The "revolution in military affairs" (RMA) is a term that became popular in the early 1990s to describe the changes in military tactics, strategies, and doctrine that follow from (and lead to) the development and deployment of radically new technologies such as directed-energy weapons. It also includes such concepts as "information warfare." This page contains items related to these developments, as well as some general items on military practices.
- In the report "The Revolution in Military Affairs and Conflict Short of War," Steven Metz and James O. Kievit of the Army War College describe the RMA in a cautionary manner. They envision a "future history" of a revolution of techno-authoritarianism, carried out in stages to alter some basic values of Americans that might stand in the way.
The advantage of directed energy weapons over conventional ones [in drug interdiction] is deniability. Against whom is such deniability aimed? ...deniability must be aimed at the American people, who do not sanction the imprisonment, much less execution, of individuals without a trial...
- Parascope has a description of some of the history of Army PSYOPS (Psychological Operations) in an article "Psywar Terror Tactics."
- This article by Timothy L. Thomas, "The Age of the New Persuaders," [ *] is from Military Review, May-June 1997. It discusses manipulation, perception management, deception, and psychological operations. The following excerpt describes psychological manipulation devices.
psychological- this device turns personality weaknesses to one's advantage, or provokes an individual to lose control. Under the influence of these conditions, the object may make mistakes which can benefit the manipulator. These methods included: --a statement with multiple-meanings, which shows the object much is known about him, but for some special motives is not being revealed; --citing authorities whose opinions cannot serve as evidence of the subject being discussed; --providing unsupportable pledges and promises in advance; --creating an atmosphere of trust, although in reality the manipulator hardly knows the object; --pretense of unity of thinking and closeness in spiritual values and interests; --discredit the person influencing the object and interfering with the manipulator's achievement of his goal; --offering sympathy and support to the object under circumstances that eventually can be turned to the manipulator's advantage. One can use an object's vanity and conceit to advantage. This can be done by flattery and respect, and drawing one's ally into the conversation against the object. The ally can offer mockery, insults, and disinterest to what the object says, and one can then appear to be more reasonable by disagreeing with the ally and agreeing with the object to gain trust.17
- In this Washington Post article from May 7, 2001, William Arkin describes "The Underground Military." The U.S. military is involved in secret and unacknowledged actions around the world, making actual assessment of the extent of operations difficult -- and making oversight difficult as well.
- This is a 1994 memorandum of understanding between the Department of Defense and the Department of Justice [*] agreeing to share and jointly develop technology and systems. It is online at NameBase.
- Here are two articles by Frank Morales which discuss the trend toward the militarization of the police, and the increasing involvement of the military in domestic police operations. The first is from Covert Action Quarterly, Spring-Summer 1999, " The Militarization of the Police." [*[c_caqMilitarizationOfThePolice.htm - MISSING]] The second is a longer version of an article that appeared in CAQ's Spring-Summer 2000 issue. It is titled "U.S. Military Civil Disturbance Planning: The War At Home." [**] Among other topics, this article discusses the increasing circumvention of the Posse Comitatus Act. From the second article:
As this and numerous other documents reveal, U.S. military training in civil disturbance "suppression", which targets the American public, is in full operation today. The formulation of legitimizing doctrine, the training in the "tactics and techniques" of "civil disturbance suppression", and the use of "abusable", "non-lethal" weaponry, are ongoing, financed by tax dollars. According to the Pentagon, "US forces deployed to assist federal and local authorities during times if civil disturbance...will follow use-of-force policy found in Department of Defense Civil Disturbance Plan-Garden Plot." (Joint Chiefs of Staff, Standing Rules of Engagement, Appendix A, 1 October 1994.)