No, Our Boys Are Not “Killing Machines”

HRW: CIA-Trained ‘Death Squads’ Behind Afghan War Crimes
Spec ops in trouble: Mired in scandal and under Pentagon review, what will it take to clean house?
Commandos’ Behavior Prompts Pentagon Review of Special Operations Culture
He was a Special Forces self-help guru. Then he took his own life.
HOW TO FIX A BROKEN SPECIAL OPERATIONS CULTURE

Trump’s war crimes pardons show how little the commander in chief understands the American military.

By FRED KAPLAN

Navy SEAL Edward Gallagher on July 2 in San Diego.

Sandy Huffaker/Getty Images

 

President Donald Trump’s pardoning of three service members convicted or accused of war crimes has been decried for eroding military discipline and tainting the country’s image. But the action also indicates that the commander in chief knows little about the U.S. armed forces or the wars they’ve been fighting.

The three pardoned are Army 1^st Lt. Clint Lorance, Army Maj. Mathew Golsteyn, and Navy SEAL Chief Petty Officer Edward Gallagher. Lorance was freed after serving six years of his 19-year sentence for shooting a group of civilians in Afghanistan, then covering it up. Golsteyn was awaiting trial for allegedly murdering an unarmed Afghan civilian.

Gallagher stabbed an ISIS fighter who was undergoing surgery for a battle wound, shot two civilians from a sniper’s nest in Iraq, and threatened to kill his subordinates if they informed on him. (He was ultimately acquitted on six other charges but convicted of posing for an “unofficial photo” with a corpse.)

This is the first time a president has pardoned a service member for war crimes. Richard Nixon transferred former Army 2^nd Lt. William Calley, the commander at the My Lai Massacre during the Vietnam War, from an Army brig to house arrest, but even Nixon didn’t pardon the defendant.

In October, when he announced that these cases would be reviewed, Trump tweeted, “We train our boys to be killing machines, then prosecute them when they kill!” This notion of trained “killing machines” comes from war movies—and bad ones, at that. In reality, American troops are trained as much in when not to shoot their weapons as they are in how to shoot them.

This was particularly true of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, where the crimes in question were committed. They were counterinsurgency wars, in which winning the “hearts and minds” of civilians was as important as killing bad guys. Killing bad guys at all was to be avoided, if possible. The U.S. Army’s counterinsurgency field manual, supervised by Gen. David Petraeus, who later commanded forces in both wars, stated: “A defection is better than a surrender, a surrender better than a capture, and a capture better than a kill.” And: “An operation that kills five insurgents is counterproductive if the collateral damage or the creation of blood feuds leads to the recruitment of 50 more.”

This principle of relative restraint created dilemmas for commanders—for instance, whether to bomb a building that housed insurgents, even if innocent civilians might be killed as well. Debates were held, sometimes in meetings involving the president, over where the line should be drawn: How many civilian deaths were permissible, given the value of killing the insurgents in question?

But these debates concerned the possibility of “collateral damage”—i.e., the accidental death of civilians. No one in these debates defended deliberate murder.

The impermissibility of deliberately or carelessly killing civilians long predates Petraeus’ field manual. It’s enshrined in the Law of Armed Conflict, an international code of warfare drafted in 1949, which was also adopted into U.S. law and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. In a phone interview, Geoffrey Corn of the South Texas College of Law describes the idea behind the law:

The international legal authority to kill and destroy is contingent on individuals operating under responsible command. The function of a commander is to prepare soldiers to navigate the moral abyss of mortal conflict, to use violence in a regulated manner in the interests of the state.

Corn said that this principle, known as “responsible command,” is “baked in everything about the Law of Armed Conflict.” It applies not only to soldiers who violate its tenets but also to those soldiers’ commanders, whether or not they were directly complicit in the crime.

Eugene Fidell, a lawyer specializing in military law and a lecturer at Yale Law School, told me that, by this standard, Trump as the commander in chief could be seen as violating the Law of Armed Conflict. “The tenet of command responsibility holds that a commander can be punished if he fails to take steps to prevent war crimes committed by his troops—or to punish them afterward,” Fidell said. By pardoning these three, Trump in a sense violated that tenet.
Certainly he sent a message that service members who commit similar acts in the future might receive the same leniency.

American service members are trained as much in when not to shoot their weapons as they are in how to shoot them.

When asked about this, Corn pointed out that under U.S. law, the president’s right to issue pardons and acts of clemency overrides his obligations as a commander under international law. However, Corn added, “In the eyes of someone in a foreign country, Trump acted inconsistently with international law and the Geneva Conventions.”

Some officers are particularly disappointed by the Golsteyn pardon because Trump took his action before the military justice system had a chance to operate. Corn, who also advised Golsteyn’s attorneys, said that trial could have answered some knotty questions about the meaning of “civilian” and whether it is illegal for a soldier to kill a member of an enemy organization away from the battlefield. It was certainly a “breach of discipline,” Corn said, but it’s not clear whether it constituted a war crime.

Trump issued the pardons against the advice of Secretary of Defense Mark Esper and several military commanders.

Andrew Exum, a former Army Ranger platoon commander and Pentagon official, tweeted after news of Trump’s pardons, “This is a sad day for the tens of thousands of us who led troops in combat in Iraq and Afghanistan who were proud of the way in which we maintained our good order and discipline in the face of many challenges. These men, now pardoned, remain a disgrace to our ranks.”

To which Petraeus, who has since retired, commented on his LinkedIn page: “I share Andrew’s sentiments and thinking.”

Retired Navy Adm. Mike Mullen, former chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, told me that Trump’s action “has the potential of undermining the rule of law in the military justice system completely. We can’t take the law into our own hands in war. The idea that war has changed so much that the laws are constraining is a fallacy. War has always been a mess.”

Both Parties Defend “The System” Against Those Who Would Tear It Down and Rebuild It

[If both Obama and Trump’s Att. Gen. Barr are tearing into the radical Left for “going too far”, then that seems like a clear sign that this time “the Left” has gotten it right.]

“Yet there Barr was, denouncing the Left for engaging ‘in the systematic shredding of norms and undermining of the rule of law.'”–William Barr’s chilling vision of unchecked presidential power

Barack Obama Warned 2020 Democrats Not To Go ‘Too Far Left.’ Far Left Democrats Are Returning Fire.

By  Emily Zanotti

Scott Olson/Getty Images

Last week, former President Barack Obama had some choice words for the slate of 2020 potential Democratic presidential nominee, warning those who hope to take on President Donald Trump not to go “too far left.”

Now some far-left Democrats want to cancel Obama.

Using the hashtag “#TooFarLeft,” leftists like Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-MN) and former Hillary Clinton advisor Peter Daou sniped back at Obama, bashing the former president for being out of touch with the modern Democrat Party.

“Even as we push the envelope and we are bold in our vision, we also have to be rooted in reality,” Obama told a group of Democrat donors at a dinner event on Friday evening. “The average American doesn’t think we have to completely tear down the system and remake it.”

Obama seemed to be referencing Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) and Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT), specifically, and some Democrats’ plan to replace the Affordable Care Act — a hallmark piece of legislation from the Obama White House — with a costly and expansive “Medicare for All” plan that would likely strip away Americans’ private insurance options and hike taxes on Americans across the board, but he didn’t make any specific statements.

“I don’t think we should be deluded into thinking that the resistance to certain approaches to things is simply because voters haven’t heard a bold enough proposal and if they hear something as bold as possible then immediately that’s going to activate them,” he added.

His theories are borne out by poll numbers. A recent New York Times/Siena College poll that shook the Democratic slate to the core showed the “moderate” former Vice President Joe Biden as the only candidate challenging President Donald Trump in “battleground” states, not “progressives” like Warren and Sanders. More recent polls in Iowa show Biden and the recently moderate South Bend Mayor Pete Buttigieg leading the field. Buttigieg jumped more than 10 points in the poll, leapfrogging Sanders and Warren.

Warren, conversely, has been in a polling free-fall.

But if Obama speaks the truth, Democrats — particularly far-left Democrats — aren’t interested in hearing it. In response to Obama’s comments, “#TooFarLeft” started trending on Twitter, as progressives attempted to prove Obama wrong.

“TOO. FAR. LEFT,” tweeted Daou, taking credit for the hashtag. “I launched the #TooFarLeft tag because I’ve had it with Republicans, media elites, and corporate Dems enabling fascists while denigrating those who seek economic and social justice as ‘too far left.’ I’d like to ONCE hear them complain America is too far right.”

More importantly, Omar chimed in.

If being #TooFarLeft means believing:
✅ Healthcare is a human right
✅ Future generations should live on a healthy planet
✅ All student debt should be cancelled
✅ The minimum wage should be $15
✅ Lives depend on gun reform
✅ Families don’t belong in cages

Count me in! 💪🏽

— Ilhan Omar (@IlhanMN) November 16, 2019

Even Hollywood got involved, chastising their once-favorite politician.

“I am #TooFarLeft because I believe that we cannot let greed cause the collapse of the ecosystem that supports all human life on earth,” tweeted sitcom star Jon Cryer.

It turns out, they might have noticed Obama wasn’t the savior they thought he was:

“Dear @BarackObama, While you are comfortable in your $15 million mansion, Americans are suffering. People are dying because they can’t afford Healthcare, people are homeless, children go without school meals, the planet is dying. Is it really #TooFarLeft to care about humanity?” one former fan snapped back.

Omniviolence Is Coming and the World Isn’t Ready

 

Warning: This video is dramatized and has not happened!

POSTED BY: PHIL TORRES VIA NAUTILUS

Emerging bio-, nano-, and cyber-technologies are enabling criminals to target anyone anywhere and, due to democratization, increasingly at scale.Screengrab via The Future of Life Institute/YouTube

In The Future of Violence, Benjamin Wittes and Gabriella Blum discuss a disturbing hypothetical scenario. A lone actor in Nigeria, “home to a great deal of spamming and online fraud activity,” tricks women and teenage girls into downloading malware that enables him to monitor and record their activity, for the purposes of blackmail. The real story involved a California man who the FBI eventually caught and sent to prison for six years, but if he had been elsewhere in the world he might have gotten away with it. Many countries, as Wittes and Blum note, “have neither the will nor the means to monitor cybercrime, prosecute offenders, or extradite suspects to the United States.”

Technology is, in other words, enabling criminals to target anyone anywhere and, due to democratization, increasingly at scale. Emerging bio-, nano-, and cyber-technologies are becoming more and more accessible. The political scientist Daniel Deudney has a word for what can result: “omniviolence.” The ratio of killers to killed, or “K/K ratio,” is falling. For example, computer scientist Stuart Russell has vividly described how a small group of malicious agents might engage in omniviolence: “A very, very small quadcopter, one inch in diameter can carry a one-or two-gram shaped charge,” he says. “You can order them from a drone manufacturer in China. You can program the code to say: ‘Here are thousands of photographs of the kinds of things I want to target.’ A one-gram shaped charge can punch a hole in nine millimeters of steel, so presumably you can also punch a hole in someone’s head. You can fit about three million of those in a semi-tractor-trailer. You can drive up I-95 with three trucks and have 10 million weapons attacking New York City. They don’t have to be very effective, only 5 or 10% of them have to find the target.” Manufacturers will be producing millions of these drones, available for purchase just as with guns now, Russell points out, “except millions of guns don’t matter unless you have a million soldiers. You need only three guys to write the program and launch.” In this scenario, the K/K ratio could be perhaps 3/1,000,000, assuming a 10-percent accuracy and only a single one-gram shaped charge per drone.

Will emerging technologies make the state system obsolete? It’s hard to see why not.

That’s completely—and horrifyingly—unprecedented. The terrorist or psychopath of the future, however, will have not just the Internet or drones—called “slaughterbots” in this video from the Future of Life Institute—but also synthetic biology, nanotechnology, and advanced AI systems at their disposal. These tools make wreaking havoc across international borders trivial, which raises the question: Will emerging technologies make the state system obsolete? It’s hard to see why not. What justifies the existence of the state, English philosopher Thomas Hobbes argued, is a “social contract.” People give up certain freedoms in exchange for state-provided security, whereby the state acts as a neutral “referee” that can intervene when people get into disputes, punish people who steal and murder, and enforce contracts signed by parties with competing interests.

The trouble is that if anyone anywhere can attack anyone anywhere else, then states will become—and are becoming—unable to satisfy their primary duty as referee. It’s a trend toward anarchy, “the war of all against all,” as Hobbes put it—in other words a condition of everyone living in constant fear of being harmed by their neighbors. Indeed, in a recent paper, “The Vulnerable World Hypothesis,” published in Global Policy, the Oxford philosopher Nick Bostrom argues that the only way to defend against a global catastrophe is to employ a universal and invasive surveillance system, what he calls a “High-tech Panopticon.” Sound dystopian? It sure does to me. “Creating and operating the High-tech Panopticon would require substantial investment,” Bostrom writes, “but thanks to the falling price of cameras, data transmission, storage, and computing, and the rapid advances in AI-enabled content analysis, it may soon become both technologically feasible and affordable.” Bostrom is well-aware of the downsides—corrupt actors in a state could exploit this surveillance for totalitarian ends, or hackers could blackmail unsuspecting victims. Yet the fact is that it may still be a better option than suffering one global catastrophe after another.

How can societies counterattack omniviolence? One strategy could be a superintelligent machine—essentially, an extremely powerful algorithm—that’s specifically designed to govern fairly. We could then put the algorithm in political charge and, insofar as it governs as something like a “Philosopher King,” not worry constantly about the data collected being misused or abused. Of course, this is a fantastical proposal. Even the real-world use of AI in the justice system is fraught with problems. But at this point, do we have a better idea for preventing the collapse of the state system under the weight of widespread technological empowerment?

Perhaps a completely new idea will emerge that can preserve the current system—if we even want it preserved. Or perhaps emerging technologies won’t empower people as much as I and others anticipate. It could be that offensive technologies will actually lag behind defensive technologies, making it very difficult to execute a successful attack. It could also be that before omniviolence and democratization undercut the state, civilization collapses because of climate change-linked stressors like lethal heatwaves, megadroughts, coastal flooding, rising sea-levels, melting glaciers and polar ice caps, desertification, food supply disruptions, disease outbreaks, biodiversity loss, species extinctions, and mass migrations. If we ended up living as hunter-gatherers again, the main worry would be sticks and stones, not designer pathogens and artificial intelligence.

Civilization is an experiment. We may not get the results we’re expecting. So humanity would do well to hope for the best but prepare for the worst.

Phil Torres is a scholar of global catastrophic risks, and author of several books. His essay, “Superintelligence and the Future of Governance: On Prioritizing the Control Problem at the End of History,” appears in the 2018 anthology, Artificial Intelligence Safety and Security. His articles have been published in TIME, Slate, Nautilus, Motherboard, and the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists. Follow him on Twitter @xriskology.

but in the case of a slave society, this hiding from responsibility by the people will eventually become deadly

The Elite Controllers Fear the Individual and Individual Intelligence

This once great country of America has gone through many changes, and these changes, while implemented by the design of its true rulers, are not understood by the huddled masses that have been taught to accept mediocrity as desired normalcy. The ruling class fully understands that the only way to control people, and to finally control the world, is to stifle individual excellence by creating a society that refuses to think. This has been accomplished through planned conflict, the instilling of fear, the total control of education by the puppet state, by building dependence through public welfare, and by dominating most all positions of power in a myriad of state, corporate, and important intellectual appointments.

“At its root, the logic is that of the Grand Inquisitor, who bitterly assailed Christ for offering people freedom and thus condemning them to misery. The Church must correct the evil work of Christ by offering the miserable mass of humanity the gift they most desire and need: absolute submission. It must “vanquish freedom” so as “to make men happy” and provide the total “community of worship” that they avidly seek. In the modern secular age, this means worship of the state religion, which in the Western democracies incorporates the doctrine of submission to the masters of the system of public subsidy, private profit, called free enterprise. The people must be kept in ignorance, reduced to jingoist incantations, for their own good. And like the Grand Inquisitor, who employs the forces of miracle, mystery, and authority “to conquer and hold captive for ever the conscience of these impotent rebels for their happiness” and to deny them the freedom of choice they so fear and despise, so the “cool observers” must create the “necessary illusions” and “emotionally potent oversimplifications” that keep the ignorant and stupid masses disciplined and content.” 
~ Noam Chomsky, Necessary Illusions: Thought Control in Democratic Societies

This quote by Chomsky is correct in that it describes the current condition of the general populace, but is incorrect in that it claims free enterprise is the problem. There is no free market in this country, and there has not been a free market for many years. We live in what is best described as a fascist oligarchy, one that relies on the premise of state and corporate partnership. Without that dynamic in place, the situation would not be as dire as it is today.

It is important to state that I believe the common people are not incapable of intelligent thought, but have given in to the pressure from their self-appointed overseers, and accepted a subordinate position in society. They have been programmed to suppress their curiosity, and therefore have chosen to hide from responsibility. I refer to this attitude as a fear of freedom, as freedom requires much work, a strong moral base, an active intellect, and constant defense of self-rule. It is difficult to achieve and even more difficult to keep, so most are willing to take the easy way. By doing so, tyranny of the masses is always the resulting societal structure.

In any society such as this, what the common people perceive as freedom is in realty a type of controlled servitude. While this should be easily recognized by most, it is not, and this is mainly due to a fear of the truth. So pretending that the threat does not exist allows the underclass to avoid conflict, but only temporarily. This avoidance is a natural protection measure, but in the case of a slave society, this hiding from responsibility by the people will eventually become deadly.

The monopoly of power that is held by the few over the rest of society is all consuming, and the ultimate control sought by these elites is getting ever closer to fruition. It has been affected over long periods of time through incremental measures. It did not happen overnight, but over centuries, and at this point, the final objectives desired are within sight.

This is the most dangerous time for man as I see it, as the elite design for future economic decision-making for all is to be placed in the hands of so-called chosen experts, with power over the entire world economy. All economic decisions are to be based on a controlled allocation for society, which is simply centrally planned socialism, with a top-down hierarchy of control by the few. This ruling system is known as Technocracy, and when implemented, it will be the end of liberty.

I do not make these assertions lightly, and this is not theory, it is the current state of affairs. Consider the division among the general population, and the hatred amongst the masses. This is not natural, but has been put in place purposely to achieve a particular outcome by those controlling the now ignorant and indoctrinated general population.

The new world order that is desired by the ruling class is getting ever closer to becoming reality. This is not conjecture or some wildly fantastic science fiction, but is a plan that is gaining momentum due to a society consumed by blind indifference.

In past history when a ruling class went too far, and exceeded all the bounds of accepted power, the people arose, and a new system emerged. But can that happen in this country in this time of extreme political change and concentrated power? The creation of conflict that is evident today is a driving force in bringing about a world run by the few. And the common people are already relegated to a position of cogs in the wheel of society, as opposed to thinking for themselves and taking control of their own lives. This phenomenon must change in order for freedom to survive, and a reversal of the power structure must be forthcoming, if Americans are once again to control their own destiny.

The Best of Gary D. Barnett

Gary D. Barnett [send him mail] is a retired investment professional living and writing in Lewistown, Montana. Visit his website.

This United States has been the most deadly warmongering nation in the history of mankind

Why Oppose War?

War is the greatest plague that can afflict humanity, it destroys religion, it destroys states, it destroys families. Any scourge is preferable to it. ~ Martin Luther

How could any decent human being not oppose war? War is the scourge of mankind, it is the destroyer of entire civilizations, and if taken to the ultimate test, will be the destroyer of all living things on earth. The logic of this statement is not accepted by those who foment and prosecute war, and it is not understood by the masses of common people that support the aggressor state due to false patriotism and statolatry. The worship of the state in this country has reached levels that are beyond the bounds of sanity, and this could lead to a perilous end.

I have struggled all my life to understand the human desire to support war and country. I have always wondered how anyone could support the maiming, torture, displacement, and total destruction of war, where millions of innocent men, women, and children are slaughtered, and their homelands laid to waste. Why do I abhor war when so many others do not? Why does it sicken me, but drive the masses to a religious fervor of national pride? How can the lives of so many be disregarded, and mass killing be ignored or seen as glorious? This is a human flaw that is not only unconscionable, but impossible for me to understand.

This United States has been the most deadly warmongering nation in the history of mankind, and even in its short existence of 243 years, America has been at war over 93% of the time.  That is 226 years of war out of 243. This statistic is staggering, especially considering that virtually all U.S. wars, domestic and foreign, have been wars of aggression, and never for actual defense. This alone is reason for condemnation of the state, and reason for the American populace to finally awaken to the truth that this country is the world’s greatest terrorist threat to mankind.

The U.S. has 800 military bases in over 70 countries outside U.S. borders. An empire of this magnitude dwarfs all other countries. America’s so-called greatest enemies, Russia, China, Iran, and North Korea, have bases in just 12 countries combined. Other than former Soviet provinces, Russia has bases in just 3 other countries, China in 5, Iran in 4, and North Korea has none. Most all of these country’s foreign bases are located in neighboring regions. The U.S has encircled Iran with 45 bases, and along with NATO is also positioned around Russia’s border. And of course, the U.S. has a major military presence on North Korea’s border as well, and has since it invaded North Korea 69 years ago. Obviously, the only country today that is a deadly world threat is the United States, and other than a few allies, almost no country is safe from possible or probable U.S. aggression.

The reality of the costs of war are not limited to life and limb, but also adversely affect every aspect of economics, commerce, basic moral and psychological foundations, and liberty. War allows for the powerful to gain more control, and for the government to expand its reach. War supporters and media perpetuate lies, propaganda, and nationalism that are used as excuses by the general population to falsely demonize all other cultures that are in the crosshairs of the U.S. hegemonic state.

The costs of war are deep-seated and long-lasting, and the scars of conflict remain permanently embedded in the minds and souls of the innocent victims. Even as the pain subsides, the anger continues to fester long after the aggression has quieted. The result is a continued risk of blowback that can escalate into even more war. This vicious cycle leads to never-ending war, and that is what is sought by the warmongers and war profiteers, and those ruling elites seeking to eliminate individual sovereignty in order to gain global societal control.

War is madness, but it is madness that is purposely planned and designed. It is not random, it is not legitimate; it is simply an elaborate plot meant to achieve a desired end for those holding the strings. Those are the very rich ruling elites, the banking magnates and powerful corporate heads that control the money and the politicians. They have self-motivated objectives that are never in the interest of the people at large. Due to their powerful influence of the Federal Reserve Banks, they hold a monopoly on all money production, and therefore have control of the entire monetary policy of the U.S. They also control the political class, those pawns elected under the guise of democracy who falsely claim to represent the common man. In reality, they are no more than puppets in this game of power.

What this means is that the very few control the many. Since only a limited number of elites are in control, large numbers of people have a great advantage. Using this advantage to oust the current power structure has not been evident in the past, but it must be in the future if peace and sanity are to win the day. Political remedies are worthless at this juncture in my opinion, but all out anarchy is not the only answer to throwing off the chains of this powerful elite. But banding together in solidarity to stop the rampant tyranny in place today is necessary. A mass resistance will favor the people, and cause a change of course. Demanding the abolishment of the Federal Reserve will cut off the head of the snake, and shut down the war machine. This will force the political class to take notice, and will strike fear in the hearts of all who resist a peaceful path.

So why oppose war? War is maiming and killing. War brings starvation and poverty. War destroys economies. War breeds hate and division. War destroys families, and orphans children. War is terror and fear. War is immoral. War is evil.

“Peace is the only battle worth waging.” ~ Albert Camus

The Best of Gary D. Barnett