| Submit your comments on this article | ||
| Home Front: WoT | ||
| Pentagon Seeking Leeway Overseas | ||
| 2005-02-24 | ||
The Pentagon is promoting a global counterterrorism plan that would allow Special Operations forces to enter a foreign country to conduct military operations without explicit concurrence from the U.S. ambassador there, administration officials familiar with the plan said. The plan would weaken the long-standing "chief of mission" authority under which the U.S. ambassador, as the president's top representative in a foreign country, decides whether to grant entry to U.S. government personnel based on political and diplomatic considerations.
"This is a military order on a global scale, something that hasn't existed since World War II," said a counterterrorism official with lengthy experience in special operations. He and other officials spoke on the condition of anonymity because the proposal is classified. The Pentagon sees the greater leeway as vital to enabling commando forces to launch operations quickly and stealthily against terrorist groups without often time-consuming interagency debate, said administration officials familiar with the plan. In the Pentagon view, the campaign against terrorism is a war and requires similar freedom to prosecute as in Iraq, where the military chain of command coordinates closely with the U.S. Embassy but is not subject to traditional chief-of-mission authority. The State Department and the CIA have fought the proposal, saying it would be dangerous to dilute the authority of the U.S. ambassador and CIA station chief to oversee U.S. military and intelligence activities in other countries. Over the past two years, the State Department has repeatedly blocked Pentagon efforts to send Special Operations forces into countries surreptitiously and without ambassadors' formal approval, current and former administration officials said. The State Department assigned counterterrorism coordinator J. Cofer Black, who also led the CIA's counterterrorism operations after Sept. 11, as its point person to try to thwart the Pentagon's initiative. "I gave Cofer specific instructions to dismount, kill the horses and fight on foot -- this is not going to happen," said Richard L. Armitage, describing how as deputy secretary of state -- a job he held until earlier this month -- he and others stopped six or seven Pentagon attempts to weaken chief-of-mission authority. In one instance, U.S. commanders tried to dispatch Special Forces soldiers into Pakistan without gaining ambassadorial approval but were rebuffed by the State Department, said two sources familiar with the event. The soldiers eventually entered Pakistan with proper clearance but were ordered out again by the ambassador for what was described as reckless behavior. "We had SF [Special Forces] guys in civilian clothes running around a hotel with grenades in their pockets," said one source involved in the incident, who opposes the Pentagon plan. Other officials cited another case to illustrate their concern. In the past year, they said, a group of Delta Force soldiers left a bar at night in a Latin American country and shot an alleged assailant but did not inform the U.S. Embassy for several days. In Pentagon policy circles, questions about chief-of-mission authority are viewed as part of a broad reassessment of how to organize the U.S. government optimally to fight terrorism. In this view, alternative models of U.S. military, diplomatic and intelligence authority -- possibly tailored to specific countries and situations -- should be considered. Pentagon officials familiar with the issue declined to speak on the record out of concern that issues of bureaucratic warfare would overshadow a serious policy question. Debate over the issue reignited last month, as Armitage and then-Secretary of State Colin L. Powell departed and Condoleezza Rice prepared to replace him, said an administration official familiar with the matter. When the Pentagon refused to change language in the execute order, that put the issue before Rice. In the past week, however, she has made it clear that she intends to protect the existing chief-of-mission authority. "Rice is resolute in holding to chief-of-mission authority over operations the way it exists now, for a very rational reason -- you need someone who can coordinate," said a senior State Department official. Some officials have viewed the debate as an early test of how Rice will defend State Department views on a range of matters in bureaucratic infighting with the Pentagon. The State Department's concerns are twofold, officials said: Conducting military operations would be perilous without the broad purview and oversight of the U.S. ambassador, and it would set a precedent that other U.S. agencies could follow. "The chief-of-mission authority is a pillar of presidential authority overseas," said the administration official familiar with the issue. "When you start eroding that, it can have repercussions that are . . . risky. Particularly, military action is one of the most important decisions a president makes . . . and that is the sort of action that should be taken with deliberation." U.S. ambassadors have full responsibility for supervising all U.S. government employees in that country, and when granting country clearances they are supposed to consider various factors, including ramifications for overall bilateral relations. For example, one reason the U.S. military never conducted aggressive operations against al Qaeda in Pakistan was a fear that such actions would incite the local population to overthrow the fragile, nuclear-capable government of President Pervez Musharraf. The rift between the Pentagon and State Department over chief-of-mission authority parallels broader concerns about the push to empower the Special Operations Command in the war on terrorism. The CIA, for example, has concerns that new intelligence-gathering initiatives by the military could weaken CIA station chiefs and complicate U.S. espionage abroad. Without close coordination with the CIA, former senior intelligence officials said, the military could target someone whom the CIA is secretly surveilling and disrupt a flow of valuable intelligence.
| ||
| Posted by:Steve |
| #4 hey! If our embassador to Venezuela's being a putz, just replace him |
| Posted by: Frank G 2005-02-24 4:00:13 PM |
| #3 I dont think its a bad thing. The intellegence gathering and miilitary type missions should not need some diplomat approval. Polititians only see thier little political world. The Stepping on eachothers toes thing I can see somewhat but I would imagine that rare the pentagon SFC would kill or attack a CIA mole, after all istnt the whole point of the Department of Homeland Securtity supposed to have everyone pooling resources? Persoanally I think the SFC should be going full tilt into every country were the terrorist are we will come dont like it kick em out period. And personally I believe one of the worst decisions ever was the elimination of the CIA's ability to assasinate foriegn leaders. If Bashar or Kim Jong Il were assasinated tommorow as long as blame could be sent else were it would be a good thing. The resulting chaos would leave todays week Democratic group with sudden US weapon and SOF supported in a position to take over. |
| Posted by: C-Low 2005-02-24 3:20:35 PM |
| #2 But it's how you go where the bad guys are and make them uncomfortable. That the bad guys can get all upset is , as Martha would say " a good thing". Like I've said all along you just deny, bold faced anyway. These Syrians are over due for a little hello kitty. |
| Posted by: Lucky 2005-02-24 2:07:21 PM |
| #1 I dunno...this sort of thing just screams "blow up in your face". All it takes is one occasion of bad intelligence, and the U.S. has blood all over its hands and the Islamists have another reason to crow (I'm not sure if that matters, if they don't have reasons, they invent them). |
| Posted by: gromky 2005-02-24 1:56:44 PM |