================================================================ MindNet Journal - Vol. 1, No. 41 ================================================================ V E R I C O M M / MindNet "Quid veritas est?" ================================================================ Notes: The following is reproduced here with the express permission of the author. Permission is given to reproduce and redistribute, for non-commercial purposes only, provided this information and the copy remain intact and unedited. The views and opinions expressed below are not necessarily the views and opinions of VERICOMM, MindNet, or the editors unless otherwise noted. Editor: Mike Coyle Contributing Editors: Walter Bowart Alex Constantine Martin Cannon Assistant Editor: Rick Lawler Research: Darrell Bross Editor's Note: The following is an excerpt from the book length expansion of _The Controllers_, by Martin Cannon, concerning _The Revolution in Military Affairs_, which was referred to by Julianne McKinney in MindNet Journal, Vol. 1, No. 40. ================================================================ The Controllers By Martin Cannon Chapter 13 [...] The Revolution in Military Affairs. The hard fact is: We are all potential targets. Would-be tyrants need only bide their time until the necessary technology is perfected and activated. Such is the lesson drawn from a startling 1994 document which outlines the ultimate purpose of non-lethal technology and mind control weaponry. "The Revolution in Military Affairs and Conflict Short of War" is a key paper prepared by the Strategic Studies Institute at the U.S. Army War College. The authors are Dr. Steven Metz, an associate research professor who specializes in "military operations other than war," and LTC James Kievit, a Strategic Research Analyst. Before we examine their findings, some background: The Revolution in Military Affairs has recently become the new vogue topic among Pentagon insiders. The "RMA" (as war-wonks abbreviate it) is largely the brainchild of septuagenarian Pentagon strategist Andrew Marshall and his deputy, Lt. Col Andrew Krepinevich. General John M. Shalikashvili, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, has embraced their ideas, while Pentagon insiders are thrashing out the details at high-level roundtables open only to the National Security elite. The revolution they are planning could change the way all Americans live--and it will be televised. Metz and Kievit outline three basic goals: 1. The United States government will control the planet. 2. The military will control the government. 3. Computer nerds will control the military. The result, in a word, will be technofascism. How to bring all this about? Through the emergent disciplines of ultra-high-tech warfare: Non-lethal weaponry, bio-warfare, mind control, unmanned flying vehicles of unusual new designs, and new psy-war scenarios designed to alter mass belief systems. With toys like these, Pentagon planners hope to subjugate you so stealthily you won't even know you've been conquered. In fact, they predict you'll welcome these new developments, even though the Pentagon plans to complement their revamped military with a revamped political structure. In the cyber-commando view of the-way-things-ought-to-be, no ethical, moral, or Constitutional restraints should constrict the rulers of post-RMA America. "National Security" will be the single constant; all else is mutable. Authors Metz and Kievit sketch a grim portrait of global events in the near future. U.S. policy in the post-Cold War era will doom nearly all Third World states to fragmentation, ruin and strife; "ungovernability and instability will be the norm." The American government's primary concern will be protecting U.S. businessmen overseas. Therefore, every citizen leaving the United States will receive an electronic Individual Position Locator Device (IPLD), which will probably be permanently implanted sub-dermally. These implants would not only function as tracking devices: Metz and Kievit believe that IPLDs could provide identification and "two-way communication" between the military and civilians. The authors fully understand that the public might resist these implants: "If a locator device could be remotely activated, how could Americans be sure that activation was only effective outside the United States?" Even more disconcertingly, Metz and Kievit concede that IPLDs could "monitor personal conversations." Arguably, the next step might well be domestic mass implantation, probably as a crime prevention measure. These implants will be used in conjunction with another rapidly emerging technology: Unmanned Aerial Vehicles, or UAVs. (This term replaces the familiar "Remotely Piloted Vehicles" [RPV].) High Altitude Long Endurance (HALE) UAVs will communicate with IPLDs implanted in Americans. UAVs would also see usage as spy-craft, a purpose they serve at present. But perhaps Metz and Kievit's most mysterious--and intriguing--suggestion concerns the use of these unusual new aerial devices in support of U.S.-backed foreign insurgencies: "UAVs can be used for psychological operations aimed at mobilizing support and enhancing the legitimacy of the insurgents." Ufologists--at least those with an ability to read between the lines--might find that last sentence particularly noteworthy. The authors also foresee the Army developing "the aerial capability to broadcast and alter television signals." All in the name of anti-terrorism, of course. The basic idea is deviously clever: The military could send fake broadcasts, using computer-generated imagery to present real individuals in simulated situations. The same technology which allowed Forrest Gump to shake hands with JFK can also create the spectacle of an "enemy" leader striking a woman, masturbating in public, or otherwise discrediting himself. The authors concede that this approach has a downside, should such an operation be "blown" (i.e., revealed to the public). The masses might lose their faith in the televised image, thereby "reducing the impact of one of the American politician's greatest communication tools." We have already discussed EMP weapons, such as HERF guns, which can destroy the electronic systems of enemy jets. Metz and Kievit also recommend using soft-kill weapons against aircraft flown by drug importers. Or rather: "suspected narcotraffickers" (emphasis mine). Of course, should suspicions prove incorrect, people inside the aircraft will be no less dead. Fortunately, directed-energy weapons have the advantage of plausible deniability. The authors make one point quite explicit: "...deniability must be aimed at the American people, who do not sanction the imprisonment, much less execution, of individuals without a trial." Since, according to RMA planners, the United States will prove vulnerable to attack by foreign terrorists with domestic allies, Metz and Kievit insist on targeting "immigrant or resident alien communities" which might provide support for terrorism. One snag: American public opinion might stifle use of certain biotechnical weapons already in the works. "Most Americans would not support the use of a weapon designed to target only a specific racial or ethnic group... Could the government and the military of this multi-ethnic republic face charges that it was developing or using a weapon targeting Africans, Jews, Koreans, Hispanics, etc.?" At this point, the Pentagon planners confront the one true obstacle to their revolution: "American values and opinion." The RMA is a beast that must wear no leash if it is to protect us. If traditional ethics stand in the way of the Pentagon's plans, we must change the ethics, not the plans. Overcoming these constraints to make a RMA in conflict short of war would require fundamental changes in the United States--an ethical and political revolution may be necessary to make a military revolution. Metz and Kievit foresee an overhaul of the entire political infrastructure of the United States. The military, the intelligence community, and domestic law enforcement (both federal and local) should congeal into a single unit--a national security monolith. This monolith will further integrate itself with corporations and the courts by means of a "national information policy." Even public health should be treated as a national security issue. Interestingly, Metz and Kievit ask whether the RMA can occur "in some different type of political system not based on nation-states and traditional inter-state war." There's more than one way to make a revolution: Revolutionary change in our approach to conflict short of war may come about indirectly as we grapple with domestic problems such as crime and drugs. If our traditional notions of privacy and public security are altered to fight these battles, it is an easy step to change our attitudes toward intervention in the affairs and psyches of foreign foes. And now we get to the nitty gritty: "Behavior modification is a key component of peace enforcement." "Information warfare systems might influence the behavior of populations..." "Proposed information warfare capabilities might be ideally suited for helping develop desired emotions, attitudes, or behavior." Conflict short of war "is most often won or lost through the manipulation of images, beliefs, attitudes, and perceptions." Here are two other key quotes-not yanked out of context: This makes psychological technology [italics in original] much more important than strike technology. Ways must be found to use emerging technology...to help military strategists develop, implement, and continually improve methods of influencing opinion, mobilizing public support, and sometimes demobilizing it. Today, two RMAs may be underway simultaneously. The first (and more mature) is electronic... The second (and potentially more profound) RMA is biotechnological, including genetic engineering and advanced behavior-altering drugs. Because of the compression of time and the shortening of historical patterns, the biotechnical revolution is totally enmeshed with the electronic. It may ultimately be the combination of the two that proves truly revolutionary. This is hardly the sort of revolution Washington or Jefferson would have recognized or endorsed. Looking Ahead Metz and Kievit predict that troops sent to the Third World will be exposed to strange, resilient new diseases; by law, returning soldiers will face long-term quarantine. Corrupt leaders of "friendly" third world countries will prove unable to stand up to either narcotraffickers or "spiritual insurgents." In short: traditional methods of projecting American might may no longer suffice. Thus, the military will embark on a course of "Dynamic Defense"--a plan designed to abolish the Department of Defense, the Department of State, the CIA, the NSC, and all other arms of the intelligence community. Instead, there will be just two organizations--one devoted to preventing conflict, the other devoted to containing it. The division between the military and traditional law enforcement will vanish. To create the appropriate "attitudinal vessel" for RMA, the Dynamic Defenders will use high-tech means of "consciousness raising" in order to undo the citizenry's "old fashioned notions of personal privacy and national sovereignty." Also to be eliminated: "Old-fashioned ideas about information control and scientific inquiry." Preserving American technological advantage will be far more important than quaint notions of free information exchange. Computer hackers will be enemies. The doctrine of national security will dictate U.S. responses to ecological threats (even those within other nations) and "psychological threats." There should be "no distinction-legal or otherwise" drawn between problems within and outside our borders. The United States should regard its allies (Britain, France, Australia, etc.) as little more than "encumbrances." Indeed, the American military will preemptively disable any potential opponent with the ability to disrupt the U.S. in any way. Metz and Kievit predict that the Dynamic Defenders may metamorphose into "the Eagle Movement," in which the military finally escapes the constitutional restrictions placing the armed forces under civilian control. The traditional parties will be "to put it lightly, intimidated by the Eagle Movement," and will succumb to its demands. It's a scenario that should appeal to anyone who rooted for Darth Vader during Star Wars. Fortunately, other published RMA theorists haven't proven quite so "visionary" as the world-devouring Metz and Kievit. We can only hope the Joint Chiefs opt for a revolution that is much more cautious--and less disdainful of democracy. A Few Modest Questions About the RMA. 1. According to the Metz/Kievit scenario, the RMA process culminates in the military openly assuming a dominant role in politics. What is to stop the militarists from "kick-starting" the process? How do we know they won't clandestinely aid and abet the terrorism, insurgencies, drug trafficking and other problems used to rationalize the revolution? 2. As the national security monolith grows in scope and power, what will prevent the use of "non-lethal" weapons--such as sedative-laden food supplies and televised subliminals--against the domestic population? 3. Who determines what constitutes a "psychological threat"? Which ideas or beliefs shall be damned as threatening? 4. Metz and Kievit make repeated reference to unusual new diseases which will afflict foreign populations. These diseases will lead to greater restrictions on immigration and travel: Anyone setting foot in certain nations would have to undergo a period of quarantine before mingling with the U.S. populace. Foreigners--even foreign tourists--might be denied entrance altogether. The political impact of such restrictions would be enormous: Americans would have minimal exposure to individuals from Third World countries, and thus minimal access to first-person accounts of conditions elsewhere. But where will these new diseases come from? How can Metz and Kievit predict their appearance so confidently? Do these mysterious diseases have anything to do with those much-trumpeted developments in biotechnology? 5. Metz and Kievit assert that "UAVs can be used for psychological operations aimed at mobilizing support and enhancing the legitimacy" of Third World combatants favored by Washington. Just what do they mean by this? Obviously, a gray piece of military hardware, bearing stars-and-stripes identification markings, won't have much of a psychological impact as it buzzes over the head of a favored rebel leader. Perhaps these flying devices will come disguised or misrepresented in some way? In all likelihood, these vehicles will be camouflaged and misidentified-and the question "Misidentified as what?" won't detain any thinking person for very long. Ufologists should be very concerned about the clandestine use of UAVs in psychological operations. 6. Re: "The Eagle Movement." Is the eagle American? Or is this the same bird that once perched above the swastika? [...] -