The Pentagon won’t say why its targeting manual was released online | Popular Science reports. What is going on here? HAHAHA. This document is long and a fun read. It is all about being committees and bureaucracies set up to kill lots of innocent people while denying this is happening. It is all about brutal wars that have various rules that are totally useless or ignored or worse, leads to mindless mass murders and…it is now online for all of us to read. Committees piled on committees in the Pentagon, working tirelessly on red tape and excuses for bungling messes created by diplomats who are…Hillary Clinton is calling! HAHAHA. She wants to know what happened to Libya.
Last week without fanfare, a 230-page military document (PDF) appeared in the public domain. The document, authored in May 2016, is a comprehensive list of rules, standards, and definitions governing the heart of what the military does: picking targets, and making sure those targets are valid and within the bounds of the laws of war.
The Pentagon isn’t exactly sure how the document ended up online.
On Monday, Nov. 15, the nonprofit Federation of American Scientists ran a short post on the newly public document. Entitled “Joint Chiefs Urge “Due Diligence” in Targeting the Enemy,” the post highlights the central theme of the instruction manual: attacking the wrong target in war can have negative consequences for the United States and the countries it works with. This is a simple point, repeated and clarified through page after unredacted page in great detail, setting not just the rules but the very language that America’s military uses when fighting wars and deciding which object or person to fire at.
We kill whatever we kill and then label the victims as ‘terrorists’ or ‘the enemy’ or if a hospital is destroyed, ‘blame Putin.’ This goes on and on and on. War is hell and the hell’s hounds are the paper pushers hidden in safe places, killing from afar.
Watchdog: US Has Killed Over 80 Civilians in Mosul Operation — News from Antiwar.com and this news comes from Russian media, not US media. US media actually tried telling the truth in Vietnam only to be slapped down. Now, they never tell the truth about anything. Lying is standard. This means especially lying about how much money we are losing in wars. Wars are bankrupting us.
Rich Europe that allowed millions of violent illegal alien Muslims invade, makes us pay nearly entirely for their protection. This isn’t discussed by our rulers and Trump blew off the cover of that scam by saying, he would not shoulder the entire burden of protecting Europe at our cost. About time.
One by One, ISIS Social Media Experts Are Killed as Result of F.B.I. Program – The New York Times reports as the war against words continues. It is aimed straight at the rest of us, the NYT and WP and other media lying bitches have said openly they are at war with information and are very angry that we are screwing up their propaganda campaigns. All over our mainstream media are stories that 16 year old Russian kiddies are destroying the media stories by ‘spreading lies’ which is a total lie, of course, not that the US media can do anything but lie about everything.
Russia: US Should Stop Getting In the Way of Syria Fight — News from Antiwar.com reports. Yes, our busy bodies at the Pentagon have wrecked everything and committed war crimes and should stand aside.
Now on to the documents that the Pentagon released Click here to read the documents:
4. The nine elements of vetting are:
a. Target identification and the use of the appropriate naming convention.
b. Target location.
c. Target Function (the appropriate CATCODE or functional code)
d. Target description.
e. Functional characterization of the target
f. Target significance focused on the significance of the target considering the system.
g. Elements. This includes characterization and geospatial definition within the target facility, as appropriate.
h. Target expectation statement, focused on the effect on the overall target system.
5. Vetting agencies should reply to the vetting request with their vetting votes. Agencies vote on the accuracy of the characterization within their intelligence discipline. Votes are not dependent on any target engagement concerns. Engagement concerns must be addressed during target validation. IC vetting votes reflect SME feedback WRT the body of intelligence they produce to confirm that this entity performs the databased function for the defined adversary. Agencies will cast their vote by annotating their vote and any comments in the MIDB vetting remark. Modifications to target intelligence during the vetting session are not permitted. The only four votes that can be cast are:
a. Concur. The agency agrees with the candidate target’s characterization. Administrative comments (i.e., misspellings, grammar, etc.) are authorized with this remark, but the vote remains Concur.
b. Concur with Comments. The agency concurs but notes some non- significant errors or has additional information regarding any of the elements of vetting. Administrative discrepancies (i.e., misspellings, grammar, etc.) do not warrant this vote. Note: In order to ensure visibility and appropriate consideration during validation, vetting agencies should duplicate any RTL requests in their vetting comments.
c. Nonconcur. The agency disagrees with the target’s characterization. The agency must include rationale for this vote. (Note: The vetting agency should refrain from non-concurring based on grammar, spelling, and typographic mistakes unless these errors significantly distort the proposed characterizations.)
d. Abstain. The agency will provide a vote of abstain when the agency does not have any expertise on the target type or intelligence available to check the accuracy of the functional characterization, to include specialized agencies not having their own original reporting on the candidate target. A statement of this fact is required with the vote, i.e., “Agency has no supporting intelligence to make an assessment on this target.”
6. Vetting votes and comments must be recorded and associated with the target in MIDB and linked to the ETF. CIA, DIA, NGA and NSA will record their votes in MIDB directly. (Note: During crisis planning it may be necessary to provide vetting responses by other means to facilitate operational planning. The IC should populate crisis planning vetting responses in MIDB when able to formally provide the organizations response for the ETF. For ETFs databased outside of MIDB the IC will provide their response as requested by the joint force.) Any other agencies’ votes (e.g., DoS, DoE, Treasury, etc.) will be recorded by the joint force in a vetting remark in MIDB. Note: Voting agencies may not change their vote outside of a formal vetting session without JFC notification.
TARGET LIST TYPES AND JUSTIFICATION
1. (U) Introduction. This appendix sets the standard for production of target list management data relevant to target intelligence production. Target list management includes list types, naming convention, source documentation and quality control.
2. (U) Target List Types in MIDB. MIDB contains all doctrinal target lists types as well as additional options under the “target list” label to assist targeteers with information management. Finally, No-Strike List, while not doctrinally a “target list” is under this field for ease of use. See reference af for additional details.
a. (U) Candidate Target List (CTL) – A list of objects or entities submitted by component commanders, appropriate agencies, or the Joint Force Commander’s staff for further development and inclusion on the joint target list and/or restricted target list, or moved to the no-strike list.
b. (U) Joint Target List (JTL) – A consolidated list of selected targets, upon which there are no restrictions placed, considered to have military significance in the Joint Force Commander’s operational area.
e. (U) Restricted Target List (RTL) – A list of restricted targets nominated by elements of the joint force and approved by the Joint Force Commander or directed by higher authorities.
d. (U) Target Nomination List (TNL) – A prioritized list of targets drawn from the joint target list and/or restricted target list to be nominated by component commanders, appropriate agencies, or the Joint Force Commander’s staff for inclusion on the joint integrated prioritized target list.
e. (U) Joint Integrated Prioritized Target List (JIPTL) – A combined and prioritized list of targets approved and maintained by the Joint Force Commander.
f. (U) No Strike List (NSL) – A list of objects or entities characterized as protected from the effects of military operations under International Law and/or Rules of Engagement.
g. (U) Time Sensitive Target (TST) List – A Joint Force Commander validated target or set of targets requiring immediate response because it is a highly lucrative fleeting target of opportunity or it poses (or will soon pose) a danger to friendly forces.
h. (U) Target Development Nomination (TDN) List – A list of nominated targets that meets basic target development criteria but requires additional intermediate target development before submitting as a candidate target. See reference aa for details.
i. (U) Other – Lists associated with targeting that do not fall under the above categories but are important for target intelligence purposes. Each CCMD will determine the management of its lists in the “other” category.
The pencil pushers have everything covered and then go about merrily committing war crimes. There is no mercy in wars by definition. The pretense we are being ‘careful’ and ‘do little harm’ has been a lie from day one way back in my youth. Our military destroys lots and lots of lives trying to stomp on various helpless populations. Even then, we lose the wars we launch because the people refuse to stop fighting like in say, Afghanistan or Iraq.
Figuring this all out is life and death for our empire so I expect no head scratching over the military bureaucracy to occur.
209 Greenhollow Rd
Petersburgh, NY 12138
Make checks out to ‘Elaine Supkis’
Click on the Pegasus icon on the right sidebar to donate via Paypal.