You have commented 339 times on Rantburg.

Your Name
Your e-mail (optional)
Website (optional)
My Original Nic        Pic-a-Nic        Sorry. Comments have been closed on this article.
Bold Italic Underline Strike Bullet Blockquote Small Big Link Squish Foto Photo
Submit your comments on this article
Home Front: WoT
LAT: U.S. seeks to rein in its military spy teams
2006-12-18
Turf Queens at 10 paces!
Special Forces units work in allied countries and clash with the CIA.
WASHINGTON — U.S. Special Forces teams sent overseas on secret spying missions have clashed with the CIA and carried out operations in countries that are staunch U.S. allies, prompting a new effort by the agency and the Pentagon to tighten the rules for military units engaged in espionage, according to senior U.S. intelligence and military officials.

The spy missions are part of a highly classified program that officials say has better positioned the United States to track terrorist networks and capture or kill enemy operatives in regions such as the Horn of Africa, where weak governments are unable to respond to emerging threats.
Posted by:.com

#18  Gener agree wid Shieldwolf. "Getting rolled up by locals" - crux of the problem right there. MLE's, etc were originally intended as last-resort only, when Civie INTEL does not have the armed manpower or required Techs, espec when armed combat is likely, time is off the essence, local allies-resources are limited or unavailable, and the opposition possesses overwhelming firepower + mass. In any case, where the military or tactical combat aspects of recovery = destruction are involved, the USDOD + Lead Mil Service controls, NOT the CIA. In my day, where joint teams are involved Civies don't take charge until the combat/mission is over and area is secured. The aftermath no longer concerns the DOD or lead service. LEAD SERVICE > usually or predomin means US Army + Army INTEL-SPECOPS.
Posted by: JosephMendiola   2006-12-18 20:43  

#17  At one time, the CIA had a real formidable covert COIN force of its own, and did not need much help from the military in carrying out seek-and-destroy missions against targets. That was all gutted by Senator Church and his buddies in the 1970s, and the rot that started then was advanced by Carter's and Clinton's policies of politicizing advancement in the Agency, based on perceived political loyalty to their administrations. That is why today, the only effective teams for covert ops are the military.
Posted by: Shieldwolf   2006-12-18 18:05  

#16  You are so right!
Posted by: 49 Pan   2006-12-18 15:50  

#15  First, you can count the number of nations that are "staunch" US allies on the fingers of your hands. Secondly, the CIA is the biggest cluster-F$$$ bureaucracy in the nation, and needs a thorough house-cleaning from top to bottom. Two halfhearted attempts have come to nothing. Thirdly, US Special Forces have ALWAYS been trained in intelligence collection, which they are very good at. Finally, this "put all the intel under one director" idiocy has proven to be a fiasco, with nothing but turf wars coming from it. We may need to fire everyone above GS-15 in all the spy agencies, and build a new leadership that understands that their first obligation is to follow the Constitution and obey the directions of their bosses, not their own bureaucratic agenda.
Posted by: Old Patriot   2006-12-18 15:22  

#14  U.S. Special Forces teams ... carried out operations in countries that are staunch U.S. allies

We have Special Forces guys running loose in Australia and the U.K? Who would have guessed?
Posted by: SteveS   2006-12-18 14:58  

#13  We're just glad you're on our side, OldSpook dear, in whatever capacity you can be most effective.
Posted by: trailing wife   2006-12-18 13:51  

#12  49Pan, impossible to work as a team when you have differing objectives. Military side is interested in winning and if you have to kill to do so, you do it. CIA is still over-emphasising in risk management, and preoccupied with ass-covering, feifdom bulding, "silo" (or chimney) intel, and politics. They don't share key data despite the new emphasis on sharing data from the other elements of the IC (lots easier to get raw data instead of analyst product anymore EXCEPT from CIA). And whats worse is that they have been proven to leak (politically) so that's why the MLEs do not advise the CIA - no data coming from them that the MLEs can use, and can't trust em with the data the MLEs have, nor with OPSEC. CIA isn't on the same team anymore. CIA has become nearly as bad as State with their aversion to direct action. Don't think you need to ask me again why I came back on the military side of things...
Posted by: OldSpook   2006-12-18 13:47  

#11  As much as I like to beat on them, I just wish they would all work as a team with DOD and vis versa. In some areas they are working together and great things are happening. There are great operators on both teams, usually at the lower levels, and enough glory to go around. Like many have said here before, the old cold war dogs that won't work as a team need to go.
Posted by: 49 Pan   2006-12-18 12:06  

#10  Where's the article listing all the CIA screw-ups and turncoats since, say, 1972?
Posted by: Anguper Hupomosing9418   2006-12-18 12:00  

#9  In short, they're getting the job done and CIA (a bunch of frat boys playing I Spy) looking bad.
Posted by: gromgoru   2006-12-18 11:29  

#8  49 Pan.
If you recall after 9/11 the COS was a Birkenstock wearing political. He was raised in the culture of when Jimmy Carter castrated the CIA. The MLEs still have their balls attached and go after the target sets which the RA ignores because it’s to “dangerous”. BTW, This is the second time the MLEs have been outed.
Posted by: Joe of the Jungle   2006-12-18 10:10  

#7  I was a JUSMAG 3 and the COS made me crazy. Won't share, then gets pissed when you step on his contact or compromise an op. I just wish they would wourk as a team, it could all be dufferent. Stay safe Beso!
Posted by: 49 Pan   2006-12-18 08:49  

#6  49 Pan:

Precisely so! And I might add, "coordination" with the COS or his #2 does not necessarily mean cooperation, assistance, or a thumbs up! The embassy teams are the "resident experts," just aske em. Everyone else is a "drive-by" no matter what anyone says. Been that way for years, gonna stay that way as long as you have a diplo-dink appointee in the corner office that the COS can run to.
Posted by: Besoeker   2006-12-18 08:21  

#5  This is a bullshit propaganda attempt by those who opposed this from the start and now that Rummy is out are bent on ending it. It must be working well or the folks would not come out against it. It's not uncommon for station chiefs to bitch when even a JSET comes into country.
Posted by: 49 Pan   2006-12-18 08:12  

#4  Klingons, too? I really am behind on these things.
Posted by: trailing wife   2006-12-18 08:07  

#3  SF are very direct. They see the obvious and go after it. If they see a hostile arms merchant, they immediately want to take him down. CIA, on the other hand, sees the same guy and says, "How can we use him?"

Both techniques are important. There are a lot of bad guys out there who are just better off dead, and sooner rather than later. However, there are also a lot that you can turn to your advantage to haul in bigger fish and bust up enemy operations.

In Vietnam, the CIA dominated too long, and while it was aware of large networks of bad guys, it did nothing to take them down, always hoping for the even bigger score. But when the Phoenix Program came along, its purpose was to wipe the slate clean, and it did. They finally took down the enemy networks that the CIA had so carefully documented.

But neither the SF or the CIA could counteract a major problem: the friendly civilian government was pretty rotten. A third effort was needed, to do some nation building in South Vietnam. With all our focus on defeating their enemies and building their military, we neglected their core problem.
Posted by: Anonymoose   2006-12-18 08:07  

#2  But critics point to a series of incidents in recent years that have caused diplomatic problems for the United States.

Excuse me, what hasn't caused "diplomatic problems" of late, and who gives a damn?

In 2004, members of an MLE team operating in Paraguay shot and killed an armed assailant who tried to rob them outside a bar, said former intelligence officials familiar with the incident. U.S. officials removed the members of the team from the country, the officials said.

So fuc*king what? Would "U.S. officials" have preferred the "armed assailant" have iced the MLE team? Klingons are likewised "removed" over similar incidents, and there have been many.

In another incident, members of a team in East Africa were arrested by the local government after their espionage activity was discovered. Cost of doing binness. It happens to Klingons as well.

"It was a compromised surveillance activity," said a former senior CIA official familiar with the incident. <B>After a suspicious call to host nation intelligence and police The official said members of the unit "got rolled up by locals and we just happened to have SUV's and DS drivers standing by....got them out." The former official declined to name the country or provide other details.

He said it was an isolated example of an operation that was exposed, but that coordination problems were frequent.

"They're pretty freewheeling," but highly effective and frequently successful the former CIA official said of the military teams. He said that it was not uncommon for CIA station chiefs to learn of military intelligence operations only after they were underway, and that many conflicted with existing operations being carried out by the CIA or the foreign country's intelligence service.

Such problems "really are quite costly," said John Brennan, former director of the National Counterterrorism Center. "It can cost peoples' lives, can cost sensitive programs and can set back foreign policy interests." Foreign policy interests? Examples please? "Costs lives," you mean like 9/11?

Rubbish, Klingon whining and rubbish coming on the heals of Rumsfeld's departure. Timing is everything.
Posted by: Besoeker   2006-12-18 08:02  

#1  The CIA hired Valerie Plame* and failed to tell us about 9/11 ahead of time. Thanks to the CIA's incompetence, the military is having to do its own intelligence work.

* Way too good-looking to be an agent runner. Stands out too much in crowds. And then there are the personality issues, which led to her recruiting her husband to carry out a mission he was unequipped to accomplish (in Niger).
Posted by: Zhang Fei   2006-12-18 05:16  

00:00