“美国发动非常规战的意图在于，通过发展和维持抵抗力量，乘机利用敌国在政治、军事、经济以及心理上的弱点，完成美国的战略目标……在可预见的未来，美军将主要从事非常规战。”
这就是2010年《美国陆军特种部队非常规战手册》(TC 18-01)的开头。该手册是一份暂行出版物，用以解决非常规战的定义问题，及其学说中存在的其他一些前后矛盾的问题。新的非常规战文件(ATP 3-05.1)尚为初期草案，还无法获取，不过，有消息称，该文件可能和TC 18-01手册大体相同。
但是，我们大多数人都无缘翻阅这份真实揭秘美国是如何发动肮脏战争的计划蓝图。这些秘密战争既没有经过国会的批准，也没有获得那些因手册指令而受害的目标国人民的同意。
该文件引用1962年约翰•肯尼迪总统的讲话作为开头。这短短的几行字便阐明了华盛顿的核心理念，即美国军队有权进行破坏稳定、渗透、暗杀以及颠覆的行动——这一切完全服从于那些有待商榷的外交政策目的，毫不考虑主权国家是否有作战准备，或是否有改变意愿：
“存在着另外一种战争，它具有全新的战争强度，但实际上古已有之，那就是通过游击队、颠覆和叛乱分子以及刺客进行作战;以埋伏代替搏斗，以渗透代替侵略;以削弱和疲惫敌人代替同敌人直接交战，以此寻求战争胜利。总之，以乱取胜。”
目标：中东
布什主义确立了一条原则，即对将来有一天可能威胁到美国利益的国家先发制人的原则，由此，为非常规战主流化铺平了道路。对于如何评估这些威胁，布什主义并未提供任何特定的标准，也没有试图去解释为什么美国之外的其他国家应该为美国“利益”负责——无论是商业利益、安全利益还是政治利益。
布什主义基本上没有引起过争议。在过去十年里，它给中东地区带来了灾难性后果，因而气数已尽。非常规战的主要目标传统上一直是反对美国在中东地区称霸的国家和团体——主要是抵抗轴心(Resistance Axis)，包括伊朗、叙利亚、真主党和哈马斯——但事实上，任何国家，只要抵抗轴心对其具有一定影响力，都在某种程度上遭遇了美国的非常规战。
非常规战最邪恶的地方——除明显违背了国际法有关主权、领土完整以及人类生命或财产损失等条款外——在于发起富有侵略性的心理攻势，煽动一国民众反对自己的政府。正是在这一点上，非常规战不符合任何一个美国人的价值标准。
2011年发生的阿拉伯之春使这一地区纷争和内部混乱之中，这为美国加强在“敌对”国的非常规战提供了绝佳机会，而毫不在乎这些国家的民众是否想要寻求政权更迭。伊朗、叙利亚和利比亚就是最好的例子——他们去年都是非常规战的目标，只是遭到渗透的程度不同，造成的结果也有显著差异。
以下取自《特种部队非常规战手册》，其展示了作战初期的行动范畴：
1. 游击活动
开展大规模的游击活动
开展小规模的游击活动
2. 准备抵抗骨干、动员民众
增加政治暴力事件和阴谋破坏
严重削弱(政府、管理部门、警方和军队的)士气
增加秘密活动以显示抵抗组织的力量和政府的虚弱
向政府公开和秘密施加压力
加强宣传力度;为民众叛乱做好心理准备
扩大阵线组织
建立国家阵线组织和解放运动组织;争取国外的同情者
向国家所有部门扩散颠覆组织
渗透到工会、学生和国家组织及社会各个阶层
雇佣反对派骨干，并组织培训
开展国外组织者和顾问的渗透，及国外宣传、物资、资金、武器以及装备的渗透
增加焦虑、不安和不满情绪;向管理机构、警方、军队以及国家组织进行渗透。组织抵制、怠工抗议和罢工活动
3. 秘密行动
引发骚乱;制造有利的公众舆论(拥护国家事业);制造对现有政府的不信任
通过舆论宣传和政治心理攻势使政府失去信任，从而制造更大范围的不满
挑起对政治、经济、社会、管理及其他条件的不满;煽动民族意气(独立)，或对意识形态及其他方面改变的愿望
按照计划，2月14日本来应在伊朗展开非常规战。但是，在经历2009年伊朗总统选举带来的政权动荡后，伊朗伊斯兰共和国从中吸取了教训，已经有所警惕。
利用社会化媒体来配合伊朗大选后的抗议活动，广泛散布反政府言论，标志着全球互联网革命时代的到来。五角大楼不失时机地称赛博空间是“操作域”，并在去年大幅增加了用于从事网络颠覆活动的预算拨款。
去年7月，美国国防部的技术部门美国国防先进项目研究局(DARPA)宣布推行一项价值4200万美元的计划，以使美国军队能够“进行情报监测、分类、评估以及跟踪，在社会化媒体领域制造并传播思想和理念(文化基因)”。
《连线》杂志将这项计划称为五角大楼的“社会化媒体宣传机器”，因为该计划旨在“侦查对手的情报，阻止其产生影响”。
为了能够“更加灵活地利用支持(军事)行动的信息”，进而“抵御”“不良后果”，该计划将实现自动“识别参与者和意图、评估竞选游说活动的效果”，最后，在必要时候，渗入海外基于社会化媒体的选战活动，并改变活动方向。
在伊朗的非常规战行动似乎或多或少还停留在技术破坏、社交化媒体的渗透和暗杀行动上。利比亚则处在另一个极端——下面给出了非常规战手册针对利比亚的行动方案：
第一阶段：准备
反对派和外国赞助商实施心理攻势，将反对现行政府或占领国的群体团结起来，使其做好准备，接受美国的支持。
第二阶段：初步接触
美国政府(USG)机构协调流亡政府同盟或反对派领导层，提供其所需的美国支持。
第三阶段：渗透
派出特种部队渗入目标地区，与其基地建立联系，并和反对派进行接触。
第四阶段：组织
特种部队组织、训练反对派骨干，并为其提供装备，重点是发展秘密机构。
第五阶段：积聚力量
特种部队协助骨干发展影响力大的抵抗组织，可执行少量战斗行动，但重点仍是积聚力量。
第六阶段：行动
非常规部队执行战斗行动，直到与常规部队结合或战事平息。
第七阶段：过渡
非常规部队或收归国家控制，或转变为常规部队，亦或遣散。
当然，针对利比亚采取的方案还稍有不同，因为它是以北约作为掩饰，美国军队在背后指挥。此外，这次大规模非常规战行动取得成功，更多依靠的不是地面作战，而是空中掩护和利比亚叛军大部分进攻的情报共享。
目标：在叙利亚发动政变
非常规战的叙利亚模式将会是伊朗和利比亚两者的结合。由于一份2006年维基解密电报揭密了叙利亚总统巴沙尔•阿萨德的国内声望和实力，非常规战将必然需要以一些颠覆民众观念的活动开始，才能逐渐转变为“利比亚模式”。
正如维基解密电报建议的那样，要抓住“机会”适时曝光叙利亚政权的弱点，制造教派或民族分裂，挑起军事或安全机构内部不和，造成经济困难，非常规战也指示特种部队要“发掘敌国在政治、军事、经济以及心理上的弱点”。
叙利亚的人群特征在非常规战手册中被如此描述：“在几乎所有情形下，抵抗运动都要面对一小群积极支持政府的人，和同样一小群支持抵抗运动的激进派。抵抗若想取得成功，必须争取中立的中间群体……使其接受反对派为合法组织。被动群体有时候恰恰是在获得有力支持的叛乱中夺取政权的关键。”
要将“中间群体”转变为叛乱的支持者，非常规战建议，“通过舆论宣传和政治心理攻势使政府失去信任，从而制造更大范围的不满”。
随着冲突升级，“宣传力度，煽动人群叛乱的心理攻势”也应加强。
首先，要制造地区性甚至全国性的“骚乱”——组织抵制、罢工以及其他煽动不满情绪的活动。接着，“展开国外组织者和顾问的渗透，以及国外宣传、物资、资金、武器及装备的渗透”。
下一步行动将是，建立“国民阵线组织(即叙利亚全国委员会)和解放运动组织(即叙利亚自由军)”，这将使更多的人群接受“日益增加的政治暴力和阴谋破坏”——同时鼓励指导个人或团体在市中心实施破坏行为。”
那么大部分中立人群(表面上是爱好和平的)对反对派带来的暴力将会作何反应呢?非常规战手册告诉我们操纵方法很简单：
“如果目标政府发动反击，那么反对派就可以强调反对派作为“民众“代表所做出的牺牲和遇到的困难，乘机利用负面结果来博取更多人的同情和支持。如果目标政府反击无效或没有出现反击，那么反对派就可以以此为依据，证明自己有能力对抗和战胜敌人。此外，反对派还可以回敬敌人，将其描绘成“无能”和“勉强”的形象，从而使敌军士气低落，萌生必败的想法。”
诸如此类。
布什主义如今在巴拉克•奥巴马总统的统治下换上了新的“外衣”。然而，无论是在近期新成立的“防暴委员会(Atrocity Prevention Board)”的指导下，还是以“人道主义干预”作为幌子，其目的始终没有改变过——破坏他国稳定，以谋求本国政治经济霸权，即“美国利益”。
当阿拉伯各国政府大喊“外国阴谋”时，无论政府领导人受欢迎与否，他们的判断无疑是正确的。事实上，在主要的阿拉伯国家里，从听起来无伤大雅的“民间团体”，到美国资助的非政府组织(NGOs)，再从军事或情报机构到普通市民的脸谱页面，已经没有什么领域是美国“利益”尚未触碰到的。
《丑陋的美国人》只是变得更加丑陋。在中东地区掀起的这些叛乱中，任何一个阿拉伯人，只要他没有还摆脱被外国渗透的危险，都正在成为针对本国的非常规战的排头兵。
原文链接：
http://globalciviliansforpeace.com/2012/05/28/going-rogue-americas-unconventional-warfare-in-the-mideast/
原文：
Going Rogue: America’s Unconventional Warfare in the Mideast
Posted on May 28, 2012 by globalciviliansforpeace
Al Akbar
By Sharmine Narwani – Fri, 2012-05-25
‘The intent of U.S. [Unconventional Warfare] UW efforts is to exploit a hostile power’s political, military, economic, and psychological vulnerabilities by developing and sustaining resistance forces to accomplish U.S. strategic objectives…For the foreseeable future, U.S. forces will predominantly engage in irregular warfare (IW) operations.‘
So begins the 2010 Unconventional Warfare (UW) Manual of the US Military’s Special Forces. The manual attached here (TC 18-01) is an interim publication, developed to address the definition of Unconventional Warfare and some other inconsistencies in UW Doctrine. The new UW document (ATP 3-05.1) is in the initial draft and not yet available, though sources tell me it is unlikely to differ much from TC 18-01.
But most of us have not had the pleasure of leafing through this truly revelatory blueprint that shows how America wages its dirty wars. These are the secret wars that have neither been approved by Congress, nor by the inhabitants of nations whose lives – if not bodies – are mauled by the directives on these pages.
A quote from President John F. Kennedy in 1962 opens the document. These few lines illustrate a core Washington belief that US forces have the right to destabilize, infiltrate, assassinate, subvert – all in service of questionable foreign policy objectives, with no evident consideration of a sovereign state’s preparedness or desire for change:
There is another type of warfare—new in its intensity, ancient in its origin—war by guerrillas, subversives, insurgents, assassins; war by ambush instead of by combat, by infiltration instead of aggression, seeking victory by eroding and exhausting the enemy instead of engaging him. It preys on unrest.
Target: Middle East
The Bush Doctrine paved the way for the mainstreaming of unconventional warfare by establishing the principle of pre-emptive actions against a state that may one day pose a threat to American interests. It didn’t offer any specific criteria to gauge those threats, nor did it attempt to explain why anyone outside the United States should be held accountable for US “interests” – be they commercial, security or political.
The doctrine went largely unchallenged, and has been played out with disastrous results throughout the Middle East in the past decade. The prime targets of UW have traditionally been nations and groups that oppose US primacy in the region – mainly the Resistance Axis consisting of Iran, Syria, Hezbollah and Hamas – but UW has been carried out to some degree in virtually any nation where this Axis carries some influence.
The most nefarious aspect of UW – aside from the obvious violations of international law pertaining to sovereignty, territorial integrity and loss of human life/property, etc – is the proactive and aggressive effort to psychologically sway a population against its government. It is at this entry point where UW fails every American test of “values.”
The Arab Intifadas of 2011 provided a unique opportunity – amidst regional and sometimes domestic chaos – to ramp up UW activities in “hostile” states, whether or not populations sought regime change. Prime examples are Iran, Syria and Libya – all of which have been UW targets in the past year, at different levels of infiltration and with markedly different results.
Here is a chart from the Special Forces UW manual that demonstrates the scope of activity at the early stages:
February 14 was supposed to be the kick-off in Iran, but the Islamic Republic was already on guard, having gained experience with UW subversion in the aftermath of the 2009 Iranian presidential elections.
The use of social media to coordinate protests and widely disseminate anti-regime narratives in Iran’s post-election period marked a new era in the internet revolution globally. The Pentagon lost no time in claiming cyberspace as an “operational domain” and in the past year has substantially increased its budgetary allocation to subversion activities on the web.
Last July – as I wrote in this article - the technology arm of the Department of Defense, DARPA, announced a $42 million program to enable the U.S. military to “detect, classify, measure and track the formation, development and spread of ideas and concepts (memes)” within social media.
Wired magazine calls the project the Pentagon’s “social media propaganda machine” because of its plans for “counter messaging of detected adversary influence operations.”
In order to “allow more agile use of information in support of [military] operations” and “defend” against “adverse outcomes,” the project will enable the automation of processes to “identify participants and intent, measure effects of persuasion campaigns,” and ultimately, infiltrate and redirect social media-based campaigns overseas, when deemed necessary.
The UW campaign in Iran appears to more or less have faltered at technology sabotage, social media infiltration and assassinations. Libya is at the other extreme – and the following chart gives a bird’s eye view of the UW manual’s playbook for operations of that magnitude.
The Libyan scenario of course was slightly different in that it was conducted under NATO cover, with the US military “leading from behind.” In addition, the large-scale UW operation’s success relied less on ground combat than on air cover and intelligence-sharing for attacks conducted largely by Libyan rebels.
Target: Regime Change in Syria
In Syria, the UW task would have been a mix of the two. Because of the domestic popularity and strength of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad revealed here in a 2006 Wikileaks Cable, UW activities would necessarily need to start with some subversion of the population before graduating to a Libyan-style scenario.
Just as the Wikileaks cable recommends identifying “opportunities” to expose “vulnerabilities” in the Syrian regime and cause sectarian/ethnic division, discord within the military/security apparatus and economic hardship, the UW manual also instructs special forces to “exploit a hostile power’s political, military, economic, and psychological vulnerabilities.”
The Syrian demographic landscape is reflected in the UW manual: “In almost every scenario, resistance movements face a population with an active minority supporting the government and an equally small militant faction supporting the resistance movement. For the resistance to succeed, it must convince the uncommitted middle population…to accept it as a legitimate entity. A passive population is sometimes all a well-supported insurgency needs to seize political power.”
To turn the “uncommitted middle population” into supporting insurgency, UW recommends the “creation of atmosphere of wider discontent through propaganda and political and psychological efforts to discredit the government.”
As conflict escalates, so should the “intensification of propaganda; psychological preparation of the population for rebellion.”
First, there should be local and national “agitation” – the organization of boycotts, strikes, and other efforts to suggest public discontent. Then, the “infiltration of foreign organizers and advisors and foreign propaganda, material, money, weapons and equipment.”
The next level of operations would be to establish “national front organizations [i.e. the Syrian National Council] and liberation movements [i.e. the Free Syrian Army]” that would move larger segments of the population toward accepting “increased political violence and sabotage” – and encourage the mentoring of “individuals or groups that conduct acts of sabotage in urban centers.”
Now, how and why would an uncommitted – and ostensibly peaceful – majority of the population respond to the introduction of violence by opposition groups? The UW manual tells us there is an easy way to spin this one:
If retaliation [by the target government] occurs, the resistance can exploit the negative consequences to garner more sympathy and support from the population by emphasizing the sacrifices and hardship the resistance is enduring on behalf of “the people.” If retaliation is ineffective or does not occur, the resistance can use this as proof of its ability to wage effect combat against the enemy. In addition, the resistance can portray the inability or reluctance of the enemy to retaliate as a weakness, which will demoralize enemy forces and instill a belief in their eventual defeat.
And so on, and so forth.
The Bush Doctrine today has morphed under President Barack Obama into new “packaging.” Whether under the guidance of the recently-created “Atrocity Prevention Board” or trussed up as “humanitarian intervention,” the goals remain the same – destabilization of lives and nations in the service of political and economic domination, i.e., “American interests.”
When Arab governments yell “foreign conspiracy,” whether or not they are popular leaders they are surely right. There are virtually no domains left in key Arab countries – from the innocuous-sounding “civil society” filled to the brim with US-funded NGOs to the military/intelligence apparatuses of these nations to the Facebook pages of ordinary citizens – that are untouched by American “interests.”
The Ugly American just got uglier. And within these intifadas raging in the region, any Arab population that does not shut itself off from this foreign infiltration risks becoming a foot soldier in an unconventional war against themselves.
(《环球视野globalview.cn》第512期)
相关文章
「 支持！」
WYZXWK.COM
您的打赏将用于网站日常运行与维护。
帮助我们办好网站，宣传红色文化！
欢迎扫描下方二维码，订阅网刊微信公众号
