Militarization and Intelligence Gathering

Especially during the past 70 years 1st world militaries have concentrated on developing what they call counter intelligence and counter insurgency models to combat the need for freedom oppressed peoples around the world have demonstrated and continue to demonstrate.

For 3rd and 4th world liberation fighters the abstracts of time, space and will are emphasized over the logistic and production power industrialized nations rely on in developing their theories of total warfare. We see that a power tool was created and as a result colonized countries around the globe were able to throw off those chains of military conquest and free themselves in

It is these models of counter insurgency and counter intelligence programs developed by the military that should be of particular interest to Xicano and Indigenous activist today. One of the main reasons this is true is the increasing use of military models, mentality and theory by the police on U.S. soil when interacting with non combatants (civilians). So while the we don't have the Army patrolling the streets of this country the police who do patrol, watch and gather information are being trained by the military to run the same types of programs here we are in other counties.

Militarization doesn't just mean weaponry it also speaks directly to attitude and scope of powers. According to Kristian Williams author of 'Our Enemies in Blue: police and police power in the United States' militarizing the police 'affects not only police paraphernalia, but the police mission, the roles of violence and intelligence, police ideology, rhetoric, training, and organization' (p. 197). By examining the list directly below we can see how this happening now in our society.

Peter Kraska a scholar on militarization defines the process in this way, 'militarization...can be defined in its broadest terms as the soical process in which society organizes itself for the production of violence or the threat thereof' (Williams). Kraska makes the following list:

1. A blurring of external and interanl securtiy fucntions leading to a targeting of civilian populations, internal 'security' threats, and a focus on aggregate populations as potential interal 'insurgents'.

2. An avoidance of overt or lethal violence, with a greater emphasis placed on information gathering and processing, surveillance work, and less than than lethal technologies..

3. An ideology and theoretical framework of militarism that stresses the effective problem solving requires state force, technology, armament, intelligence gathering, aggressive suppresion efforts, and other assorted activities commensurate with modern military thinking and operation.

4. Criminal justice practices guided by the idlologcal framework of the militarism, such as the use of special-operations paramilitary teams in policing and corrections, policing activities that emphasize military tactics such as drug, gun, and gang suppression, and punishment models based on the military boot camp.

5. The purchasing, loaning, donation, and use of actual material products that can be characterized as militaristic, including a range of military armaments, transportation devices, surveillance equipment, and military-style garb.

6. A rapidly developing collaboration, at the highest level of the governmental and corporate worlds, between the defense industry and the crime control industry.

7. The use of military language within the political and popular culture, to characterize the social problems of drug, crime and social disorder.

One of the main ways to gather information is the use of undercover agents below are some suggestions for individuals involved in political work today.

Remember: A typical way for a professional undercover agent to initially contact a suspect (group or individuals) is to be introduced by a non-professional informer already known but not suspected by the suspects.

Here are a few ways undercover agents may tip their hands:

Seeking information they do not need under “need to know” rules.

Trying to get people to repeat incriminating statements made at an earlier meeting (so they can be recorded). If you are suspicious, say you were just joking when you made the earlier remark.

Repeatedly casting suspicion on others without basis. This maybe a smoke screen to keep suspicion off themselves.

Undercover cops many times will show an extremely shallow understanding of the issues. An undercover cop may know only what they have been briefed on. Some, however, are good talkers and can sound knowledgeable without really know an issue in depth.

Making boisterous demands for action and belittling more timid members of the group. Because many cops have authoritarian, even violent personalities they may reveal this inadvertently.

Showing extreme nervousness, such as looking around constantly during an action. They may be looking for surveillance or back up teams.

Slipping away to phone or meet supervisors or control agents. Such meetings may be brief, in a car or at a public parking lot maybe at a department store. Long meetings, such as ‘debriefing’ might be held in motel rooms.

Constantly ‘managing’ the conversation to guide it in directions they wish.

Mentioning another person’s name when you refer obliquely to that person. For the record, since the agent is probably recording the conversation likewise the next two.

Working the time, date and/or location into conversations.

Explicitly stating the incriminating things in response to vague comments from you and others.

Manipulating conversations to try and get some kind of affirmation form you in response to their incriminating statements.

Regularly asking about other individuals - particularly supposed leaders.

Initiating conversations back to illegal acts or conspiracies when the conversation moves on to legal and unrelated matters.

Claiming to be a recovering alcoholic. This gives them excuses not to drink with you and possibly slip up on their covers while under the influence.

Playing different roles with different people calculated to appeal specifically to each individual’s vulnerabilities or strengths. An infiltrator may play the role of just the kind of person you need in your current mental state.

Setting up a phony ‘hit’ to enhance their credibility. They may arrange a number of illegal acts while witnessed by people they wish to entrap or whose confidence they want.

(“Ecodefense – A field guide to Monkeywrenching”)

Confidential Informants, Militarization and the Police

In the United States the modern day police force finds its roots in the slave patrols of the Antebellum South (Williams, 36-46). Created to patrol roads, spy on slaves and report or suppress talk of rebellion these patrols soon expanded to include poor white (indentured servants and others) and acted to protect the boss class and their material interests.

This is one of the reason the police have become such a power lobby in our society is they "provide a mechanism by which the power of the state and eventually that of the emerging ruling class, could be brought to bear on the lives and habits of individual members of society" (Williams, 75).  For many they embody the right of the state to reserve the use of violence for itself. They are unquestioned in their dispensation of force and idea of justice. A quick look at the history of the police helps us to understand quite a bit about them.

Through the past two centuries the role of the police has evolved and become more specialized but essentially has remained the same. The protection of private property and the surrveilence and control of poor people.

The ways in which the police do this are varied. One of the main tactics law enforcement uses is the gathering of information through unofficial means. This is one aspect of control and militarization that truly represents the most dramatic departure from the ideal of the police as we think we know them. 

Author Peter Kraska writes "Militarization ... can be defined in its broadest terms as the social process in which society organizes itself for the production of violence or the threat thereof" (williams, 198).

Kraska goes one to list the following as evidence of that increasing militarization of the police in America.

1. A blurring of external and internal security functions leading to a targeting of civilian populations, internal 'security' threats, and a focus on aggregate populations as potential internal 'insurgents'.

2. An avoidance of overt or lethal violence, with a greater emphasis placed on information gathering and processing, surveillance work, and less than lethal technologies.

3. An ideology and theoretical framework of militarism that stresses that effective problem solving requires state force, technology, armament, intelligence gathering, aggressive suppression efforts, and other assorted activities commensurate with modern military thinking and operations. 

4. Criminal justice practices guided by the ideological framework of militarism such as the use of special operation paramilitary teams in policing and corrections, policing activities that emphasize military tactics such as drug, gun and gang suppression, and punishment models based on the military boot camp.

5. The purchasing, loaning, donation, and use of actual material products that can be characterized as militaristic, including a range of military armaments, transportation devices, surveillance equipment, and military style garb.

6. A rapidly developing collaboration, at the highest level of the governmental and corporate worlds, between the defense industry and the crime control industry.

7. The use of military language within political and popular culture, to characterize the social problems of drugs, crime and social disorder.

(Williams, 198)

Below is an excerpt from a very excellent book called "Eco-Defense a guide to Monkey-Wrenching" for those of you involved in what some would term radical politics this is good advice.

Confidential Informants

The confidential informant, or “CI” is possible the single most valuable tool used in law enforcement. CI’s are obtained by a number of means:

Walk-in – These are disgruntled or disenchanted members of a target organization who volunteer their services, for a variety of reasons. They may have joined a group with good intention, only to be offended by what they see as overly radical tactics. Or they may e ambitious people who have been passed over for leadership roles and decide to seek revenge against those they think have slighted them. Or they may be wackos who seek revenge against someone in the group for personal reasons, including romantic ones.

Tip offs – The future CI is indiscreet in talking of illegal exploits, and is overheard by someone not of the group, who in turn informs the police. The police obtain information about other illegal activities. This often occurs with drug busts.

Recruits – Known members of a target group may be targeted for recruitment by the police. The effort usually begins with a background check for signs of vulnerability. An individual who appears ‘weak’ might simply be interviewed repeatedly by a persuasive officer until she agrees to cooperate. A conservative employer perhaps only with a law enforcement or military background might be enlisted to help in pressuring the prospective recruits. In the past, for instance, the FBI has used interviews with employers to intimidate members of political groups.

Similarly, a spouse may be approached to aid in the recruitment. Veiled threats to children or to one’s job security have often proved effective. Also, the parents of the would be informer may be approached to secure their help. This approach may be particularly effective if the subject is say a college student receiving financial support from their parents.

People who have never been arrested, or young people heavily influenced by their families are more often susceptible to becoming CIs than those with more experience.

Excerpt from “Ecodefense – a field guide to Monkey Wrenching”

Williams, Kristian (2007) "Our Enemies in Blue police and power in America" South End Press, Cambridge, MA.

“Political Mobilization is the most fundamental condition for winning the war.”

Examining the history and theories of guerrilla warfare/insurgency is important for correctly perceiving our present political situation and the development of new options of resistance for Xicanos and other Third World people in the United States. Based on an acknowledgement of industrial inferiority the Vietnamese people and leaders approached the development of political will in their war with the French and the United States, as a necessary component of national survival. While the French and U.S. “were fighting to control the national territory … the guerrillas were interested only in winning its population” this is the essential distinction between conventional warfare where “the army fights to occupy territory, roads, strategic heights, vital areas” and guerrilla warfare where “the guerrilla fights to control people, without whose cooperation the land is useless to its possessor” .

In other words, a people’s war produces military power as a consequence of the political mobilization of the people by the army. This is why Vietnamese General Vo Nguyen wrote the main responsibility of a peoples war is first to “educate, mobilize, organize, and arm the whole people in order that they might take part in the resistance” and form a peoples army which according to Mao Tse-Tung Chinese General and theorist of revolutionary war “is not an instrument of the state, but the essence of it, its spirit, its life and its hope.”

It is important to remember that revolutionary situations can, have been and continue to develop in Third World and that these tried and tested methods and theories of revolutionary activity have resulted in numerous revolutionary insurgencies, most of which been successful. The existing body of literature concerning guerrilla movements, insurgencies and revolutionary thought is considerable and much of it focuses on Latin America. It is important to understand that guerilla warfare is the only proven method of successfully challenging the overwhelming military, political and technological strength of the First World. By its nature political warfare is an activity that favors the poor and underdeveloped nations, invigorating the will to resist by creating a will to win. These are not methodologies and ideas produced by inexperienced moaners or whiny children but intelligent people dedicated to the liberation of their nation from colonial domination.

To understand the relationship of this body of knowledge to the Xicano community and what it could ultimately mean for indigenous people to understand the development of physical resistance is a legitimate aspect of Xicano studies. It is constructive topic of academic discussion, debate and dialogue. Why it is not a major branch of study within Xicano Studies, which publicly states its beginning was in the revolutionary Third World student movements of the United States, is a question of concern about the future of Xicano Studies and a subject for future papers.

The theories and ideas of revolutionary methodology should be important pieces in the Xicano struggle against U.S. imperialism. It is important to state up front this is a suggestion that analyzing these different methodologies to organize a Third World population for political change and national liberation is a good idea. Mao was very clear in stating and writing that no two revolutionary situations were the same. All the same, any a mass movement in the U.S. must take race and class into account if success is desired. The same is true of a Xicano Liberation Movement, however, in the end, race and class not withstanding, it is the adherence to and belief in the stated goals of any resistance movement that determines the nature of the combatants and their aspirations.

That being said, it is crucial to note there is currently no basis for making any type of prediction about the goals of a Xicano insurgency, who would fight (since the term Xicano liberation is used frequently we can assume a portion of that populations would participate), where they would come from in society or if their objective would include a geographic succession or some type of autonomous homeland. It is beyond the scope of this post to consider such things. Indeed, it may be beyond the state of current Xicano politics and scholarship to consider these matters. Mainly, because the framework for implementing the type of organizing efforts discussed within the boundaries of the United States has yet to be created. The purpose of this exercise is solely to define and study revolutionary methodologies implemented in other countries for political change and to offer suggestions for creating a method of revolutionary political mobilizations that operates legally within the United States based on those observations.

In the last half the 20th century European imperial and colonial powers around the globe were challenged by Third World liberation movements relying on a strategy of political education escalating into guerilla warfare and then conventional warfare as theorized by Third World military strategist such as Mao Tse-Tung, Che Guevara, Amilcar Cabral and Vo Nuygen Giap . This “fusion of traditional guerrilla tactics with political and, especially, ideological objectives marked the emergence of a revolutionary guerilla warfare or insurgency” during the latter half of the 20th century. This prevailing model of guerilla warfare is traditionally strategized as a rural based military movement where a growing insurgency controls larger and larger tracts of the countryside until the guerillas encircle the cities and cut them off from each other causing the downfall of the central government . This has occurred because up to the present time the majority of any the world’s population lived in rural areas, hence the focus on mobilizing where the people are.

However, dramatic shifts in populations’ centers around the planet are happening and as a result “the world is expected to reach 50 percent urban for the first time in history in 2007. In 2000, 2.9 billion people live in urban areas, comprising 47 percent of the world population. By 2030, 4.9 billion are expected to live in urban areas, or 60 percent of the world.” In addition by 2010 “some 80 percent [of the worlds population] will inhabit the developing world…by 2020 the developing world will have accounted for 90 percent of global population growth since 1930.” This shift to urban settings due to forced migration brought on by war and economic need, along with the ongoing population explosion of Third World peoples is creating new paradigms in the theories of guerilla warfare and insurgencies. These facts along with a clear understanding of how important political education is to beginning guerilla movements and insurgencies is central to Xicanos engaged in cultural and physical resistance to U.S. imperialism as the next logical step in the decolonization of the Americas.

As people indigenous to this continent we languish in the shadow of the greatest military power the world has ever known. By any explanation it appears we are permanent guests in our own land, and are currently moving rapidly toward a permanent illegal alien status. In spite of the rhetoric of revolution embedded in the U.S. Chicano dialogue we continue to deal with the reality of revolution as a phase of youthful fancy. Xicano scholars refuse to have serious conversations among themselves when in fact a large body of scholarly research has been compiled regarding the issues of secession, nation building and revolution. Partly this has happened because as a scholarly community we have not incorporated into Chicano studies a vocabulary appropriate to the subject by which to articulate academically our ideas about revolution.

One goal of this discussion is to define specific revolutionary methodologies that have proven successful over the course of time and relate them to our current situation as Xicano/ Mexicanos in the United States. One important way of doing this is through an understanding of internal colonialism as first a metaphor for understanding the experience and contextualizing the presence of Third World people, specifically non-Europeans, within the U.S. colony “the general concept appears to apply to a number of cases, and is valuable in emphasizing the structural similarities and common historical origins of the positions of Third World peoples inside and outside the United States.”

It is here in the United States that the presence of indigenous people and Africans gives a modern reality to the idea of an internal colony. By placing this discussion of national liberation within a colonial framework it is understood the existence/purpose/history of the continental United States and its territorial holdings are explainable within the framework of the colony . To be specific the colony being is historically an economic venture by Europeans here in the Americas and around the world that by “the middle of the last (19th) century … the colony was understood to mean, both in official circles and in common language, possession of a territory in which European emigrants dominated indigenous peoples.” Accepting this definition of colony allows us to understand how and why the history of the United States is officially told though the lens of the European conqueror. It is by this process of colonial displacement the United States has become a pretend motherland to white Europeans.

It is also important to note this discussion of resistance takes place with full awareness and understanding of the powerful arguments that exist for joining our oppressors. Each urging us to take our place next to the colonizer of our land, and march out to conquer the rest of this world both ideologically, physically, and economically. Indeed, many of us have already proudly chosen that course. Activists during the 1960s recognized this danger when they saw “the potential for the creation of a Chicano/a professional class disassociated from the ethnic Mexican working class in the United States.” As Xicano Historian George Mariscal points out “there was certainly no reason to think that even the most radical Chicano/a could successfully counter the seductive power exerted by consumer society.”

Viewing the success individual Xicanos and Mexicanos have achieved through total compliance we must ask ourselves, what is the point of continued resistance? How will exploring and understanding different methods of resistance help Xicanos make better decisions in strategy and tactics while developing long terms goals for national survival? Fanon was pointed in his depiction of the demise of a nations culture under colonialization,

Colonial domination, because it is total and tends to oversimplify, very soon manages to disrupt in spectacular fashion the cultural life of a conquered people. The cultural obliteration is made possible by the negation of national reality, by new legal relations introduced by the occupying power, by the banishment of the natives and their customs to outlying districts by colonial society, by expropriation, and by the systematic enslaving of men and women. - Frantz Fanon

Xicanos, particularly in academic and activist circles talk all the time about being a colonized people. But we never discuss the physical dismantling of the colonized situation. We talk, debate and speak of our oppression and displacement only in historical, academic, and identity terms never in the context of our colonization being a living and ongoing system of economic exploitation that must be confronted and destroyed. Our subaltern position has become so entrenched in our national and personal psyche we debate and ridicule anyone who argues against total collusion with our subjugators.