| Submit your comments on this article |
| Home Front |
| Congress to restrict use of Special Ops |
| 2003-08-13 |
| Long article, EFL: 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 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. Have to ask "Mother, may I?". 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." Makes you wonder who’s side the Senate is on. 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. We need to know who these bastards are. Bet I can guess which party they belong to. "This hurts both CIA and [the Department of Defense]," the official said. A spokesman for the Senate Intelligence Committee had no comment. I’ll just bet he doesn’t want to talk about it. Covert-action findings are reported to Congress and in many past cases were disclosed to the public by officials opposed to the operations. Guess who. 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 new restrictions are opposed by most U.S. intelligence and defense officials. 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. Veto it, and publicly tar and feather anyone, of either party, who supported it. |
| Posted by:Steve |
| #13 There aren't many people in the US Senate that I'd trust to feed my dogs if I went away for the weekend. |
| Posted by: tu3031 2003-8-13 10:15:58 PM |
| #12 This is our illustrious Senate Intelligence Committee notice that even the Republicans have got some weak sisters in the lineup (Snowe, Hagel) but the Dem package is just plain dumb...heard Dick Durbin or Barbra Mikulski or Wyden talk about intelligence lately? They can't even spell it |
| Posted by: Frank G 2003-8-13 7:09:19 PM |
| #11 This MUST be vetoed. This president has gained much respect for making efforts not to repeat the lethal mistakes of Viet Nam. To allow this to pass would again have politicians deciding which bridges to bomb...whoooaa...I'm having a flashback. Say it ain't so! |
| Posted by: Sgt.DT 2003-8-13 4:39:47 PM |
| #10 The Democrats are so anti-american that they have to hamstring anything that is effective. Remember the little piece of legislation that lead to the fall of Saigon...Democrats passed a bill that forbid military aid to the South. Remember the little piece of legislation that got Ollie North in trouble...bill forbidding military aid to rebels fighting a marxist regime in Nicurfreakinagua.... This piece of legislation and the two examples above are essentially violation of the separation of powers provisions of the Constitution. Seems the founding fathers came up with this inconvenient thing that says the President will conduct foreign policy...Congress cannot limit the Presidents ability to conduct foreign policy. I think this little tidbit should be run up the flag pole and the writers, lets see, Graham and the other minority members of the Senate Intelligence(??) Committee, should be publically humiliated. What a bunch of crap. |
| Posted by: SOG475 2003-8-13 3:57:00 PM |
| #9 The reason our Armed Forces are so successful is because the commanders have the FLEXIBILITY to fight the battle. Making a Commander gain approval every time he wants employ SpecOps for a certain situation would be a HUGE mistake. Next they will want to approve troop movements and bombing targets (That was the FAILED model in Vietnam). Stephen Cambone must be a big fan of the Soviet doctrine that centralizes all decisions with the political apparatus. Someone hasn't been reading his Art of War (Sun Zi) ... the liberals, of course ;-) but he did note that two of the most important elements of battle were control on the ground, and the real need for spies (the sole form of SpecOps back in the Warring States period). There's a famous incident where he demostrated to a king by setting up a king's harem as an impromptu unit, then executing the two "commanding officers" for negligence - refusing the king's plea for mercy, to demonstrate that so as the king could do nothing against this, he could do even less with an army deployed far away. (See both delays in the relaying of orders/intelligence, and common sense.) Incidentally, didn't the Soviets have an instance where their centralization cost them dearly? (The USS Clueless noted that in the Korean War, Chinese centralization - ironic for a people who produced Sun Zi - prevented them from extrapolating and capitalizing [excuse the pun :-D] on any tactical victories, which were always followed by powerful counterattacks from the post-MacArthur commander of US Forces Korea.) |
| Posted by: Lu Baihu 2003-8-13 3:18:42 PM |
| #8 Guys, let's not forget who's got the majority in the Senate. The party, which, in the words of its favorite |
| Posted by: Not Mike Moore 2003-8-13 2:45:14 PM |
| #7 Anonymous: From the Merriam Webster Dictionary: Oxymoron - a combination of contradictory or incongruous words (as cruel kindness). From the American Heritage Dictionary: Oxymoron - A rhetorical figure in which incongruous or contradictory terms are combined, as in a deafening silence and a mournful optimist. So, yes, Senate Intelligence is a contradiction in terms. |
| Posted by: Tibor 2003-8-13 2:40:44 PM |
| #6 Bush won't veto it though. I don't think Bush is tough enough to veto anything. |
| Posted by: Cal Ulmann 2003-8-13 2:25:03 PM |
| #5 I ain't going back to the 1970s when our intel organizations had their hands tied. This isn't happening as long as I can shoot my mouth off about it. Congress needs to grow up and let the special ops guys do their jobs, unemcumbered and free to dispose of our national enemies. God Bless the CIA, ONI and our special forces. Let them go through our enemies like crap through a goose. |
| Posted by: badanov 2003-8-13 12:56:07 PM |
| #4 ...a contradiction in terms? I believe you mean OXY[gen][deprived]MORON |
| Posted by: Anonymous 2003-8-13 12:17:21 PM |
| #3 "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." Let's not string up Cambone yet. Sounds like the DoD made it clear that the military was not supposed to be subject to the "finding" requirement, but some bozos on the Senate Intelligance Committee tried to get their paws on covert military deployments. I wouldn't be surprised if Rummy had this leaked to embarrass the Senators involved. BTW, isn't "Senate Intelligence Committee" a contradiction in terms? |
| Posted by: Tibor 2003-8-13 11:55:30 AM |
| #2 Steve you beat me again! Here are my comments: I used to work in DC and this is a clear case of someone who thinks it’s a good idea for Congress to approve EVERYTHING that the military does. The reason our Armed Forces are so successful is because the commanders have the FLEXIBILITY to fight the battle. Making a Commander gain approval every time he wants employ SpecOps for a certain situation would be a HUGE mistake. Next they will want to approve troop movements and bombing targets (That was the FAILED model in Vietnam). Stephen Cambone must be a big fan of the Soviet doctrine that centralizes all decisions with the political apparatus. I second the Tar/Feather party for Mr. Cambone. |
| Posted by: Cyber Sarge (VRWC CA Chapter) 2003-8-13 11:21:29 AM |
| #1 What, are we afraid of a little success? This is disgusting news. Yes, Bush, veto it and let the chips fall where they may. You've got the momentum. Don't slow down. We're counting on you. |
| Posted by: Michael 2003-8-13 11:14:37 AM |