the notorious Field Manual FM 30-31B

Kurt

Kurt

Junior Member
The issue about Libya and Syria on sinodefence http://www.sinodefenceforum.com/world-armed-forces/syria-shoots-down-turkish-fighter-jet-4-6043.html reminded me about the notorious
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
.

The document has a timing and intriguing story, so kernel of truth and forgery will be hard to discern.
The idea that certain acts can have major effects on directions taken by larger human groups is something a lot of people strife for - like
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
's environmental (and promotional) campaign concept called "mindbomb" (his books are slightly confusing). Looking at better known experiences from the Cold War times, such as
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
, there might be some truth to the kernel of ruthless methods for certain ends in these days. At least some acts of violence have throughout history always been perceived by some actors to serve that accomplishment (murder of certain people like
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
or
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
), but did they?

By clever enactment of communications, you should be able to create a make believe reality for at least some people (the basic of many small
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
s, no insult to any religion, but some people misuse that disguise for personal gains as founders of something). I don't think this is in any way limited to the West, they have just the best communication tools on "reality = truth" of whatever happens anywhere (including
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
es). It's more about knowing and supporting or not what some locals already want to do. The field manual in a way says these are local affairs, but the US-led group has to remind the locals by a range of measures considered available to make more desired progress with some issues.

So what do we know about this mysterious manual and is there any other discernable verified military/intelligence approach to this difficult topic (that can easily become a flame war threat, so please, keep your cool)?
 
Last edited:
J

jackliu

Banned Idiot
Why does US even want Syria's regime change? I mean, the Islamist will just take over after they are gone, what is the point?
 
plawolf

plawolf

Lieutenant General
jackliu said:
Why does US even want Syria's regime change? I mean, the Islamist will just take over after they are gone, what is the point?
Click to expand...

The hawks in the US pushing for regime change in Syria sees it as a vassal of Iran. If the US and Friends attack Iran, by say launching air strikes against suspected Iranian nuclear facilities, it is feared that Iran would ise Syria as a base to launch counter attacks against Israel.

Thus, instigating regime change in Syria could be seen as paving the way for an eventual strike against Iran.
 
J

jackliu

Banned Idiot
plawolf said:
The hawks in the US pushing for regime change in Syria sees it as a vassal of Iran. If the US and Friends attack Iran, by say launching air strikes against suspected Iranian nuclear facilities, it is feared that Iran would ise Syria as a base to launch counter attacks against Israel.

Thus, instigating regime change in Syria could be seen as paving the way for an eventual strike against Iran.
Click to expand...

Why do they want to attack Iran? I mean, there is no way they actually want to occupy it, they can destroy Iran's conventional military, but then what? Iran can just rebuild and hate the West more than ever. Where is the final goal in all of this?
 
V

victtodd

New Member
jackliu said:
Why do they want to attack Iran? I mean, there is no way they actually want to occupy it, they can destroy Iran's conventional military, but then what? Iran can just rebuild and hate the West more than ever. Where is the final goal in all of this?
Click to expand...
If US and Isreal ever attack Iran, they definitely would not content themselves to merely cripple Iran's military apparatus, but try to prop up a pro-western gov, like what has been tried more than half a century ago
 
J

jackliu

Banned Idiot
victtodd said:
If US and Isreal ever attack Iran, they definitely would not content themselves to merely cripple Iran's military apparatus, but try to prop up a pro-western gov, like what has been tried more than half a century ago
Click to expand...

I don't think that will work, although Iran government is not popular, but every faction inside Iran hates the US equally. And just like you said, they already did it in 50 years ago, it is doubtful they can do it again. Unless they want another Iraq.
 
D

delft

Brigadier
jackliu said:
I don't think that will work, although Iran government is not popular, but every faction inside Iran hates the US equally. And just like you said, they already did it in 50 years ago, it is doubtful they can do it again. Unless they want another Iraq.
Click to expand...
They were successful from 1953 to 1979 in Iran, from 1973 to 1990 in Chili ( Pinochet ). In 1948 they installed the murderous dictator Syngman Rhee as president of South Korea. He remained president until 1960 and was followed by a succession of military dictators ( while the US President was commander-in-chief of the South Korean army ) until South Korea started to move in the direction of parliamentary democracy in the later '80's. These are just a few examples. They have often been successful, but less so recently. We think of Iraq and Afghanistan. But hope springs eternal.

I have to declare an interest. After WWII The Netherlands were greatly damaged, although less than many other European countries. Its government decided that the Dutch colony in South East Asia would have to be exploited to pay for the repairs. That colony had just declared itself independent under the name Indonesia, on August 17 1945. The Netherlands sent army of about 1000000 man in 1946 for "police action" to "restore order". In 1949 it had to accept that this had been entirely unsuccessful, as well as very expensive, but it took nearly another half century before the then Dutch government accepted that Indonesia had become independent in 1945, not 1949.
In the mean time the Dutch government had sold Dutch independence for Marshall aid to pay for reconstruction and the country became a member of NATO and sent forces to Korea to protect Syngman Rhee when North Korea tried to reunite the country in a move that reminds one of 1861-1865.
I prefer countries to be independent and I would have them cooperate to maintain that independence as described in the Charter of the United Nations.
I ask forgiveness for writing this piece that has become somewhat political.
 
J

jackliu

Banned Idiot
delft said:
They were successful from 1953 to 1979 in Iran, from 1973 to 1990 in Chili ( Pinochet ). In 1948 they installed the murderous dictator Syngman Rhee as president of South Korea. He remained president until 1960 and was followed by a succession of military dictators ( while the US President was commander-in-chief of the South Korean army ) until South Korea started to move in the direction of parliamentary democracy in the later '80's. These are just a few examples. They have often been successful, but less so recently. We think of Iraq and Afghanistan. But hope springs eternal.

I have to declare an interest. After WWII The Netherlands were greatly damaged, although less than many other European countries. Its government decided that the Dutch colony in South East Asia would have to be exploited to pay for the repairs. That colony had just declared itself independent under the name Indonesia, on August 17 1945. The Netherlands sent army of about 1000000 man in 1946 for "police action" to "restore order". In 1949 it had to accept that this had been entirely unsuccessful, as well as very expensive, but it took nearly another half century before the then Dutch government accepted that Indonesia had become independent in 1945, not 1949.
In the mean time the Dutch government had sold Dutch independence for Marshall aid to pay for reconstruction and the country became a member of NATO and sent forces to Korea to protect Syngman Rhee when North Korea tried to reunite the country in a move that reminds one of 1861-1865.
I prefer countries to be independent and I would have them cooperate to maintain that independence as described in the Charter of the United Nations.
I ask forgiveness for writing this piece that has become somewhat political.
Click to expand...

I know all the history lesson, but like I said, this time, it is not likely they can find a friendly regime. Every faction inside Iran pretty much hates US. And for what happened in the past, it will not be easy for them to put in another puppet.

So what is the point of all this?
 
escobar

escobar

Brigadier
jackliu said:
I know all the history lesson, but like I said, this time, it is not likely they can find a friendly regime. Every faction inside Iran pretty much hates US. And for what happened in the past, it will not be easy for them to put in another puppet.
So what is the point of all this?
Click to expand...

If they manage to change the regime are you sure some of those US-hating factions will not start "loving" the US?
Even if they don't find a faction to do the job isn't that a problem? All they have to do is to create one. Not a big deal.
 
J

jackliu

Banned Idiot
escobar said:
If they manage to change the regime are you sure some of those US-hating factions will not start "loving" the US?
Even if they don't find a faction to do the job isn't that a problem? All they have to do is to create one. Not a big deal.
Click to expand...

By this logic, anything that can happen might happen, but judging from current event in Iran and judging from history, the chance of this happening is very small. And I don't think US will plan to invade Iran base on this.

It seems no one have any good ideas to why, so I'm going to stop asking.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top