Wikipedia describes content of the US Army Field Manual 30-31B:

It identifies a strategy of tension involving violent attacks which are then blamed on radical left-wing groups in order to convince allied governments of the need for counter-action.

Wikipedia says that US government claims it's a forgery. Other noteworthy people claim that it's real:

The former deputy director of the CIA, Ray S. Cline, has stated it to be genuine. Licio Gelli, the Italian leader of the anti-Communist P2 freemason lodge bluntly told the BBC's Allan Francovich, "The CIA gave it to me".

Is there convincing evidence to determine the authenticity of the document that goes beyond the summary of Wikipedia?

  • Not that it would silence any conspiracy nutters, but the Army FM listing doesn't have it there: armypubs.army.mil/doctrine/Active_FM.html – JasonR Jun 18 '12 at 11:40
  • 5
    While I cannot speak as to the authenticity of this specific document, I will say the following: For any power who goes to war, generally, the end already justify the means, therefore, it would in fact surprise me if these tactics were NOT used, as they would almost certainly be quite effective. As for a real world example, see 9/11 which many conspiracy theorists argue was orchestrated by internal US groups! Whether or not this is true in reality, considering the possibility, you can immediately see the effectiveness of such actions (Able mobilise military in the Middle East, and secure o – major-mann Jun 18 '12 at 11:54
  • @Brightblades: The army website you linked to doesn't include any statement about classific manuals. It also only publishes manuals that were released in the 1980s or later. The public debate whether this manual is real started in the 1970s and since then the US government publically denies that it's real. – Christian Jun 18 '12 at 13:52
  • 8
    It is possible that the CIA created the forged manual. So in that case the answer would be yes it was forged and yes it was real. – Chad Jun 18 '12 at 18:25
  • @major-Mann while these tactics are widely used, it is rare to find someone stupid enough to write them down in an official operational document, and unheard of to place them in an official, sanctioned field manual (at least in the modern day and age). – HopelessN00b Feb 6 at 0:01

You must log in to answer this question.

Browse other questions tagged .