
Who Are We at War With? That’s Classified - nodata
http://www.propublica.org/article/who-are-we-at-war-with-thats-classified
======
zeteo
My favorite analogy for US security policy during the past two decades is a
huge allergic reaction. It seems quite likely that allergies are caused by the
immune system lacking antagonists and instead latching onto factors that are
not real threats [1]. Similarly, the early '90s saw serious reductions in
objective threats that US security was organized to deal with, internal (a
sustained decline in crime [2]) and external (the disappearance of a second
superpower). The resulting reaction is... what else if not allergic? Police is
more militarized than ever and drives tanks into the living rooms of
nonviolent offenders. The military's budget is unprecedentedly large and it
hunts down shepherds in the Afghan hills at a cost of hundreds of thousands of
dollars per kill. Any claim that such threats are comparable with those that
were adequately met in the '80s (crack epidemic, nuclear-tipped ICBMs etc.) is
nothing short of risible. Yet the response is, if anything, even more
aggressive than it was back then.

[1]
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hygiene_hypothesis](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hygiene_hypothesis)

[2]
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crime_in_the_United_States#Crim...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crime_in_the_United_States#Crime_over_time)

~~~
Sven7
It we accept this analogy, the question that arises is - if nature hasn't
figured out how to eliminate allergies over millions of years of evolution,
what magic do we expect a government to perform?

~~~
Amadou
Not everyone is susceptible to allergic reactions. Without modern medicine,
the people who are susceptible tend to die relatively quickly. Seems like the
analogy leads to the decline of the united states and the rise of some other
country that doesn't suffer from this particular affliction. They will
probably have other problems though.

~~~
gcb0
So the corrupt govt challenge is to be a benign allergy?

------
dictum
"Our war on terror begins with Al Qaeda, but it does not end there. It will
not end until every terrorist group of global reach has been found, stopped,
and defeated."

[http://middleeast.about.com/od/usmideastpolicy/a/bush-war-
on...](http://middleeast.about.com/od/usmideastpolicy/a/bush-war-on-terror-
speech_2.htm)

The War on Terror is a perpetual war by design.

~~~
northwest
Best business model ever.

------
DanielBMarkham
The AUMF needs to be sunsetted. Heck, if necessary, pass a resolution/law that
congratulates everybody on a job well-done and declares victory. Whatever it
takes.

A state of war is a temporary thing in a democracy. It has to be. Otherwise
the natural tendency of the executive to overreach will be completely
unchecked.

I suggest that the job we're doing now is much more like "global policeman",
including using lethal SWAT forces, than being in a war. I think such a role
is necessary, and I also think that there's no way in hell all the nations of
the world are going to overtly agree to this. (Although I suspect a majority
are very happy having the yanks clean up the nuts using Predators as long as
the PR isn't too bad. Even better, they can support various strikes and
options with their intelligence services while publicly railing against the
Evil Empire. A lot of foreign political leaders have been playing this game
long before 9-11.)

That's a fine and dandy pickle for the world, and I have sympathy for the
problem of crazy people wanting to come and hurt civilians in order to affect
political change. The problem is, democracies can't be in a state of war for
decades. Even assuming that all of the threats are clear and present.

We need a way out of this, and pronto. This is a structural problem for the
U.S. that is much worse than slavery ever was. Here's hoping the light will
come on for the voting public and they'll start pressuring their elected
representatives to do their damned jobs and stop spending so much time
politically posturing and positioning their party for the next election.

~~~
northwest
> We need a way out of this, and pronto. This is a structural problem for the
> U.S. that is much worse than slavery ever was.

Absolutely. And to find a way out of this, you first need to completely take
the money out of politics - radically, entirely.

I see the corruption of Washington (and then: democracy) via money as the
_core_ problem, in the US.

~~~
DanielBMarkham
Politics is about votes, not money.

You can get votes by promising free chickens in every pot. You can get votes
by bringing a big defense contract into an area. Politicians get elected by
votes, and the political system runs on votes.

Yes, money is used to fight the battle. But focusing on the money is idiotic.
Money is a completely secondary factor. It's main modern use (I speak of
direct contributions, not the sweetheart deals to relatives that really is at
the heart of corruption) is to attack the opponent's base and prevent them
from turning out to vote.

Also, political power is much more important than money. Being able to launch
a Predator strike trumps any amount of campaign contributions.

This focus on money has to stop. It's like saying businesses are all about
making money. It's not that it's a false statement -- it's that it misses the
point entirely of what's going on. Business provide value by giving folks
stuff they want. Money is a secondary way to keep score. Political power is
accumulated by votes. If you can gain a thousand votes by simply making a
speech, much better than throwing money at folks. It's an easy win. Focusing
on money ignores the entirety of what's really going on.

You want a really corrupt system, start overengineering the money side.

~~~
northwest
Ok, we disagree.

But, as an example, I'd just like to mention the obscene amounts of money
being wasted during presidential elections. Why should candidates be allowed
to be able to get more votes because they spend more money because they
literally got paid/owned by some private interests/ultra-rich people? It's
just plain stupidity. How can we allow that?

We're technically not exactly there yet, b/c not every household has an
Internet connection yet, but why shouldn't the goal be this:

Set up just 1 website where all political parties can express their positions.
And let that be the _only_ allowed form of communication with the voter.

It's a sane _pull_ versus an insane _push_ approach.

And it would take _a lot_ of money out of politics, which can then be spent
for intelligent things like research, for example.

~~~
unethical_ban
Just to be clear: northwest is for the repeal of the 1st amendment.

OK, so candidates can only use one site. Then "Friends of Candidate" will set
up a site, or some random blogger with a million followers will set up a
website. There is no stopping the message, or the money. The voting system
needs to change, among other things. the government should also do less, so
there is less power to be had at the top.

~~~
northwest
> Just to be clear: northwest is for the repeal of the 1st amendment.

I am certainly not against _any_ part of the constitution!

> OK, so candidates can only use one site. Then "Friends of Candidate" will
> set up a site, or some random blogger with a million followers will set up a
> website.

Of course that is and should be possible, because it is free speech!

The thing is: it should be made illegal to _advertise_ such a blog with money.
Of course there will still the possibility of abuse, but that is the case with
_any_ other law.

Doing what I propose would make a _huge_ difference in the money-based
corruption of the entire system.

------
northwest
War

-> Creates new enemies
    
    
       -> More war needed to kill them (feed military budget)
    
          -> Creates new enemies
    
             -> More war needed to kill them (feed military budget)
    
                -> You get the idea...
    
    

To keep the cash cow going, keep it all secret (or at least very
nontransparent).

~~~
ballard
I think there are two issues in this:

    
    
      0. Where is the money going?
      1. Are foreign and domestic policies using tactics that a civil society should use?
    

Often, in positions of power where secrecy is used to hoard information as a
form of job security, what happens is that any challenging argument becomes
the secret-keeper protrarys themselves as having more intelligence than any
critic, so the challenger always appears misinformed.

------
hoggle
Well this comes to mind, the US economical dependence on military and war:

"This is a very significant power group. And it is a power group that is not
just at the top of the White House. It is not just a few generals. Rather it
is all the people connected to and profiting from that system. _And that 's
about a third of the US population._ So all the way from Chelsea Clinton down
to the someone in the gutters of San Antonio whose brother is deployed in
Iraq."

[http://wikileaks.org/Transcript-Meeting-Assange-
Schmidt.html...](http://wikileaks.org/Transcript-Meeting-Assange-
Schmidt.html#1318)

------
grannyg00se
"the U.S. is at war with “Al Qaeda, the Taliban, and their associated forces.”
So who exactly are those associated forces? It’s a secret. "

It's not a secret at all. They've demonstrated it in the past. Based on
observation, "associated forces" can be defined as "anybody who has some
connection to". There is no definitive answer because it changes constantly
and there is no need to provide justification anyway. War is being fought by
the government, for the government. Your civilian inquiries are not welcome.

------
dschiptsov
Eastasia or Oceania - just flip a coin.)

In Russia we used to call them "the enemies of the people" and, of course,
they were among us and everyone could be marked as such just by a gossip or
finger-pointing by a neighbor.)

------
_hgt1
I thought it was Eurasia?

~~~
fnordfnordfnord
We've always been at war with Eastasia.

~~~
coldcode
Doubleplusgood.

------
jchimney
very impressive how prescient george orwell was; impressive but of little
consolation. I'm a big fan of technology; but i hope that technology wasn't
the missing something that previous governments lacked to be able to enforce
their authoritarianism.

~~~
scoofy
This is Huxley's future not Orwell's. It's not that "the people" can't change
society, they just don't want to think about it and would rather watch
television, whether that be sports, sitcoms, or infotainment.

~~~
icebraining
That was true of Orwell's future as well - the Proles, which composed 80%+ of
the population, weren't spied upon at nearly the same level as the Party
members, they were just too poorly educated and content with the status quo as
long as they were fed meaningless entertainment created by Party machines.

~~~
rbanffy
Huxley does not exclude Orwell. What we have is a Huxley layer over an Orwell
core. People don't care enough to change, but, when they do, governments know
and can act swiftly and forcefully.

~~~
betterunix
We have neither Huxley's world nor Orwell's. In Huxley's version we would
exile free thinkers; the US government never exiles people (with so much
invested in the prison industry, how could we?). In Orwell's version, free
thinkers would be tortured until they either die or learn to love the system.
The US government just marginalizes free thinkers, allowing them to continue
to live and work in our society (with the exception of whistleblowers) but
ensuring that they never find themselves in a position to change anything.

The common theme in dystopia is that free thinkers are ignored by the rest of
society, which is either apathetic or too brainwashed. We are certainly at
that point, but neither Brave New World nor 1984 accurately describe what
America is becoming.

~~~
tiglionabbit
Never exiles people? What about Snowden?

~~~
betterunix
He has not been exiled by the US government, he is in a self-imposed exile. In
fact the US government has been doing everything in their power to get him
back to this country, so that he can be thrown in prison as punishment for
being a whistleblower.

------
stfu
Guys come one. Have a little patience! Building up the China thing is going to
take a few more years. Until then we need to keep the military complex busy
with some extended theater of war games.

------
ihsw
The problem with the US Government is that they try so hard to garner support
from everybody, which leads to situations where the left hand doesn't know
what the right hand is doing. With all the wheeling and dealing going on,
allies turn to opponents where convenient (and vice versa).

Today we're helping a certain group of people, tomorrow we're bombing the shit
out of them. Why?

> it would be difficult for the Congress to get involved in trying to track
> the designation of which are the affiliate forces

Translation: when their usefulness ends then we stop supporting them, at which
point they turn against us. This happens so frequently that monthly briefings
would be a pointless formality.

In their effort to _control_ everybody, more spitefully slip through their
fingers.

~~~
macspoofing
>The problem with the US Government is that they try so hard to garner support
from everybody

Do they really?

~~~
br78
Yes. Through aid and arms deals, through influence and promises of corporate
investment, through manipulation of political systems and propaganda.

------
MichaelMoser123
The list of the usual suspects in 'Round up the usual suspects'. This is not
something that they would not like to specify further.

It might have something to do with 'Continuity of governance' plans; those
plans may have detailed lists of 'internal enemies'; those are supposed to be
round up in times of emergencies (like supposed leaders of 'occupy' or
something)

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Continuity_of_Operations_Plan](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Continuity_of_Operations_Plan)
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rex_84](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rex_84)

------
conradfr
Al Qaeda may not even exists anymore.

~~~
aunty_helen
Al Qaeda may not even exist. FTFY

------
ballard
Interviewer: Is the government winning the battle against terrorists?

Helpmann: Ah, yes. We're fielding all their strokes, running all of them out.
We're consistently knocking them for six. I'd say they're nearly out of the
game.

Interviewer: But, Mr. Helpmann, the bombing campaign is now in its 13 th year.

Helpmann: Beginners' luck.

------
md224
I think their reasoning for withholding a list of names of Al Qaeda affiliates
is a bit weak, but I can still see how it might make sense. After all, we're
fighting for transparency because we know information can be powerful, but
that power is not always a positive force. Information can aid in
organization, and we do have an interest in keeping our enemies disorganized.

The real question is, do other comprehensive lists of Al Qaeda affiliates
exist? If so, then releasing this list would probably not substantially
increase the information currently out there.

~~~
unclebucknasty
> _I can still see how it might make sense._

Yeah, but as the good professor stated in the article, we are already dropping
bombs on their heads, so they are pretty much aware that we know who they are
(paraphrasing).

~~~
md224
Yes, members of the Al Qaeda affiliates know that we know who they are. But do
potential sympathizers know who the Al Qaeda affiliates are?

~~~
unclebucknasty
I don't know that it matters. When you think about it, it's actually kind of a
silly notion that we don't name them because we don't want to give them free
advertising.

Like there are a bunch of guys itching to participate in jihad and strap
themselves up as suicide bombers, but just can't figure out where to sign up?

I think that's unlikely. And, I would agree with the professor's other point
that the bigger risk is these secret wars and the fact that Americans don't
know what's being done in our names. That's extraordinarily detrimental to a
democracy, to say the least.

------
rb2e
I thought congress had to make a formal "declaration of war", so how could it
be classified?

Perhaps I live in this fantasy land where little things like the law and
constitution are ignored by those in power.

~~~
Spooky23
Congressmen on select committees have clearance, but cannot tell you what they
know.

Basically, the Congress had ceded it's ability to approve/disapprove warlike
action to the executive. They retain the power of the purse, but it is
difficult to be in a position politically where you are "cutting off support"
for "the troops".

That's also a key reason why we had the "support the troops" propaganda. Even
if you were against the war, how can you be against your neighbor's sons and
daughters?

~~~
gizmo686
>Congressmen on select committees have clearance, but cannot tell you what
they know.

This isn't exactly true. Congressmen have an explicit Constitutional
protection for anything they say in the House. This was most famauslly used by
Senator Mike Gravel to leak the Pentagon Papers, and set the precedent of
Gravel v. United States that doing so is legal.

In reality, attempting to do so would cost significant political capitol, and
will likely make it difficult for the Congressmen to get onto such committees
in the future.

------
coldcode
Then I wonder if the knowledge of something being classified is itself
classified? Would that not be an infinite recursion?

------
visarga
The associated forces are the internet activists probably. That's why they
monitor our moves.

------
pcvarmint
China: [http://www.paulcraigroberts.org/2013/07/24/the-two-faux-
demo...](http://www.paulcraigroberts.org/2013/07/24/the-two-faux-democracies-
threaten-life-on-earth-paul-craig-roberts/)

------
RyanMcGreal
We are at war with [REDACTED]. We have always been at war with [REDACTED].

