A Must Read

[SuperScout]

Congress to restrict use of Special Ops


By Bill Gertz
THE WASHINGTON TIMES



Congress is set to impose new restrictions on the use of Special Operations Forces that for the first time will require a presidential order before deploying commandos in routine but hidden activities.
The restrictions are contained in the classified Senate report accompanying the current version of the intelligence authorization bill for fiscal 2004. The restrictions were added to the report by members of the Senate Intelligence Committee after consultations with Stephen Cambone, the defense undersecretary for intelligence, according to current and former U.S. officials and documents obtained by The Washington Times.
The new rules, if contained in the final version of the bill, would add a burden to the military's deployment of Special Operations Forces by requiring the Pentagon to first obtain a presidential "finding," or directive, similar to those required for covert-action intelligence operations. Findings are declarations that the president "finds" a secret activity is in national interest.
A former special-operations officer said the committee language would redefine traditional military activity as a covert action. "What that means is that things that special ops used to do will now require sending a finding to [Capitol Hill] before doing anything," said the former officer who spoke on the condition of anonymity.
The restrictions are being called the "Cambone understanding" and would replace earlier intelligence report language from 1991 that excluded Special Operations Forces from the legal finding requirements. Currently, so-called traditional military activities, where the U.S. military's role is hidden, do not require a finding by the president. "We want to be able to deploy [special-operations commandos] in minutes and hours instead of days and weeks," said the former special-operations officer. "And this will get us delays. It will make it hard to kill terrorists by turning over deployment decisions to the Senate."
A senior U.S. intelligence official said the new report language undermines the efforts of Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld and CIA Director George J. Tenet to loosen restrictions on covert action in the war on terrorism since the September 11 attacks.
The senior official said the report language was inserted based on misunderstandings that resulted from conversations between Mr. Cambone and several senators, who were not identified.
"This hurts both CIA and [the Department of Defense]," the official said. A spokesman for the Senate Intelligence Committee had no comment.
The restrictions are not included in the House intelligence authorization report. A joint House-Senate conference will be held after Congress returns in September to work out differences between the House and Senate intelligence bills.
Covert-action findings are reported to Congress and in many past cases were disclosed to the public by officials opposed to the operations. The Senate Intelligence Committee's report on the authorization bill, produced in June, says that secret military activities in countries where the role of U.S. forces is known to the public are considered "traditional military activities."
However, those same activities when carried out in a nation where the presence of U.S. military forces is kept secret are to be treated as covert actions and require a presidential finding, the report states. The Senate report also says that "the committee commends the designee for undersecretary of defense for intelligence for agreeing to these conditions."
The new restrictions are opposed by most U.S. intelligence and defense officials. Larry DiRita, the chief Pentagon spokesman, said he could not discuss any details of the classified Senate report. "We're confident that by the time Congress has finished acting on this, they won't do anything that will make it more difficult to fight the war on terrorism," Mr. DiRita said. "What we're finding now is that fighting that war requires more flexibility in a number of areas, not more restrictions."
A senior Pentagon official would not say whether Mr. Rumsfeld would recommend that the president veto the bill if the report language is part of the final legislative package.
Army Special Forces, along with Navy and Air Force special operators, played a key role in the rapid U.S. military victory in ousting the Taliban in Afghanistan. Special-operations troops also were key to the victory in Iraq. They were used in western Iraq to seize airfields and monitor any use of short-range missiles by Iraqi forces. "What we've been saying is that special operations are not covert action," another official said, speaking on the condition of anonymity. "If you put a clandestine agent inside Iran to prepare for a hostage rescue, that's traditional military activity, not covert action."
Mr. Rumsfeld told Congress in February that the Bush administration is expanding the use of Special Operations Forces and has added $1.5 billion to its budget and nearly 2,000 more troops. The Defense Department's office of general counsel sent a memorandum to Mr. Cambone on June 18 that explained the differences between clandestine military activities that require a presidential finding and those that do not. The memo states that "covert actions are conducted by the CIA and require presidential findings."
"Clandestine activities conducted by [the Department of Defense] are part of traditional military activities and do not require presidential findings," the memo states. "Covert action does not include 'traditional military activities' or routine support to such," the memo states.
The memo also notes that "traditional military activities by statute are understood to encompass almost every use of uniformed military forces to include hostage rescue, apprehension of individual terrorists, [and] counternarcotics activities."
Traditional military activities include routine support, such as unilateral support for U.S. military forces. Covert action was defined in the memo by the general counsel's office as U.S. government activities "to influence political, economic, or military conditions abroad where it is intended that the role of the United States government will not be apparent or acknowledged publicly."
The covert-action definition specifically excludes traditional intelligence and counterintelligence work and "traditional diplomatic or military activities or routine support to such activities," the memo states.

[It seems that the micro-managers are working harder than ever to hamstring the military and intelligence services in performing their respective missions. I would urge a careful consideration of this article, then follow-up actions as your conscience dictates. Scouts Out!!]

[BLUEHAWK]

Thanks Scout -

Questions:

- Why, in your view should or must "traditional military activities" include counternarcotics intervention?

- Since America is spending $4 billion monthly in Iraq, so it is reported, and Pakistan remains a haven for terrorists across a border from our troops (who have a bounty on themselves) serving there, and given that precious little news is publicly shared on the war on Afghanistan (such as how much the defense budget is), how do we know that our people are progressing in their war?

- Some people believe that to authorize a general opening up of covert activities could, at times, be extended to theatres where it is not intended. Do you believe that such a reasonable caution is unwarranted?

- In the end, regardless of what is done administratively in the light of day, wouldn't you say the chances are better that Special Ops forces will do what they have to do anyway?

- Do the Special Ops intelligence units report their findings to the CIA and FBI, or to Homeland Security, that you know of?

[SuperScout]

Answers:

1. In this age of changing tactics, theories, and even definitions of what constitutes war, the inclusion of counternarcotics intervention is entirely appropriate. It has been well established in fact that profits from narcotics operations have funded numerous terrorists activities, and continue to do so even today. A more strategic vision of a matrix of terrorism, drug trafficking, and other forms of non-traditional warfare is being formulated, and the very complexity of it all prevents instant solutions. But better minds are indeed at work in assembling this matrix, which in essence is a four-dimensional collage, each requiring a different response which is also required to be multi-dimensional.

2. Gauging the success or lack thereof of combat operations by maintaining the mentality of an anal bookkeeper is certainly fodder for ulcers, hand-wringing, and Chicken-Little mindsets. While I am pleased to note the dollar cost of our operations in Iraq, I am also aware of the reality that [1] I can't do much to raise or reduce that amount, [2] don't know if this is too little being spent, and [3] doubt that more than 37 people in the entire US give a shit. Was there comparable questions about the cost of liberating Europe or the Pacific area? Were the citizens given a daily intelligence briefing on the latest developments, stories of successes, or blithering blunders? It is curious to note that, typical of the lazy print sluts' MO, we see and read little of the greatness of our warriors, the wondrous miracles that they are producing, and the improvements being wrought.

3. Making too many people privy to covert operations is no less futile than making a decent souffle during an earthquake.
"Extending covert operations to where it is not intended" is an exercise in semantical masturbation.

4. If done properly and correctly, how would we ever know?

5. See Answer #1.

[sfga6970]

You beat me to the punch with your answer. I agree with you completely. Speed is of the essence in any SOF operation. The doctrine of "need to know" should be applied and those making the hard decisions should not have to wait for those who need to debate the issue.

As you stated, drugs and their proceeds are a problem. They help to fund people that are against our national interests, so they are "fair game" for our forces who need to act in a timely manner without having to wait for permission from some committee which is probably on vacation.

[BLUEHAWK]

Scout -

In other words, whatever the Defense Department wants to do it should and must be given unfettered right to do.

- I do not recall that provision appearing anywhere in our Constitution.
- The War on Drugs was lost before it began, and is only being selectively waged at best anyway (e.g. in Afghanistan and Columbia).
- Thanks to Patriot Files and the hundreds of special unit newsletters, americans DO, most definitely, receive ample news praising and supporting our service members, throughout the world, irrespective of political viewpoint. The only ones who do not receive that news are those who must depend solely on mainstream media.
- I believe it is accurate to state that MILLIONS of americans care, very deeply, about exactly how and when and where our taxes are spent.

Perhaps I am more optimistic than many.

[BLUEHAWK]

sfga and Scout -

Another way to simply, and extremely sincerely, question the efficacy of including counternarcotics intervention in any military activities would appear to be:

- Has any nation, ANY government, ever, in any period of history been successful in preventing the manufacture, harvesting or use of mind-altering substances?

- Is such an effort, then, a proper and equivalent role to be assigned to the military forces of a nation?

- Have previous and lengthy, expensive efforts of our government to prevent the use of drug money for whatever purpose been effective?

- Is it not true that in many instances, it is proven that most nations claim to fight against drugs while being utterly and knowingly unable to do anything about them (and sometimes even secretly SUPPORTING the trade), e.g. The Golden Triangle!

One definition of insanity is to continue doing something the same way and expecting different results.

[sfga6970]

I can see your point, the war against drugs has been somewhat ineffective throughout the years --- but at least we are trying. The military is the only action group available that is trained and able to react in a timely manner to counteract to any intelligence we receive. If we have to wait for a special government "task force" to be approved or finally show up, the growers or dealers will have died of old age.

The drug problem does fall under national security and as such is a reponsibility of the military. We must protect our citizens from all threats, both foreign and domestic.

[BLUEHAWK]

For some time now, I have begun realizing that the more we continue focusing in that direction, the more we will be not looking at what is now at our SIX (the meaning of which I have now learned).

The War On Drugs is a diversionary tactic, a blatant one, very dangerous, crippling in fact... truly a both foreign and domestic threat, but not of the kind that is so widely believed.

Governments will keep some of us looking "over there", and will all the while be manipulating the more important priorities.

Our military has enough to do already without being asked to enforce an unenforceable prohibitionist policy that is proven to be useless.

"Go" and "No Go" drugs for our fighters in Iraq, and doubtless elsewhere?
What would be the difference.

Respectfully stated,
Bluehawk

[colmurph]

How did Bill Gertz get this classified information? SOmeone from Capitol Hill leaked it to him! Can you imagine what's going to happen now? Somebody decides we need a covert Spec Ops mission into some country and it goes to "Capitol Hill" and the next morning the complete details of the operation are front page news in the local papers of all the worlds Capitals! For some reason, our Senators and Congressmen are unable to grasp the meaning of "Classified Information" and "OPSEC". If what Bill Gertz says is true, we may as well start dismanteling the entire Special Operations community as it is totally compromised and is now useless.

[sfga6970]

You are absolutely correct. In real estate or business they say "location, location, location" in special ops it is "timing, timing, timing". A group of of trained, dedicated soldiers can't wait to react to hot intelligence until some politician far from the theater decides to vote whether it is a go or no go. Remember Son Tay? Had they reacted sooner we might have been successful. As Nike says, "just do it", and sort out the consequences later. If a quick reaction can save even one American life it is worth the risk.