A congressionalreport tells us whythe DefenseDepartment shouldnot be involved inthe spy game.
Study Says Pentagon Should Not Conduct Covert OperationsBy Cliff Montgomery – Jan. 26th, 2007Why shouldn’t the Defense Department take over at least some of the covert actions normally performed by the C.I.A.? A little-noticed Congressional Research Service report, issued on December 6th, 2006, crisply and concisely gives the answers. We re-print some extracts below:“The 9/11 Commission Report recommended that responsibility for directing and executing paramilitary operations should be shifted from the CIA to the U.S. Special Operations Command (USSOCOM). The President directed the Secretary of Defense and Director of Central Intelligence to review this recommendation and present their advice by mid-February 2005, but ultimately, they did not recommend a transfer of paramilitary responsibilities.”The separate roles of the Department of Defense (DOD) and the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) are not always clearly reflected in media accounts, and at times there has been considerable operational overlap.”DOD defines special operations [SOF] as “operations conducted in hostile, denied, or politically sensitive environments to achieve military, diplomatic, informational, and/or economic objectives employing military capabilities for which there is no broad conventional force requirement.””In this report, the term “paramilitary operations” will be used for operations conducted by the CIA whose officers and employees are not part of the armed forces of the United States. (In practice, military personnel may be temporarily assigned to the CIA and CIA personnel may temporarily serve directly under a military commander.)”In general, special operations are distinguishable from regular military operations by degree of physical and political risk, operational techniques, and mode of employment among other factors.”DOD special operations are frequently clandestine–designed in such a way as to ensure concealment; they are not necessarily covert, that is, concealing the identity of the sponsor is not a priority. The CIA, however, conducts covert and clandestine operations to avoid directly implicating the U.S. Government.”The statutory definition of covert action (“activity or activities of the United States Government 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….”) is broad and can include a wide range of clandestine efforts…”In the case of paramilitary operations, there is a clear potential for overlap with activities that can be carried out by DOD. In general, the CIA would be designated to conduct operations that are to be wholly covert or disavowable.”In practice, responsibilities for paramilitary operations have been assigned by the National Security Council on a case-by-case basis.Potential Impacts“Diminished CIA Intelligence Capabilities. Some observers suggest that a capability to plan and undertake paramilitary operations is directly related to the Agency’s responsibility to obtain intelligence from human sources. Some individuals and groups that supply information may also be of assistance in undertaking or supporting a paramilitary operation. If CIA were to have no responsibilities in this area, however, certain types of foreign contacts might not be exploited and capabilities that have proven important (in Afghanistan and elsewhere) might erode or disappear.“Additional Strain on SOF. Some question if this proposed shift in responsibility would place additional strains on SOF who are extensively committed worldwide. Others argue that SOF lack the experience and requisite training to conduct covert operations. They suggest that if SOF do undertake covert operations training, that it could diminish their ability to perform their more traditional missions.“A Reduction in Flexibility. The 9/11 Report notes the CIA’s “reputation for agility in operations,” as well as the military’s reputation for being “methodical and cumbersome.” Some experts question if DOD and SOF are capable of operating in a more agile and flexible manner. They contend that the CIA was able to beat SOF into Afghanistan because they had less bureaucracy to deal with than did SOF, which permitted them to “do things faster, cheaper, and with more flexibility than the military.””Some are concerned that if SOF takes over responsibility for clandestine and covert operations that they will become less agile and perhaps more vulnerable to bureaucratic interference from defense officials.“Potential Legal Considerations. Some experts believe that there may be legal difficulties if SOF are required to conduct covert operations. One issue is the legality of ordering SOF personnel to conduct covert activities that would require them to forfeit their Geneva Convention status to retain deniability.”Also, covert operations can often be contrary to international laws or the laws of war and U.S. military personnel are generally expected to follow these laws.”Special Forces…fall under [the review of] the House and Senate Armed Services Committees, and it is unclear how Congress would handle oversight if covert operations are shifted to SOF, as well as how disputes between the intelligence and armed services committees would be dealt with.”
