Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

NYT: U.S. said to order secret military action

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU
 
mrdmk Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-25-10 06:07 AM
Original message
NYT: U.S. said to order secret military action
Edited on Tue May-25-10 06:10 AM by mrdmk
Directive authorizes sending Special Ops troops to friendly, hostile nations

<snip>

WASHINGTON - The top American commander in the Middle East has ordered a broad expansion of clandestine military activity in an effort to disrupt militant groups or counter threats in Iran, Saudi Arabia, Somalia and other countries in the region, according to defense officials and military documents.

The secret directive, signed in September by Gen. David H. Petraeus, authorizes the sending of American Special Operations troops to both friendly and hostile nations in the Middle East, Central Asia and the Horn of Africa to gather intelligence and build ties with local forces. Officials said the order also permits reconnaissance that could pave the way for possible military strikes in Iran if tensions over its nuclear ambitions escalate.

While the Bush administration had approved some clandestine military activities far from designated war zones, the new order is intended to make such efforts more systematic and long term, officials said. Its goals are to build networks that could “penetrate, disrupt, defeat or destroy” Al Qaeda and other militant groups, as well as to “prepare the environment” for future attacks by American or local military forces, the document said. The order, however, does not appear to authorize offensive strikes in any specific countries.

In broadening its secret activities, the United States military has also sought in recent years to break its dependence on the Central Intelligence Agency and other spy agencies for information in countries without a significant American troop presence.

<end of snip>

the link is for MSN, the New York Times did write the story

link: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/37326328/ns/us_news-the_new_york_times

The last time I checked, sending armed forces into a sovereign nation was an act of war. Who in the U.S.A. is actually declaring war on the world?

on edit: the usual mistakes
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
rfranklin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-25-10 06:41 AM
Response to Original message
1. We have special dispensation from Republican Jeezus...
"Onward Christian soldiers, marching as to war...."
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tekisui Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-25-10 08:04 AM
Response to Original message
2. It also sets up military as possible spies, and
outside of Geneva protections. War wherever we want it, I guess.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Octafish Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-25-10 08:12 AM
Response to Original message
3. Secret War
WTF.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Swamp Rat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-25-10 07:28 PM
Response to Reply #3
12. See Cambodia and Laos
Pick any country in Latin America.

Nothing has changed except the bosses.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mrdmk Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-25-10 08:37 PM
Response to Reply #12
15. You are back, with the big picture. Thanks Mr, Swamp
:toast:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Obamanaut Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-25-10 08:18 AM
Response to Original message
4. You asked "Who in the U.S.A. is actually declaring war on the world?"
Makes one wonder if the CinC elected in 2008 is the new CinC or simply a do-over. Or who controls congress.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
glitch Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-25-10 08:35 AM
Response to Original message
5. Who's in charge?" nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Freddie Stubbs Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-25-10 08:40 AM
Response to Reply #5
6. President Obama
If the New York Times knows about this, it is a safe bet that the President does too.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mrdmk Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-25-10 07:25 PM
Response to Reply #6
11. Sorry Freddie, gotta argue this one...
For one, why is General Petraeus signing this directive? He is not in charge of U.S. foreign relations. Yes, he may have gotten the nod from President Obama, Secretary Gates, or Secretary Clinton, still, why is he the signer? Let's say President Obama did give his approval, what is this administration trying to prove, they have bigger bullets and a long arm? Most people who are not living under a rock or in an illusion have this knowledge deep-seated into their minds.

This directive is more fear on top of fear, divide what is already divided, and piss-off the folks who are already-pissed off! The masses lose, those who are subjected to this terror lose, and in the long run we lose. This losing strategy has a long history of having blow-back to the aggressor.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
unhappycamper Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-25-10 08:42 AM
Response to Reply #5
7. Who.
Who picks up the paycheck.....
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MadHound Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-25-10 08:43 AM
Response to Original message
8. War forever and ever, amen
Disgusting, this coming on top of our increased saber rattling at N. Korea. Seems to me as though the MIC is running the show in Washington.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
chill_wind Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-25-10 10:27 AM
Response to Original message
9. K & R.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MisterP Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-25-10 10:53 AM
Response to Original message
10. "centuries of status quo not changed by change to year 2009" nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Catherina Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-25-10 07:40 PM
Response to Original message
13. The new international order is accelerating
the war for oil is a war for the beast the war on terror is a war on peace ...



the army recruiters in the parking lot
hustling the kids there jugglin' pot
"listen young man, listen to my plan,
gonna make you money, gonna make you a man"

bom, bom

here’s what you get
an M-16 and a kevlar vest
you might come home
with one less leg
but this thing will surely keep a bullet out of your chest

so come on, come on
sign up, come on
this one’s nothing like vietnam
except for the bullets, except for the bombs
except for the youth that’s gone

so we keep it on, till ya comin' home,
higher and higher
fire, fire, fire, light up ya lighter,
fire fire fire,
so we keep it on, till ya comin' home,
higher and higher
fire, fire, fire, light up ya lighter,
fire fire fire

tell me president, tell if you will
how many people does a smart bomb kill?
how many of em do you think we got?
the general says we never miss a shot
and we never ever ever keep a body count,
we killin' so efficiently we can’t keep count
in the afghan hills the rebels still fightin'
opium fields keep on providin'
the best heroin that money can buy
and nobody knows where osama been hidin'
the press conferences keep on lyin'
like we don’t know

so we keep it on, till ya comin' home,
higher and higher
fire, fire, fire, light up ya lighter,
fire fire fire,
so we keep it on, till ya comin' home,
higher and higher
fire, fire, fire, light up ya lighter,
fire fire fire

some say engine, engine number nine
machine guns on a new york transit line
the war for oil is a war for the beast
the war on terror is a war on peace
tellin' you they’re gonna protect you,
tellin' you that they support the troops
don’t let them fool you with their milk and honey
no, they only want your money
one step forward and two step back

one step forward and two step back
why do veterans get no respect?
PTSD and a broken back
take a look at where your moneys gone, see
take a look at what they spend it on
no excuses, no illusions
light up ya lighter, bring em home

so we keep it on, till ya comin' home,
higher and higher
fire, fire, fire, light up ya lighter,
fire fire fire,
so we keep it on, till ya comin' home,
higher and higher
fire, fire, fire, light up ya lighter,
fire fire fire


Light Up Ya Lighter - Michael Franti
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
scheming daemons Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-25-10 07:43 PM
Response to Original message
14. Can't be too big of a secret if the NYT is writing about it....
..
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mrdmk Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-25-10 11:54 PM
Response to Original message
16. Kick for the bedside reading crowd n/t
:hide:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Cowpunk Donating Member (572 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-26-10 01:03 AM
Response to Original message
17. Isn't this an improvement over the Bush approach?
If you agree with me that our current methods of fighting Al Qaeda, invading and occupying foreign lands and bombing civilian areas, are counterproductive and only create more terrorists for us to fight, wouldn't more clandestine operations like this be a better alternative?

While we can certainly use law enforcment bureaus to go after many terrorists, I believe there is still a necessary roll for the military to play. You can't expect cops to take out a heavily armed terrorist training camp or militia compound.

This sounds like a positive change of direction to me.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Dystopian Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-26-10 01:38 AM
Response to Reply #17
18. No presidential approval needed, and no change in policy
The mention of Rumsfeld brought back memories of P2OG, which I posted last night.
I was posting this on another board years ago...when it first came out.
It's designed to incite 'terrorists' and to create more havoc, death, destruction...and to enable the war machine to continue without end.

The Pentagon Plan to Provoke Terrorist Attacks
http://www.counterpunch.org/floyd1101.html

....According to a classified document prepared for Rumsfeld by his Defense Science Board, the new organization--the "Proactive, Preemptive Operations Group (P2OG)"--will carry out secret missions designed to "stimulate reactions" among terrorist groups, provoking them into committing violent acts which would then expose them to "counterattack" by U.S. forces.

In other words--and let's say this plainly, clearly and soberly, so that no one can mistake the intention of Rumsfeld's plan--the United States government is planning to use "cover and deception" and secret military operations to provoke murderous terrorist attacks on innocent people....

It's all the same game plan....war without end.
No change....

peace~


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Cowpunk Donating Member (572 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-26-10 12:24 PM
Response to Reply #18
19. Who mentioned Rumsfeld?
And what bearing does an article full of breathlessly wild speculation about a wacko plan from 8 years ago have to do with current policy?


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Dystopian Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-26-10 12:40 PM
Response to Reply #19
20. The link in the OP mentioned Rumsfeld,
Edited on Wed May-26-10 12:41 PM by Dystopian
I would not have recalled P2OG but I took the time to read the entire article. His name was mentioned twice in regard to the covert ops during the bush administration.
*********************************

"No presidential approval needed
During the Bush administration, Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld endorsed clandestine military operations, arguing that Special Operations troops could be as effective as traditional spies, if not more so.

Unlike covert actions undertaken by the C.I.A., such clandestine activity does not require the president’s approval or regular reports to Congress, although Pentagon officials have said that any significant ventures are cleared through the National Security Council. Special Operations troops have already been sent into a small number of countries to carry out limited surveillance and reconnaissance missions, including operations to gather intelligence about airstrips, bridges and beaches that might be needed for an offensive."
*****************************
The "breathlessly wild speculation about a wacko plan from 8 years ago" is simply your name for what the CIA has been doing in foreign countries for years. It has everything to do with current policy, as it hasn't changed. Our government needs more war, and they get what they want.

peace~
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Cowpunk Donating Member (572 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-26-10 07:01 PM
Response to Reply #20
21. No.
By "breathlessly wild speculation" I mean turning this(original copy from the L.A. Times article cited by Floyd)...

Rumsfeld’s influential Defense Science Board 2002 Summer Study on Special Operations
and Joint Forces in Support of Countering Terrorism says in its classified "outbrief" -- a
briefing drafted to guide other Pentagon agencies -- that the global war on terrorism
"requires new strategies, postures and organization."
The board recommends creation of a super-Intelligence Support Activity, an organization it
dubs the Proactive, Preemptive Operations Group, (P2OG), to bring together CIA and
military covert action, information warfare, intelligence, and cover and deception.
Among other things, this body would launch secret operations aimed at "stimulating
reactions" among terrorists and states possessing weapons of mass destruction -- that is, for
instance, prodding terrorist cells into action and exposing themselves to "quick-response"
attacks by U.S. forces.
Such tactics would hold "states/sub-state actors accountable" and "signal to harboring states
that their sovereignty will be at risk," the briefing paper declares.


into this...

Donald Rumsfeld, Dick Cheney, George W. Bush and the other members of the unelected regime in Washington plan to deliberately foment the murder of innocent people--your family, your friends, your lovers, you--in order to further their geopolitical ambitions.

For P2OG is not designed solely to flush out terrorists and bring them to justice--a laudable goal in itself, although the Rumsfeld way of combating terrorism by causing it is pure moral lunacy. (Or should we use the Regime's own preferred terminology and just call it "evil"?) No, it seems the Pee-Twos have bigger fish to fry. Once they have sparked terrorists into action--by killing their family members? luring them with loot? fueling them with drugs? plying them with jihad propaganda? messing with their mamas? or with agents provocateurs, perhaps, who infiltrate groups then plan and direct the attacks themselves?--they can then take measures against the "states/sub-state actors accountable" for "harboring" the Rumsfeld-roused gangs. What kind of measures exactly? Well, the classified Pentagon program puts it this way: "Their sovereignty will be at risk."

The Pee-Twos will thus come in handy whenever the Regime hankers to add a little oil-laden real estate or a new military base to the Empire's burgeoning portfolio. Just find a nest of violent malcontents, stir 'em with a stick, and presto: instant "justification" for whatever level of intervention/conquest/rapine you might desire. And what if the territory you fancy doesn't actually harbor any convenient marauders to use for fun and profit? Well, surely a God-like "super-Intelligence Support Activity" is capable of creation ex nihilo, yes?


Floyd divines from a few tiny, vague sound-bites such as "stimulating reactions" that Rumsfeld and Co. will be setting up murderous terrorist cells in foreign countries to give the U.S. an excuse to invade them.

Riiiiight.

And this is the activity you say the Obama administration is now expanding.



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Dystopian Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-26-10 09:19 PM
Response to Reply #21
22. YES.
I used the Chris Floyd article, but also cited the original in another post the night before....the one you posted.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=102&topic_id=4396685&mesg_id=4396798

Rumsfeld and Co. did plan to set up murderous terrorist cells in foreign countries to give the U.S. an excuse to invade them....
It's nothing new. It's been this way for years....USA!
Reference was made to the Northwoods Documents....Our democracy is based on a lie....Just like the occupations...and it will continue to do so.
What about the drones flying over Iran....not so many years ago. Remember the provocation?
My eyes have been wide open for many, many years.

Prodding & Provoking: "Among other things, this body would launch secret operations aimed at "stimulating
reactions" among terrorists and states possessing weapons of mass destruction -- that is, for
instance, prodding terrorist cells into action and exposing themselves to "quick-response"
attacks by U.S. forces."

Quick response to provocation! Stimulate reactions! Go USA!

Obama is keeping the dream alive.
Dead people....maimed people...immoral and illegal wars without end....feed the war machine.
And yes, I did vote for him. My ten-year-old grandson held the marker with me as we voted together.
I celebrated....
Now....I see truth.
No change.

Next time, please read the links provided in the OP....We can connect the dots when we know the history....evil and ugly as it is.

peace~



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Cowpunk Donating Member (572 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-26-10 10:12 PM
Response to Reply #22
23. Riiiight. Moving on now NT
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Dystopian Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-26-10 10:24 PM
Response to Reply #23
24. Me too.
:hi:



peace~
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Wed Apr 24th 2024, 11:48 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC