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

Lack of a policy on Iran and Syria is pushing Israel into a corner.

This is an excellent summary about what Obama is not doing, even though it is what he does best; nothing. Nothing except apologize, appease and grovel. The Mullah Obamaham has tried to reach out to Syria and this will work as well as it has with Iran, it won't. Syria just recently helped Hezbollah, which now has Scud missles in it's possesion. Yet Obama is still stupid enough to try and engage this Islamonazi state. Obama is pushing not just Israel but the United States into a position of vulnerability. The BIG difference is the Jewish state at some point will take action to make sure Israel survives and flourishes as it always has done since 1948. We could be so fortunate to have a Netanyahu type in the White House. Instead we are sinking with the Mullah Obamaham and his outreach and appeasement to the Islamic world. Pathetic is all I can say, politely.

---

US Iran Nuclear Strategy paints a bulls eye on Israel’s back
Iconclast/New English Review

The New York Times published an article about an alleged secret memo by Defense Secretary Robert Gates sent in January to Obama White House National security Adviser Gen. James Jones, saying we have no policy to counter Iran’s nuclear threat. Witness this comment from the Huffington Post:

Gates wrote the three-page memo in January and it set off efforts in the Pentagon, White House and intelligence agencies to come up with new options, including the use of the military, The New York Times said in its Sunday editions, quoting unnamed government officials. White House officials Saturday night strongly disagreed with the comments that the memo caused a reconsideration of the administration's approach to Iran.

"It is absolutely false that any memo touched off a reassessment of our options," National Security Council spokesman Benjamin Rhodes told The Associated Press. "This administration has been planning for all contingencies regarding Iran for many months."

One senior official described the memo as "a wake-up call," the paper reported. But the recipient of the document, Gen. James Jones, President Barack Obama's national security adviser, told the newspaper in an interview that the administration has a plan that "anticipates the full range of contingencies."

Sen. John McCain said: "I didn't need a secret memo to know we didn't have a coherent policy," McCain told Fox News's Chris Wallace. "That's pretty obvious."McCain called for serious and meaningful sanctions against Iran. The Arizona Republican spoke on "Fox News Sunday."

The reality is that the Obama Administration may have effectively given up on a coherent strategy including contingency plans for possible military action. Instead, it is pushing for toothless UN Security Council sanctions and propounding the mistaken view that cold war era Mutual Assured Deterrence will work with irrational Mullahs in Tehran. It won't. Remember the thousands of Iranian teenagers the mullahs sent to their deaths in minefields during the Iran-Iraq War in the 1980s paying salaries to their surviving parents?

Secretary Gates has long ties to an influential coterie which includes James Baker, III, Brent Scowcroft, and Lee Hamilton, Middle East policy advisers, with an appeasement track record. The trio was prominent as leading members of the Congressional chartered bi-partisan Iraq Study Group that issued a report during the Bush Administration. Then there is another Obama Adviser, Zbig Brzezinski, who as you may recall said the US should consider shooting down IAF aircraft on their way across Iraqi airspace to hit nuclear facilities in Iran. Under President Carter he also bolstered what became the decade long Secret War in Afghanistan the in the late 1970's. Brzezinski cut a deal with the Saudis to dislodge Soviet influence during the secret war in Afghanistan that ultimately spawned Bin Laden and al Qaeda.

The Obama Administration appears to be bailing from the troubled Middle East and South Asia. Witness the withdrawals from Iraq this summer and the likelihood of quitting Afghanistan in 2011. It is no secret that Obama is pushing the Saudi peace plan on Israel to save American lives in the region.

Two names left out of the New York Times account of this secret memo are Ambassador Dennis Ross on the NSC staff and White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel. They clearly have been side-tracked and left out of the loop. Ross was originally going to be the Special Envoy to deal with Iran. Instead Ross was retained as a senior Middle East peace process adviser on the NSC staff. We have heard precious little from these two on the Obama versus Netanyahu contretemps resulting in isolation of Israel and derogation of the long standing special relationship between the two countries.

Israel is alone. It cannot trust its ally America under Obama to come up with a coherent policy to deal with nuclear Iran under the Mullahs. Obama does not want to consider fostering a civil opposition in Iran to overthrow the Mullahs and President Ahmadinejad. The Obama Administration does not want to enact tough sanctions already passed by Congress.

Israel is faced with a dilemma. In order to disable or destroy nuclear weapons assembly facilities in Iran, it must first destroy the rocket and missile caches of Iran's proxies, Hezbollah and Hamas, as well as launching facilities in Syria. That is a complicated set of actions to successfully coordinate. The Jennifer Rubin account in Commentary's Contention blog alleges that the Obama Administration stifled an IDF assault on Syrian Scud deliveries to Hezbollah. That Israeli action would have interfered with Obama’s engagement with the Bashir Assad regime in Damascus. The Obama Administration’s outreach to Syria clearly failed to avert the Scud shipments to Hezbollah.

The issue is what can Israel do under these difficult and contentious relations with the Obama Administration? Israel's military planners and covert operations teams must have scenarios for disrupting 'breakout' and targeting facilities in Iran tagged for nuclear weapons assembly. Some suspect that perhaps renegade Russian engineers and scientists engaged in Iran’s nuclear weapons developments may be in the pay of Israel's strategic intelligence service. Thus, Israeli technical intelligence could have sufficient information with which to develop scenarios and contingency plans to disrupt and possibly destroy nuclear weapons assembly. At issue is whether those assembly facilities are above ground, as in the case of the Syria’s al-Kibar nuclear facility destroyed by the IAF in September, 2007, or like the North Korean ones are scattered in underground facilities. The IAF attack on the nuclear weapons assembly facility in Syria proved effective. While the Pentagon confirmed that action, Israel didn't. The implication being that Israel was sending a message to Syria and its Iranian 'partners' that Israel knew what was going on and could destroy comparable facilities in Iran. The Syrian nuclear assembly facility was within range of a conventional IAF attack. Iran’s comparable nuclear assembly facilities may require non-conventional means available in Israel’s high technology arsenal. The consequences of such a unilateral military action by Israel have been viewed as being “unacceptable and having “catastrophic consequences” by Russia’s President Medvedev and US Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Admiral Mullen. However, Israel must be prepared to act to preserve its existence.

This is a dangerous time for Israel and America. Israel was able to make a convincing case replete with on the ground intelligence about destroying the Syrian nuclear facility. There is no such prospect under Obama who clearly doesn't want Israel to undertake a unilateral pre-emptive attack that would disrupt the Administration's Muslim outreach and nuclear strategy. A nuclear strategy that was unveiled in Washington last week.

These revelations in today's New York Times deepen the impression that as a result of the US not having a coherent strategy to contend with a nuclear Iran, Israel is now a target with a bulls eye painted on its back. Israeli PM Netanyahu knows better than to succumb to this threat. He will act with dispatch to preserve Israel.

From Iconclast/New English Review