
U.S. Army Techniques Publication 3-39.33: Civil Disturbances - taivare
https://publicintelligence.net/usarmy-civil-disturbances/
======
gulfie
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
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

~~~
saeranv
Agreed. I'm also taken aback by the recordings of unprovoked hostility from
the cops. To reporters, mind you. If this is how they are acting towards the
media, how badly are they treating the minorities in their communities who
have little to no power to fight back?

Keep in mind: the standard for justifying the use of lethal force for a cop is
whether the officer had reasonable belief that he/she was protecting himself
or others from serious injury at that moment. The scope is narrow - it does
not take into account if the cop provoked the fight in the first place.

~~~
ianstallings
They're fearful, the cops. Not excusing it but this is not only the community
lashing out at their lack of power, but the authority lashing out at the same.
I don't want to psychoanalyze this but I think the whole thing is part of a
bigger picture where authority in America is trying to maintain control of a
public that is, according to almost any poll you find, is seriously
disillusioned with their leadership. And they react with the _deft touch_ of
your typical large institution.

~~~
saeranv
I think they are fearful and it must be stressful to have to do an admittedly
dangerous job under immense public scrutiny, media attention, and the
disillusionment of their communities they're supposed to serve.

But Ferguson's disillusionment is not an abstract dislike of authority, it can
be concretely traced back to its history. When we talk of disillusionment we
need to talk about years of police abuse and mistreatment of citizens: racial
profiling, trivial arrests and police brutality. And they continue to justify
the community's scepticism by withholding information (the officer's name),
clumsy attempts to manipulate the narrative (the unrelated story of the
robbery) and attempting to shut down the media.

Not all cops are bad, but it whatever institutional policies exist to hold
cops accountable is non-existent; they haven't earned the community's trust.

~~~
TheOverSleeper
This is another reason to standardize police forces. Allowing counties to
determine whether their units have to be monitored by dash cams/personal cams
is a mistake. We need a more unified police.

------
Elrac
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
> 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
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.

------
trhway
>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
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.

~~~
Spooky23
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.

~~~
justizin
"if you roll out soldiers to address a civil disturbance, you need to figure
out what they are going to do."

One of the interesting things I learned participating in a number of protests
in recent years surrounded by veterans is that they were shocked at the local
PD's willingness to violate basic human rights in ways that they'd never have
been allowed in the Army / Marines / etc..

One of the concerns I discussed with a friend this weekend regarding the
current / recent situation in Ferguson is that police with military equipment
are doing things that are simply not acceptable for soldiers at war, such as
outright pointing their weapons into a crowd in order to get people's
attention, as well as the unchecked use of teargas which I also saw in
Oakland.

I don't look forward to encountering any group of soldiers in a demonstration,
nor do I doubt the Army has policies that are frightening, but one of the most
frightening things about the militarization of police is that police are
civilians who do not answer to the Uniform Code of Military Justice, nor do
they require proper training on how to interact with the public as military.
Many of them are vets, but not all of them had such duties while in the
service.

This is why you often hear the perception that these police are 'dressed up to
play soldier' because as horrifying as it is that a city would send soldiers
in to repress its' citizens, it's an order of magnitude worse because they
aren't trained to have any restraint and the protest they are policing is
_directly_ against them and their presence in the area.

~~~
click170
John Oliver touched on this in his recent segment.

The Army, is given training in Escalation Of Force. The police, who are being
given all these toys because terrorists and drugs, do not have that training.

This is why you hear about the police shooting and killing unarmed civilians,
deploying teargas in residential areas, and walking around pointing their
weapons at people instead of the ground.

Frankly they shouldn't have that gear at all, but if you're going to give it
to them at least train them properly with it first.

~~~
justizin
"Frankly they shouldn't have that gear at all, but if you're going to give it
to them at least train them properly with it first."

Absolutely 1000% what I was trying to get across.

I don't want to see the national guard in my neighborhood, but I would rather
see them than the Alameda County Sheriffs or CHP armed with the national
guard's equipment.

