Covert operations a must in war on terrorism

Covert operations. These two words can upset, start an argument and render people absolutely rabid and illogical when these two words come up. Me? I am a staunch supporter of such operations and I am of the opinion that we do not use this asset to this country's benefit enough, or like we used to. Of course perhaps it is for the best if such operations remain cloaked in secrecy. Jim Kouri has written a good article on covert operations and who should be in control of such actions. The CIA or the military?

---

Covert actions necessary in war on terrorism
By Jim Kouri

"The one who knows first the measures of far and near wins -- this is the rule of armed struggle." -- Sun Tzu, The Art of War

Covert actions (as distinguished from the covert collection of information) are used to influence political, military, or economic conditions or situations abroad, where it is intended that the role of the US Government will not be apparent or acknowledged publicly.


These might consist of propaganda activities, support to political or military factions within a particular country, technical and logistical assistance to other governments to deal with problems within their countries, or actions undertaken to disrupt illicit activities that threaten US interests, e.g. terrorism or narcotics trafficking. Such actions complement and supplement parallel overt measures such as diplomacy, trade sanctions, or military activities undertaken by the Executive branch. By law, covert actions can be undertaken only in support of an "identifiable" foreign policy objective.


Responsibility for carrying out covert actions rests with the CIA, whose Director is charged by the National Security Act of 1947 to "perform such other functions and duties related to intelligence affecting the national security as the President or the National Security Council may direct."


By Executive Order, the CIA alone is specifically authorized to undertake covert actions that are individually authorized by the President , although other departments and agencies may also be directed to undertake or support covert actions as the President may authorize.


Since the end of the Cold War, the number and size of covert action programs have shrunk substantially, reflecting the extent to which they were prompted by the superpower struggle. Nonetheless since the war on terrorism, these programs continue to be undertaken to support ongoing policy needs.


When the US congress addressed whether the United States should undertake covert action at all, some witnesses expressed the view that there is no longer a need for covert action, and that, on balance, it has caused more problems for the United States than it has solved. The government, they argue, has been frequently embarrassed by such operations and been criticized domestically and abroad as a result. Also, it is argued, covert actions comprise a minute part of the intelligence budget, but require a disproportionate share of management and oversight.


Most witnesses, however, including all of the former cabinet-level officials who addressed the subject, believed it essential for the President to maintain covert action as an option. Citing examples such as the need to disrupt the activities of a terrorist group, hamper the efforts of a rogue state to develop weapons of mass destruction, or prevent narcotics traffickers from manufacturing drugs for shipment into the United States, the proponents argue that the United States should maintain a capability short of military action to achieve its objectives when diplomacy alone cannot do the job.


In 1975, the Rockefeller Commission investigated alleged abuses in certain covert action programs and concluded that there were "many risks and dangers associated with covert action...but we must live in the world we find, not the world we might wish … [Therefore] covert action cannot be abandoned, but … should be employed only where clearly essential to vital US purposes and then only after a careful process of high level review." Many security experts strongly concurred with this conclusion. Moreover, the congressional leaders noted that the laws governing covert actions do contemplate a "careful process of high level review," including approval by the President and notification to Congress.


According to sources, the Bush Administration believes that covert action must be consistent with specific US foreign policy objectives in the targeted area. Covert actions should be undertaken only where there is a compelling reason why US involvement cannot be disclosed. Further, the range of covert action options should be weighed to ensure that the methods employed are only as aggressive as needed to accomplish the objectives. The costs of disclosure must be carefully assessed, and, where such costs are significant, the operation should be initiated only in the most compelling circumstances.


Some witnesses recommended that paramilitary covert actions -- which typically involve arming, training and/or advising foreign forces -- be conducted by the Department of Defense rather than the CIA. These individuals argued that the military is better equipped than the CIA to carry out such operations. Others argued that it is neither feasible nor desirable for US military personnel to undertake such covert activities.


Experts conclude that responsibility for paramilitary covert actions should remain with the CIA. CIA has extraordinary legal authorities and an existing infrastructure that permit the secure conduct of clandestine operations, whereas the military does not. Giving this function to the military would also involve it in a controversial role that would divert attention from other important responsibilities. The military should provide support to paramilitary covert actions as needed but should not be given responsibility for them.


With respect to any changes needed to improve the existing capability, the US Congress notes only that covert action programs of the future are apt increasingly to involve technologies and skills that do not appear to exist within the current infrastructure. More attention should be given to these deficiencies.


Sources: Central Intelligence Agency, Federal Bureau of Investigation, US State Department, US Congressional Record, National Security Institute, National Association of Chiefs of Police




Jim Kouri, CPP is currently fifth vice-president of the National Association of Chiefs of Police and he's a columnist for The Examiner (examiner.com) and New Media Alliance (thenma.org). In addition, he's a blogger for the Cheyenne, Wyoming Fox News Radio affiliate KGAB (www.kgab.com). Kouri also serves as political advisor for Emmy and Golden Globe winning actor Michael Moriarty.
He's former chief at a New York City housing project in Washington Heights nicknamed "Crack City" by reporters covering the drug war in the 1980s. In addition, he served as director of public safety at a New Jersey university and director of security for several major organizations. He's also served on the National Drug Task Force and trained police and security officers throughout the country. Kouri writes for many police and security magazines including Chief of Police, Police Times, The Narc Officer and others. He's a news writer and columnist for AmericanDaily.Com, MensNewsDaily.Com, MichNews.Com, and he's syndicated by AXcessNews.Com. Kouri appears regularly as on-air commentator for over 100 TV and radio news and talk shows including Fox News Channel, Oprah, McLaughlin Report, CNN Headline News, MTV, etc.

Original article is here

NYT: Traitor in the house, again

The NYT has done this type of reporting before. It is a shameful and traitorous act. To publish such a list of names of Americans covertly working in Afghanistan providing force protection for our troops, as well as the rest of our Coalition Forces is almost beyond belief until we recall what ths rag has done before. As reported by Andrew Breitbart of Big Journalism: According to Washington Post columnist, David Ignatius, “[T]he U.S. military has long been unhappy about the quality of CIA intelligence in Afghanistan,” and the senior military intelligence officer in Afghanistan, Maj Gen Michael T. Flynn went so far as to publish a stunning report calling for “sweeping changes to the way the intelligence community thinks about itself.”


The report goes on to quote General Stanley McChrystal, who stated that “our senior leaders – the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the Secretary of Defense, Congress, the President of the United States – are not getting the right information to make decisions with … The media is driving the issues.”


Through its use of the New York Times, the Central Intelligence Agency has tried to embarrass the Defense Department into shutting down what, by all accounts, has been an amazingly successful program, which has dramatically saved American and Coalition lives and continues to do so on a daily basis.


But thanks to the beating the folks on the 7th floor at Langley and the New York Times have taken in the blogosphere, they are about to go for broke and to do so in a fashion so grotesque that every American should be moved to action.


These morbidly conjoined twins have entered dangerous territory. They are not only putting at risk the lives of the brave men and women working day and night to keep our troops safe (who, along with their families, will surely be targeted for retribution by al Qaeda and the Taliban), but they are also calling down a host of legal woes via the Intelligence Identities Protection Act (made famous in the Valerie Plame affair under the George W. Bush Administration) as the intelligence gathered and reported on by the Defense Department operatives in question is most definitely classified. Full article is below.

---

New York times About to put U.S. Troops in Deadly Peril
By Andrew Breitbart

Big Journalism, I have just received word that the New York Times is preparing to go public with a list of names of Americans covertly working in Afghanistan providing force protection for our troops, as well as the rest of our Coalition Forces. If the Times actually sees this through, the red ink they are drowning in will be nothing compared to the blood their entire organization will be covered with. Make no mistake, the Times is about to cause casualty rates in Afghanistan to skyrocket. Each and every American should be outraged.

As chronicled here, here, here, and here the Central Intelligence Agency via the New York Times has been waging a nasty proxy war against the Department of Defense over its use of former military and intelligence personnel to do what the CIA is both incapable and unwilling to do: gather the much needed intelligence that keeps our troops safe.

According to Washington Post columnist, David Ignatius, “[T]he U.S. military has long been unhappy about the quality of CIA intelligence in Afghanistan,” and the senior military intelligence officer in Afghanistan, Maj Gen Michael T. Flynn went so far as to publish a stunning report calling for “sweeping changes to the way the intelligence community thinks about itself.” The report goes on to quote General Stanley McChrystal, who stated that “our senior leaders – the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the Secretary of Defense, Congress, the President of the United States – are not getting the right information to make decisions with … The media is driving the issues.”

Through its use of the New York Times, the Central Intelligence Agency has tried to embarrass the Defense Department into shutting down what, by all accounts, has been an amazingly successful program, which has dramatically saved American and Coalition lives and continues to do so on a daily basis.

But thanks to the beating the folks on the 7th floor at Langley and the New York Times have taken in the blogosphere, they are about to go for broke and to do so in a fashion so grotesque that every American should be moved to action.

These morbidly conjoined twins have entered dangerous territory. They are not only putting at risk the lives of the brave men and women working day and night to keep our troops safe (who, along with their families, will surely be targeted for retribution by al Qaeda and the Taliban), but they are also calling down a host of legal woes via the Intelligence Identities Protection Act (made famous in the Valerie Plame affair under the George W. Bush Administration) as the intelligence gathered and reported on by the Defense Department operatives in question is most definitely classified.

So while the New York Times stands ready to once again put American lives at grave risk in order to sell a few more papers, the Central Intelligence Agency appears committed to its misguided “Kappes Doctrine”, (so named for Leon Panetta’s number-two man, who many in the intel game blame for being the “hidden hand in many of the nation’s intelligence failures”). Per the Kappes Doctrine, which was so disastrously tied to the F.O.B. Chapman attack, the Agency is happy to pay foreign intel services to take the risks as long as the CIA can take the credit (and in this case, continue to claim that what the Department of Defense is doing every day on the ground in Afghanistan can’t be done).

But fortunately for our troops, it is being done, it has saved countless lives, and it will continue to do so, unless the Times publishes its list.

To prevent its publication, I am calling on all Americans: Democrats, Republicans and Independents to bombard the New York Times and insist that they refrain from outing these brave Americans who are risking everything for the safety of our troops.

What the Central Intelligence Agency and the New York Times has cooked up is a recipe for unmitigated disaster and we used to have a word for it in our lexicon. We called it treason. But unlike the treason committed by the Times in the past, we have been granted a heads up and this time each one of us can do something about it.

Taliban's number two goon is nailed in Pakistan. Any guesses how?

This story has been plastered all over the MSM, blogosphere, you name it. Great snag too, do not get me wrong or take this the wrong way. The main reason I did not post any news on this capture was as stated above plus I like to wait a bit to see what information starts filtering down. Gateway Pundit has some good questions and possible answers on how this was pulled off. I think the mullah in the White House was forced to put the squeeze on Pakistan as they had not caught anyone worthwhile in a couple of years. The India angle is one that I had thought about. Plus India and Israel are getting pretty close as allies especially since Obama and his pals slammed the door on any major military aid to Israel over a year ago. That has not stopped Obama from arming up his so called Mulsim friends. That is another story but imagine if India suddenly got a big boost in aid being closely aligned with Israel, and India was 'given' the go ahead to operate more freely in the troubled regions that India and Pakistan have gone to war over. One more before closing my say; is this a move that will show Pakistan actually doing more or was this a one time shot? Stay tuned.
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Abdul Ghani Baradar

How could Pakistani intel be pressured into rolling over on a guy this big? What could we have offered them — or threatened them with? One possibility is that we followed the Hitchens plan and threatened to bring Pakistan’s archenemy, India, into Afghanistan if they didn’t start playing ball. Another possibility, per CBS, is that we promised draconian cuts in military aid if they didn’t at least help us catch a few big fish.
Any other possibilities? A clue , maybe, from Time:

The commander’s arrest would mark a significant departure from Pakistan’s policy toward the Taliban. Usually, Islamabad officials deny to the Americans that they know where the top commanders are hiding while letting them move freely among the Pakistani cities of Quetta, Peshawar and Karachi as well as the country’s tribal areas, where the jihadi fighters launch their attacks and suicide bombings against U.S.-led forces inside neighboring Afghanistan. Pakistani officials privately say they regard the Taliban in Afghanistan as a strategic asset in their regional rivalry with India, which supports President Hamid Karzai in Kabul…
Some Taliban contacts suggest that Pakistan may have had no option but to cooperate this time, since the CIA may have tracked down Baradar in Karachi on its own and pressured Pakistani spy agency the Directorate for Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) to help pick him up. A senior Pakistani official told TIME that the CIA “pinpointed the general area” and that Pakistani intelligence on the ground made the arrest in the night between Feb. 10 and 11. Baradar was arrested in the slum town of Baldia, just outside Karachi, which is teeming with migrant Afghans and Pashtuns. The Pakistani official insisted that “this shows that Washington and Islamabad’s priorities are starting to match up.” U.S. officials have complained that past efforts to tip off the ISI to the locations of Taliban commanders yielded no action. Until Baradar was seized, no significant Taliban fighter had been arrested in two years in Pakistan. “All of the major Taliban commanders are in Pakistan,” a source close to the Taliban told TIME – an allegation that Islamabad loudly and persistently denies. Continue reading


Gateway Pundit

http://hotair.com/archives/2010/02/16/how-exactly-did-the-u-s-catch-the-talibans-number-two/