstrators beginning to conduct unlawful or criminal acts and authorities (who are responsible for the safety and welfare of all) enforcing the laws of the municipality, state, or nation." You're biases are clear.
  - trhway 12y ago
    the key items are naturally embedded in the "context" so an argument like yours can always be made, yet these key items are the ones that's getting ingrained in the minds of their target audience. Basic skill of good copywriting. to the rayiner below - there is no argument that protests are crushed much more violently in the rest of the world (may be except for a couple of countries like England and Germany). There is a reason i left Russia where just calling for a protest is a felony these days :)
    - rayiner 12y ago
      By your reasoning, you can take any quote out of context and use it to make up an argument. I don't know anything about your experience, but I suspect you have no idea what the hell you're talking about. The fact is that protests out in the rest of the world aren't like protests in San Francisco. I was once in Bangladesh during a "hartal" (general strike). People staying in our hotel were shuttled to the airport under armed guard. Last year, almost 100 people were killed in these sorts of protests. And Bangladesh is a very safe, stable country compared to the ones where the U.S. military usually intervenes. That's the context this manual must be read in.
    - owenjones 12y ago
      What does how other countries deal with protests have anything to do with the US Army's guide to dealing with protests?
  - Spooky23 12y ago
    I agree it was a biased statement, but the key issue is that if you roll out soldiers to address a civil disturbance, you need to figure out what they are going to do. If they are there to prevent escalation, they need to take the abuse hurled at them and suck it up. Saying "We come in peace and respect you, stand by while we crack your skull open with a truncheon" doesn't exempt your conduct. If standard operating procedure calls for escalation from skull-cracking to rifle fire into a crowd to machine gunning of the crowd, we have a problem.
    - 12y ago
- owenjones 12y ago
  I see no blame anywhere in the article, and claiming that: > army people [...] are normally pretty isolated from social issues and don't have very well informed opinion of their own. is both untrue and offensive. EDIT, never mind I see you took the bold stance of commenting from a throwaway.
  - wehadfun 12y ago
    Clearly you are not familiar with Military culture. Military and their families live, eat, party, go to theaters, go to school, shop,... on Military bases that civilians have limited if any access to. Some are stationed in foreign countries or are on float (working on a ship) for months. They are definitely separated from the rest of us.
    - chrissnell 12y ago
      No, that's simply not true. I've said this on HN several times through the years but it is still and will always be true: the US military is a slice of Americana. Virtually every subculture represented in America can be found in the US military. We live in your neighborhoods, eat at the same restaurants, watch the same TV shows, and send our children to the same schools as you. We are you.
    - mpyne 12y ago
      Military bases have places to go to, yes. But they certainly do not seclude or sequester themselves from civilian life. Indeed, if military servicemembers actually could be relied on to stay on base many senior officers would be inordinately pleased. But do not confuse being able to walk on base with a complete isolation with the civilian sector; servicemembers still have civilian friends, parents, relatives, spouses, children, in-laws, social acquaintances, often co-workers, and the list goes on and on. As far as being on a ship (with access to email, news, and Facebook...) for months, what do you think happens to civilian mariners, or astronauts, or offshore oil rig workers when they're gone for months? Are they necessarily isolated and socially inept too?
- anigbrowl 12y ago
  Impressive cherry-picking ability you have there.
- sigzero 12y ago
  > I guess that sets the tone for the army people who are normally pretty isolated from social issues What? That isn't true at all.
deleted 12y ago
[deleted]
Elrac 12y ago
Ignoring the content, I was mildly taken aback to find two spelling errors in the first couple of pages. Aren't these policy manuals written by supposedly smart people? And as government documents handed out to thousands of people, don't they get professional editing? It's a small thing, but it leads me to think "broken windows." If correct language is one of the details that's considered undeserving of professional attention, then what else is?
- rdtsc 12y ago
  > Aren't these policy manuals written by supposedly smart people? No. Not smart in the sense you'd have it. They are smart in the sense that they found stable jobs in government where they can write policies like this at a desk and get a stable income, good healthcare and lots of vacation days. They are smart in navigating a govt type of bureaucracy (which involves lot of ass kissing, towing the official party line, not sticking out, doing the minimum to get by).
  - chrissnell 12y ago
    What experience do you base this statement upon? I serve in the military and can tell you that the writers of military doctrine are typically senior (O-4 and above) officers with post-graduate degrees. These are people who have devoted many years of their lives to military professional education. Like any manual, the possibility for a typographical mistake exists. There is an official channel for readers to submit errors that they find. In this case, you can submit your errors to the Maneuver Support Center of Excellence at Fort Leonard Wood via DA Form 2028, which can be mailed or emailed: Send comments and recommendations on DA Form 2028 (Recommended Changes to > > Publications and Blank Forms) to Commander, MSCoE, ATTN: ATZT-CDC, 14000 MSCoE Loop, Suite > 270, Fort Leonard Wood, MO 65473- 8929; e-mail the DA Form 2028 to <usarmy.leonardwood.mscoe.mbx.cdidcodddmpdoc@mail.mil>; or submit an electronic DA Form 2028.
- gulfie 12y ago
  I'd rather have them focus more on content and less on spelling. Especially when we are talking about the procedures for avoiding killing lots of people. Priorities are important in life.
gulfie 12y ago
tldr; The mission is to avoid aggravating the local population any more than necessary, and they may be angry for good and valid reasons. Hurting/shooting people tends to anger people and turn the military presence there untenable(costly in material and lives). okay, I mixed in a some background from other publications in the tldr, but whatever. of course : " One of the serious problems in planning the fight against American doctrine, is that the Americans do not read their manuals, nor do they feel any obligation to follow their doctrine... " - From a Soviet Junior Lt's Notebook
- Shivetya 12y ago
  one take away from the videos of the police in Ferguson recently, they point their guns in the protester's directions more often than not, as in they are dialing up the antagonism. Real soldiers would never do that, you only point at whom your going to shoot. Wanna be soldiers become cops because its easier than making it through boot camp
  - defilade 12y ago
    Wow, lots of absolute statements there. "Real" soldiers do sometimes use weapon-mounted optics for observation and target ID. They don't always end up shooting the people they're looking at. Your statement about cops simply reveals your ignorance about law enforcement.
    - justizin 12y ago
      >> "Real" soldiers do sometimes use weapon-mounted optics for observation and target ID. They don't always end up shooting the people they're looking at. I've yet to hear a vet tell me that's an acceptable crowd control tactic. Not everything the military does is crowd control, and when they engage in crowd control they don't use all of the tactics that an infantryman at the front lines might use. To put into less hyperbolic context : when a 'target' is standing seven feet from you, you shouldn't need to aim a sniper rifle at them to identify them through its' optics.

63 points by taivare 12y ago

>Often in the media, protesters can gain sympathy for their cause by prompting authorities to take physical action against them. "blame the victim" right from the start (2nd paragraph). I guess that sets the tone for the army people who are normally pretty isolated from social issues and don't have very well informed opinion of their own. >The level of violence is determined by the willingness of demonstrators to display and voice their opinions in support of their cause and the actions and reactions of the control force on scene. "the willingness of demonstrators to display and voice their opinions in support of their cause" as a major leading factor determining level of violence - blame the witness again, these hippies/african-americans/whoever brought it upon themselves. If you think about it - a willingness to display and voice your opinions is a major existential threat to the established order and, given such level of the threat, violent response by the established order would be a reasonable (from the order's POV) thing. Major point here seems to be as usually is to take all responsibility issues on the part of enforcers/army out of picture and just make them follow the orders with full surety that they going the right thing. Typical brainwash.

marktangotango 12y ago
Nice, you totally cut and pasted out of context: >>Often in the media, protesters can gain sympathy for their cause by prompting authorities to take physical action against them. >"blame the victim" right from the start (2nd paragraph). I guess that sets the tone for the army people who are normally pretty isolated from social issues and don't have very well informed opinion of their own. Sentence immediately before this in the same paragraph "During unified action, U.S. forces should never violate basic civil or human rights. Most protesters are law-abiding citizens who intend to keep their protests nonviolent, but some protest planners insist that the event involve violence." >>The level of violence is determined by the willingness of demonstrators to display and voice their opinions in support of their cause and the actions and reactions of the control force on scene. Again, the sentence before this one: "Violence can be the result of demonstrators beginning to conduct unlawful or criminal acts and authorities (who are responsible for the safety and welfare of all) enforcing the laws of the municipality, state, or nation." You're biases are clear.
- trhway 12y ago
  the key items are naturally embedded in the "context" so an argument like yours can always be made, yet these key items are the ones that's getting ingrained in the minds of their target audience. Basic skill of good copywriting. to the rayiner below - there is no argument that protests are crushed much more violently in the rest of the world (may be except for a couple of countries like England and Germany). There is a reason i left Russia where just calling for a protest is a felony these days :)
  - rayiner 12y ago
    By your reasoning, you can take any quote out of context and use it to make up an argument. I don't know anything about your experience, but I suspect you have no idea what the hell you're talking about. The fact is that protests out in the rest of the world aren't like protests in San Francisco. I was once in Bangladesh during a "hartal" (general strike). People staying in our hotel were shuttled to the airport under armed guard. Last year, almost 100 people were killed in these sorts of protests. And Bangladesh is a very safe, stable country compared to the ones where the U.S. military usually intervenes. That's the context this manual must be read in.
  - owenjones 12y ago
    What does how other countries deal with protests have anything to do with the US Army's guide to dealing with protests?
- Spooky23 12y ago
  I agree it was a biased statement, but the key issue is that if you roll out soldiers to address a civil disturbance, you need to figure out what they are going to do. If they are there to prevent escalation, they need to take the abuse hurled at them and suck it up. Saying "We come in peace and respect you, stand by while we crack your skull open with a truncheon" doesn't exempt your conduct. If standard operating procedure calls for escalation from skull-cracking to rifle fire into a crowd to machine gunning of the crowd, we have a problem.
  - 12y ago
owenjones 12y ago
I see no blame anywhere in the article, and claiming that: > army people [...] are normally pretty isolated from social issues and don't have very well informed opinion of their own. is both untrue and offensive. EDIT, never mind I see you took the bold stance of commenting from a throwaway.
- wehadfun 12y ago
  Clearly you are not familiar with Military culture. Military and their families live, eat, party, go to theaters, go to school, shop,... on Military bases that civilians have limited if any access to. Some are stationed in foreign countries or are on float (working on a ship) for months. They are definitely separated from the rest of us.
  - chrissnell 12y ago
    No, that's simply not true. I've said this on HN several times through the years but it is still and will always be true: the US military is a slice of Americana. Virtually every subculture represented in America can be found in the US military. We live in your neighborhoods, eat at the same restaurants, watch the same TV shows, and send our children to the same schools as you. We are you.
  - mpyne 12y ago
    Military bases have places to go to, yes. But they certainly do not seclude or sequester themselves from civilian life. Indeed, if military servicemembers actually could be relied on to stay on base many senior officers would be inordinately pleased. But do not confuse being able to walk on base with a complete isolation with the civilian sector; servicemembers still have civilian friends, parents, relatives, spouses, children, in-laws, social acquaintances, often co-workers, and the list goes on and on. As far as being on a ship (with access to email, news, and Facebook...) for months, what do you think happens to civilian mariners, or astronauts, or offshore oil rig workers when they're gone for months? Are they necessarily isolated and socially inept too?
anigbrowl 12y ago
Impressive cherry-picking ability you have there.
sigzero 12y ago
> I guess that sets the tone for the army people who are normally pretty isolated from social issues What? That isn't true at all.

deleted 12y ago

[deleted]

Elrac 12y ago

Ignoring the content, I was mildly taken aback to find two spelling errors in the first couple of pages. Aren't these policy manuals written by supposedly smart people? And as government documents handed out to thousands of people, don't they get professional editing? It's a small thing, but it leads me to think "broken windows." If correct language is one of the details that's considered undeserving of professional attention, then what else is?

rdtsc 12y ago
> Aren't these policy manuals written by supposedly smart people? No. Not smart in the sense you'd have it. They are smart in the sense that they found stable jobs in government where they can write policies like this at a desk and get a stable income, good healthcare and lots of vacation days. They are smart in navigating a govt type of bureaucracy (which involves lot of ass kissing, towing the official party line, not sticking out, doing the minimum to get by).
- chrissnell 12y ago
  What experience do you base this statement upon? I serve in the military and can tell you that the writers of military doctrine are typically senior (O-4 and above) officers with post-graduate degrees. These are people who have devoted many years of their lives to military professional education. Like any manual, the possibility for a typographical mistake exists. There is an official channel for readers to submit errors that they find. In this case, you can submit your errors to the Maneuver Support Center of Excellence at Fort Leonard Wood via DA Form 2028, which can be mailed or emailed: Send comments and recommendations on DA Form 2028 (Recommended Changes to > > Publications and Blank Forms) to Commander, MSCoE, ATTN: ATZT-CDC, 14000 MSCoE Loop, Suite > 270, Fort Leonard Wood, MO 65473- 8929; e-mail the DA Form 2028 to <usarmy.leonardwood.mscoe.mbx.cdidcodddmpdoc@mail.mil>; or submit an electronic DA Form 2028.
gulfie 12y ago
I'd rather have them focus more on content and less on spelling. Especially when we are talking about the procedures for avoiding killing lots of people. Priorities are important in life.

gulfie 12y ago

tldr; The mission is to avoid aggravating the local population any more than necessary, and they may be angry for good and valid reasons. Hurting/shooting people tends to anger people and turn the military presence there untenable(costly in material and lives). okay, I mixed in a some background from other publications in the tldr, but whatever. of course : " One of the serious problems in planning the fight against American doctrine, is that the Americans do not read their manuals, nor do they feel any obligation to follow their doctrine... " - From a Soviet Junior Lt's Notebook

Shivetya 12y ago
one take away from the videos of the police in Ferguson recently, they point their guns in the protester's directions more often than not, as in they are dialing up the antagonism. Real soldiers would never do that, you only point at whom your going to shoot. Wanna be soldiers become cops because its easier than making it through boot camp
- defilade 12y ago
  Wow, lots of absolute statements there. "Real" soldiers do sometimes use weapon-mounted optics for observation and target ID. They don't always end up shooting the people they're looking at. Your statement about cops simply reveals your ignorance about law enforcement.
  - justizin 12y ago
    >> "Real" soldiers do sometimes use weapon-mounted optics for observation and target ID. They don't always end up shooting the people they're looking at. I've yet to hear a vet tell me that's an acceptable crowd control tactic. Not everything the military does is crowd control, and when they engage in crowd control they don't use all of the tactics that an infantryman at the front lines might use. To put into less hyperbolic context : when a 'target' is standing seven feet from you, you shouldn't need to aim a sniper rifle at them to identify them through its' optics.