# New Israeli Approach to War?



## Dan Bobbitt (18 Apr 2014)

The high sounding but difficult to discern actual meaning of this new "conceptual-organizational-national revolution combined with technology" (whatever the heck that means) seems awfully reminiscent of Shimon Naveh's equally opaque theory on systemic operational design and how that approach would revolutionize warfare...didn't work out to well in '06 against a hybrid Hezbollah threat. Some useful nuggets in here though on emphasizing small, agile forces capable of dynamic independent action. Tough part is putting it onto action. Worth a read and some thought.

http://www.timesofisrael.com/controversial-brilliant-general-calls-for-new-approach-to-war/


----------



## Kirkhill (19 Apr 2014)

> *staffed by intelligence officers and Special Forces personnel, which would operate beyond the ordinary bounds of both expectation and the regular rules of war*.
> 
> Referencing Nassim Taleb’s black swan theory — which depicts the drastic effects of unexpected events — Brig. Gen. (res) Gal Hirsch wrote in an essay in Israel Defense that, faced with an enemy that operates within civilian populations and shuns the rules of law, Israel should field *“a lethal black swan of its own,” which would operate “solely in the fourth dimension, the conceptual dimension of uncertainty, illegality and disorder, far away from the expected and from the accepted conceptual pattern.”*



Nice catch.

Can't help but notice some similarities to the actions of this chap - apparently goes by the Hebrew nickname Abaddon (Destroyer):







Hmm.....Given the rise of Non-Russian gunmen in Ukraine does "Black Swan Theory" suggest that we will soon be seeing Non-Poles, Non-Brits, Non-Yanks and Non-ASIC gunmen non-operating in UnUkraine?


----------



## Kirkhill (19 Apr 2014)

Related?

Anne Applebaum of the Washington Post in the National Post on  "_Maskirovka_"


----------



## pbi (24 Apr 2014)

> ....These forces may operate under their own legislation and procedures...



So, wait...let me get this right. Maybe I'm overreacting here. 

A senior officer in the army of a state formed to provide refuge for a group who were brutally persecuted by nations who utterly abandoned all LOAC, Rules of War, etc, etc, now proposes that his country do the same? Is there anything ironic here?

Or is this just an expression of frustration by an IDF that, despite its unexamined reputation, has actually not scored a decisive defeat over its enemies in decades, and doesn't really know how to do it anyway, except maybe by resorting to this kind of thinking?

Anecdotally, a goodly number of the Canadians whom I served with over the years, who did missions in that region, have suggested that maybe there already isn't much concern about how the IDF actually fights, since it sees itself engaged in an existential struggle against an implacable enemy, so anything is OK.

Maybe this will just go on the rubbish heap of bad Israeli military thinking, along with badly conceived incursions into Lebanon and  Shimon Naveh's wretched and impractical "Systemic Operational Design" tripe.

It does raise an interesting question though: if we were confronted by what we believed was a truly existential threat, would we abandon LOAC, ROE, etc and just go for it? Are these things really just the products of our recent history of limited military engagement and "wars of choice"?


----------



## Colin Parkinson (24 Apr 2014)

Well there was a local response to the 12 SS Panzer's handling of Canadian prisoners that showed we could also be fairly nasty when we want to be.


----------



## Kirkhill (24 Apr 2014)

pbi said:
			
		

> So, wait...let me get this right. Maybe I'm overreacting here.
> 
> A senior officer in the army of a state formed to provide refuge for a group who were brutally persecuted by nations who utterly abandoned all LOAC, Rules of War, etc, etc, now proposes that his country do the same? Is there anything ironic here?
> 
> ....



I would suggest the following chain for consideration PBI.   Vladimir Jabotinski, Irgun Zvai Leumi, Lehi (Stern Gang), Menachem Begin, Ariel Sharon, Benjamin Netanyahu, Likud, Mossad.

The Israelis, or at least a very significant faction, have never been averse to the unconventional .... with knock on effects influencing these gentlemen:
















Wingate, Glubb and Farran.

LOAC has been rather nicely interpreted over the last century or so.  There have been the open wars, of short duration where millions died according to the rules, and the hidden wars of long duration where millions died despite the rules.


----------



## Edward Campbell (24 Apr 2014)

I think there is a difference between _unconventional_ and what some people - Americans, Israelis and so on - seem to be advocating.

_Asymmetrical warfare_ or _counter-insurgency_ or, even, to use a Brit term that was current from the 1830s to the 1930s, _keeping the peace_, seems to call forth proposals for tactics that  contravene the laws and usages of war. But we've done that, before ... think SOE, especially in France and Yugoslavia, in World War II.

I think there is a role for e.g. assassination and _economic warfare_ and sabotage (another name for terrorism?) in today's world, as there was in the 19th and 20th centuries. But I don't think that sort of _warfare_ is a good fit for the conventional military establishment.


----------



## Kirkhill (24 Apr 2014)

And I believe the Wayback machine brings us back to 2005 and the discussion of Keeni Meeni ops.

http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/33785.5;wap2

I'm as great an apologist for the Brits as ever they have had but going all the way back to Francis Walsingham they have had little difficulty in distinguishing being seen to do the done thing and doing the necessary.

James Bond resonated with the Brits for a reason.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (24 Apr 2014)

Having hung out with Malay's and Indians who like to rail on about the Brits being so bad, but in the scheme of things as Imperial masters they weren't that bad and actually felt some responsibility for their colonial charges. I suspect that the internal nationalistic movements do not allow for that sort of reflective thought, unlike Canada's drifting away from Mother England.


----------



## pbi (24 Apr 2014)

Kirkhill said:
			
		

> I would suggest the following chain for consideration PBI.   Vladimir Jabotinski, Irgun Zvai Leumi, Lehi (Stern Gang), Menachem Begin, Ariel Sharon, Benjamin Netanyahu, Likud, Mossad....The Israelis, or at least a very significant faction, have never been averse to the unconventional ...



The British quite clearly referred to them as "terrorists" in the 1940's and if you look at the activities of groups like the Stern Gang it's hard to deny that title. To me it isn't really the "unconventional" bit that concerns me: it's what appears to be a call for the "illegal".

But maybe we are saying that if we like a nation and what it stands for, then they can do what they want and it's OK. But if anybody does it back to them, that's bad. I just think that this General, in his open philosophizing about intentionally pursuing a route that drifts inevitably towards what we call "war crimes", is undermining the moral standing that we usually think raises Israel above the nasty countries around it.

But probably I'm naive.


----------



## Kirkhill (24 Apr 2014)

pbi said:
			
		

> The British quite clearly referred to them as "terrorists" in the 1940's and if you look at the activities of groups like the Stern Gang it's hard to deny that title. To me it isn't really the "unconventional" bit that concerns me: it's what appears to be a call for the "illegal".
> 
> But maybe we are saying that if we like a nation and what it stands for, then they can do what they want and it's OK. But if anybody does it back to them, that's bad. I just think that this General, in his open philosophizing about intentionally pursuing a route that drifts inevitably towards what we call "war crimes", is undermining the moral standing that we usually think raises Israel above the nasty countries around it.
> 
> But probably I'm naive.



With my old man having been blown up on Mount Carmel in 1947 by person or persons unknown (according the RASC driver somebody re-routed the "highway" to 6 Airborne Div HQ through a British laid minefield) it is hard to argue with the notion of the Stern Gang or the IZL being terrorists.

Equally it is hard to see Roy Farran's (honorary Calgary Highlander) work as anything other than "illegal" (which is why he moved to Alberta and travelled below the radar for a number of years after his stint in "unconventional operations").

What are the rules of the game?  Damfino.   

But in existential warfare I believe rules to be more akin to Lancashire Catch as Catch Can Wrestling than Marquis of Queensberry.

In other words we, choosing to fight, can afford the niceties.  They, having to fight, will do what they can not to be eliminated.

Edit:  For further discussion I went looking for information on Camp X in Whitby and 10 (Inter-Allied) Commando and came across this article  which caused me to be reminded that Hitler wasn't wrong when he decided to treat the Paras at Tragino Aqueduct, and all Commandos, SAS and SBS, as criminals.  After all that is what Churchill raised them for:



> "they must be prepared with specially trained troops of the hunter class who can develop a reign of terror down the enemy coast. A butcher and bolt approach". These "Commandos" (from the Dutch-Boer word Kommando) could strike the enemy's rear with surgical precision, collect much-needed intelligence, and sow chaos into the enemy's plans.



Reign of terror.... butcher and bolt.  Doesn't sound like Queensberry to me.


----------



## daftandbarmy (24 Apr 2014)

Kirkhill said:
			
		

> With my old man having been blown up on Mount Carmel in 1947 by person or persons unknown (according the RASC driver somebody re-routed the "highway" to 6 Airborne Div HQ through a British laid minefield) it is hard to argue with the notion of the Stern Gang or the IZL being terrorists.
> 
> Equally it is hard to see Roy Farran's (honorary Calgary Highlander) work as anything other than "illegal" (which is why he moved to Alberta and travelled below the radar for a number of years after his stint in "unconventional operations").
> 
> ...



There's not much new under the sun in this regard, just old lessons relearned the hard way.

I was impressed by this book and the amount of detail it goes into about the under cover war in NI
http://www.amazon.co.uk/The-Irish-War-Tony-Geraghty/dp/0006386741

Of course, this type of war goes on in many countries, and Mossad is just one of many under cover type organizations that 'carry on the motion' after the 'kinetics' roll to a halt.

I think this, or some version of this, combined effort over a period of decades will have to be something we're prepared for. The better countries get at this kind of collaboration, the less surprised they'll be by things like land grabs in the Crimea.


----------



## pbi (24 Apr 2014)

> In other words we, choosing to fight, can afford the niceties.  They, having to fight, will do what they can not to be eliminated.



So, I think that what you and daftandbarmy are saying is that placing restraints on warfare is a privilege rather than a necessity. Worse, maybe it's just a pretense. You are probably right.

And I think that, (all our protestation and earnest intents about LOAC, ROE, etc aside), that's what many of us may believe down inside, whether we wish to say it or not. We hear about the murdered SS POWs and shrug and say "_Yeah, whatever. Had it coming_". Not sure how killing unarmed POWs has anything to do with survival or victory, but I don't think we lose too much sleep over that case, do we?

If it's about surviving, will we do anything we think we have to, and justify it later?  Likely, and maybe not without practical reason. What the Israeli general is doing, IMHO, is merely articulating something lots of people might like to say but won't.

But if you go around doing that stuff, just don't act surprised when it splashes back: that would be hypocrisy.


----------



## daftandbarmy (24 Apr 2014)

pbi said:
			
		

> So, I think that what you and daftandbarmy are saying is that placing restraints on warfare is a privilege rather than a necessity. Worse, maybe it's just a pretense. You are probably right.
> 
> And I think that, (all our protestation and earnest intents about LOAC, ROE, etc aside), that's what many of us may believe down inside, whether we wish to say it or not. We hear about the murdered SS POWs and shrug and say "_Yeah, whatever. Had it coming_". Not sure how killing unarmed POWs has anything to do with survival or victory, but I don't think we lose too much sleep over that case, do we?
> 
> ...




total war

 noun  

A war which is unrestricted in terms of the weapons used, the territory or combatants involved, or the objectives pursued, especially one in which the accepted rules of war are disregarded.

http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/total-war


I'm pretty sure that the further away you get from the actual fighting, the more you think that this kind of war is possible, all the time.


----------



## a_majoor (24 Apr 2014)

I think one of the issues here is the horrifying wording; essentially the author(s) are suggesting you have to become the enemies you fight.

This may be a fair assumption as we move farther and farther away from a world where near peer enemies are common and asymmetric threats are rare, although I suspect this is not going to work in the way the authors suppose. The Feudal era in Europe and Japan, or the "Warring States" period in China might be a better indicator of what might happen when military commanders become self actualized to the point of "writing" their own laws and ROEs.

What is really happening is militaries throughout the world are grappling with how to fight asymmetric enemies (the type of opponents using "4G" warfare as defined by Col Hammes in "The Sling and the Stone"). Obviously armies using high tech equipment and manoeuvre warfare theory are not sufficient in of themselves. Using Hammes own formulations, the issues are that the current political leadership(s) of most Western powers do not have a clearly articulated view of what aims they hope to achieve with the use of armed force (the political objective of the war), and/or are unable to clearly communicate their goals and get the public support to achieve them. Without this, expenditures of blood and treasure seem and are seen as pointless, if not counter productive.

I suspect many of the answers might be found in radically expanding the modalities of warfare the way the Chinese are attempting to do with "Unrestricted Warfare". Rather than send essentially lawless bands of barbarian raiders into enemy territory (as reading the Israeli article seems to suggest), "Unrestricted Warfare" advocates attacking_ all _ aspects of the enemies political, military, economic and social power. Manipulating enemy stock markets, breaking social cohesion through hostile PSYOPS delivered via social media, deploying AA/AD weapons to prevent the entry of enemy force projection units and so on weaken enemy capabilities and will, often without there being an effective counter response available.

How "Unrestricted Warfare" could be used against Hamas or Al-Qeda and similar organizations is an interesting question to contemplate, not to mention how *we* can harden and protect our own social, political, economic and military systems against "Unrestricted Warfare".


----------



## PanaEng (25 Apr 2014)

That quote has no explicit or implicit call of illegal activity. One can sow terror, butcher and bolt all within the LOAC except maybe by not wearing uniforms or id.

BTW, my grandfather was an instructor there...

Chimo!



			
				Kirkhill said:
			
		

> With my old man having been blown up on Mount Carmel in 1947 by person or persons unknown (according the RASC driver somebody re-routed the "highway" to 6 Airborne Div HQ through a British laid minefield) it is hard to argue with the notion of the Stern Gang or the IZL being terrorists.
> 
> Equally it is hard to see Roy Farran's (honorary Calgary Highlander) work as anything other than "illegal" (which is why he moved to Alberta and travelled below the radar for a number of years after his stint in "unconventional operations").
> 
> ...


----------



## daftandbarmy (25 Apr 2014)

I posted this video link in the Military History forum too.

It's a good reminder of what can happen to you if you neglect the Laws of Armed Conflict:

http://www.opposingviews.com/i/videos/society/never-shoot-man-parachute


----------



## Retired AF Guy (25 Apr 2014)

pbi said:
			
		

> If it's about surviving, will we do anything we think we have to, and justify it later?  Likely, and maybe not without practical reason. What the Israeli general is doing, IMHO, is merely articulating something lots of people might like to say but won't.



Kind of like  Machiavelli in his book The Prince.


----------



## pbi (25 Apr 2014)

Thucydides said:
			
		

> I suspect many of the answers might be found in radically expanding the modalities of warfare the way the Chinese are attempting to do with "Unrestricted Warfare". Rather than send essentially lawless bands of barbarian raiders into enemy territory (as reading the Israeli article seems to suggest), "Unrestricted Warfare" advocates attacking_ all _ aspects of the enemies political, military, economic and social power. Manipulating enemy stock markets, breaking social cohesion through hostile PSYOPS delivered via social media, deploying AA/AD weapons to prevent the entry of enemy force projection units and so on weaken enemy capabilities and will, often without there being an effective counter response available.
> 
> How "Unrestricted Warfare" could be used against Hamas or Al-Qeda and similar organizations is an interesting question to contemplate, not to mention how *we* can harden and protect our own social, political, economic and military systems against "Unrestricted Warfare".



I am thinking about this too. If you take it a bit further, it means you could bring a modern society to its knees without firing a shot. It may also mean that the ability to carry out this type of  warfare lies not in the size of your country, or how many tanks and planes you have, or how much oil and mineral wealth. It depends (I think) on how digitally sophisticated you are. It means that a smaller power (like Canada...) could theoretically wreak destruction and disruption far greater, and perhaps far faster, than by conventional means?

Could it mean (actually it probably does already mean...) that "offensive operations" would not necessarily be carried out by trained military personnel at all, but rather by civilian technicians?

The danger of this type of approach may be that a "wounded giant", feeling itself going under and coming apart at the digital seams, may lash out with extreme destructive power, such as with nukes or WMD, while it is still able to do so.


----------



## a_majoor (27 Apr 2014)

We are _already_ seeing this. Russia threatens to turn off the natural gas taps and most of Europe crumbles rather than stand up for Ukraine. Many articles suggest the Chinese are manipulating currency and economic data to harm the American economy, and suggest Chaina has the ability through their huge US bondholdings to wreak havoc on the global economy at the time and place of their own choosing. In "Unrestricted warfare" theory, this provides a great deal of leverage for achieveing political goals without ever firing a shot, or providing an opening that the adversary can exploit. 

Like other forms of warfare, this is resource intensive so Canada would have to invest in means to leverage fairly exotic niche capabilities to provide a decicive advantage. Our huge geographical expanse and reliance on long haul communications technologies suggests one avenue of approach (how many satellite uplinks do we have, for example? What would happen if we could use them to "take control" of enemy satellites and have them do what we want?). Canada has a fairly large and sophisticated financial sector as well, attacking an enemy through their stock markets or currency trading may seem to be a strange idea, but could cause untold damage to the adversary. If done properly, it could even be covert enough to put the blame on rogue traders, corrupt adversary officials or poorly managed local or international banks.

Very sophisticated targeting needs to be done, and since this is a form of the "Effects Based Approach to Operations" there will need to be a military dimention to this IOT ensure the damage is focused on the right targets, spillover effects don't cause too much collateral damage and that Canadian targets are sufficiently hardened to prevent a response in kind. (One might envision a stock trading floor with a small military staff overseeing operations, for example).

The "Wounded Giant", or perhaps a small nation taking the Samson Option (pulling the pillars down on their own heads to destroy the enemy) is to be feared, so using unrestricted warfare is not something to be taken lightly. OTOH, if traffic in Tehran becomes impossibly gridlocked because the traffic light system failed, how do the Iranians determine that it is an economic attack or just a glitch? Is Israel to blame, or Saudi Arabia? A great many questions are raised by this prospect, but so far I have not seen many answers.


----------



## Kirkhill (27 Apr 2014)

Canada is in a prime position to play this game.  And probably needs to play it.

Getting our resources to tide water and converting them to cash is our first priority.  Those that oppose that movement - of good or ill intent - are doing a disservice to Canada and serving the aims of those, private and public, that are threatened by the competition.

Converting the cash to capabilities that increase Canada's influence is the next issue.

Building terminals and vessels to ship from Canada and receive at the Point of Consumption hydrocarbons (coal-oil-gas), lumber, grain, potash, sulfur all serve Canada's interests.   It increases influence and wealth.

That wealth can be converted into assets that influence events in non-military fashion -  Public-Private Partnership of CSE, MacDonald Detweiler and UAV suppliers - taking responsibility for unarmed surveillance (sigint, satellites and UAVs) and for internet warfare - is one cheap, high value avenue for Canada to secure itself, and others and influence events.

Cheap?  Yes.  Radarsat Constellation, at 1 BCAD for 3 Satellites with 24/7 capability for 20 years is cheaper than a dozen F35s or a single CSC.

Adding leased UAVs, operated by MDA, to supply an unarmed reconnaissance capability that could be used domestically and globally in exactly the same "non-military" fashion as the Radarsat system would also be a seller.  We then get to see the other side of the hill and determine which movements we want to remove from the covert to the overt.

CSE's annual budget is 350 MCAD.  Doubling that budget would add immense capabilities in terms of internet warfare.

In a book titled Ghost Force an SAS veteran described the future SAS man as a man or woman in a suit with a valid passport and a credit card.

These are the first tools of the state.  I could find elements of those solutions in a small country that I admire and consider worth emulating - Sweden.

It sells resources, services and technologies and follows its own path internationally.


The next level of response for the state is the ability to apply force.  I suggest that the air force is best positioned to meet that requirement first.  It is flexible in time, space, scope and scale of response and applicable domestically and globally.  While it is expensive to furnish and operate it is cheap in the most important resource - lives at risk (also known as headlines).

The next level up is CANSOFCOM - JTF2 CSOR SOAR etc.  Cheap in manpower and head lines.

The final level of response is the Army - the most expensive and least flexible service.  There is a scene in the movie "We were soldiers once, and young"  where the unit is being beaten on all sides and the unit commander calls "Broken Arrow", bringing down all available air assets on his position.  At that point a chap in white shirt on a radio says:  "There's no hiding it now".  That is always the great fear of commanders and politicians when the Army is committed.  Mistakes can't be hidden and people die.  Apparently 138 deaths in action over a 12 year period is as much as Canadians and their politicians can stomach.

How does the Navy fit into all of this?  As it always has.  It exists to supply platforms from which to fly the Canadian flag,  from which Canadians can operate and to keep the sea lanes open so that hydrocarbons, lumber, potash and sulfur can make it to market and supply the funds necessary to buy Canadians options and security.

And finally the militia (yes the militia and not reserves) - rather than equipping them with exotic tools so that they can become occasional soldiers that need extensive upgrading prior to deployment I think they should be supplied with tools they know how to use already.  This means pick up trucks, civilian radios and cell phones, Bobcats, quads, snowmobiles and chainsaws. They should be taught soldierly attitudes and procedures so that, regardless of the tools they have to hand, they can act as a disciplined body in a crisis rather than a rabble of individuals.  Make them and the Rangers a volunteer fire department that the government and their neighbours can rely on whenever more manpower than the local constabulary can supply is required.  An armed volunteer fire department, equipped with small arms and man-portable weapons (MGs and Mortars) and with any exotic kit necessary to operate domestically (Bandvagns come to mind) but a volunteer fire department none the less.


----------



## pbi (27 Apr 2014)

Thucydides said:
			
		

> ...Very sophisticated targeting needs to be done, and since this is a form of the "Effects Based Approach to Operations" there will need to be a military dimention to this IOT ensure the damage is focused on the right targets, spillover effects don't cause too much collateral damage and that Canadian targets are sufficiently hardened to prevent a response in kind. (One might envision a stock trading floor with a small military staff overseeing operations, for example)....



I agree with the rest of your post, but I don't think that this part actually requires a military force at all. It just requires people capable of understanding and applying the methods and capabilities you describe. It could even be (but maybe shouldn't be...) done by a private company.




> Those that oppose that movement - of good or ill intent - are doing a disservice to Canada and serving the aims of those, private and public, that are threatened by the competition.



I'm with you on just about everything except this. To me, this borders on tarring people who are quite rightly concerned about private property rights, aboriginal treaty rights, the environment, and public control of what corporations are able to do or not do, as somehow "enemies of the state". That plays directly into the silly line the CPC trotted out a while ago that people who questioned the Alberta-Pacific pipeline were "foreign funded eco-terrorists".

I do agree that we need to get on with the business of responsibly exploiting our resources, but not by marginalizing or excluding reasonable concerns abouit how it's done. If you want to see what happens when economic exploitation by or on behalf of the State happens without controls, just look at the environmental trainwreck that communism left behind in Eastern Europe: try the Aral Sea for a start.



> These are the first tools of the state.  I could find elements of those solutions in a small country that I admire and consider worth emulating - Sweden.



Although I might be accused of naivete or (horrors!!!) anti-Americanism, I've often wondered about the idea of a Canada that could emulate Sweden. We would have to be militarily strong enough, and politically reliable enough, to reduce US uneasiness, but it is an interesting thought.



> The next level of response for the state is the ability to apply force.  I suggest that the air force is best positioned to meet that requirement first.  It is flexible in time, space, scope and scale of response and applicable domestically and globally.  While it is expensive to furnish and operate it is cheap in the most important resource - lives at risk (also known as headlines).



I agree with your assessment of the relative roles and priorities of the services that you have assigned. If we were truly to pursue the "Swedish" policy you referred to above, then we would have to get serious about Defence of Canada: "Canada First" would have to actually mean something more than a scattered handful of CF-18s, a few minor surface combatants, and (effectively speaking...) no submarine fleet. It would most definitely be a much more heavily armed capabiity, not a hollow gesture. While typically Canadians have never been big on defence spending in peacetime, I wonder what the public support for "armed neutrality" might be?



> And finally the militia (yes the militia and not reserves) - rather than equipping them with exotic tools so that they can become occasional soldiers that need extensive upgrading prior to deployment I think they should be supplied with tools they know how to use already



Years ago, when I was early in my Army career, I read a paper by a Professor Willett (RMC, I think...?) recommending something very similar. The Prof suggested that instead of being a "poor cousin" imitation of the Regular Army, the Militia should have concentrated on being much more of an unconventional force. His rationale was that while a few under strength reserve
Brigades (Districts in those days...) tryin to array themselves to fight in a conventional manner would have little effect, by contrast tens of thousands of "People's Militia" (yes-I know...sounds horrible...) could make an invasion a very costly and painful experience for even the largest and most sophisticated invader. 

At the time I thought it was a pile of rubbish that would totally undermine our existence and professional ethos, but on reflection stimulated by this thread, I wonder.


----------



## Kirkhill (27 Apr 2014)

pbi said:
			
		

> ......
> 
> 
> I'm with you on just about everything except this. To me, this borders on tarring people who are quite rightly concerned about private property rights, aboriginal treaty rights, the environment, and public control of what corporations are able to do or not do, as somehow "enemies of the state". That plays directly into the silly line the CPC trotted out a while ago that people who questioned the Alberta-Pacific pipeline were "foreign funded eco-terrorists".
> ...



Actually I agree with you about the concern.  Hence my circumlocution on the point.  The line between an honest, concerned citizen and an enemy of the state can, at times, be vanishingly thin.  Something about pathways and intentions......

The answer is not clear to me.  Perhaps it only becomes clear when the stakes are higher.


----------



## a_majoor (28 Apr 2014)

The problem differentiating "concerned citizens" from "Foreign funded Eco terrorists" is more a case of determining the "ends" of the activities rather than the means. An interesting fact that I rediscovered re reading "The Sling and the Stone" is the Sandinistas carefully coopted moderates in Nicaragua, "Liberation Theology" priests and various concerned citizen groups in the US, Europe and Latin America to put political pressure on the US government to reduce or eventually deny aid to the Somoza government, while at the same time frustrating any attempts to create an acceptable compromise agreement. The Sandinistas presented the front of wishing to remove a corrupt and oppressive government, while carefully concealing (especially from their "allies") their true goal of seizing power and establishing an authoritarian regime on the nation.

The Moderates, Liberation Theology priests and concerned citizens were coopted because they were speaking or working against the corrupt and repressive regime (which was their right and indeed duty to do so), without their understanding the true ends of the Sandinista movement's leadership.

So while PBI is quite correct that we don't silence people's ability to express legitimate concerns, we should also develop a legion of Vivian Krauses to carefully examine the relationships and funding of these groups to see that they are not "False Flag" operations that are promoting an end which is hostile to Canada and her national interests.


----------

