Admiral Over Special Forces Pushes for a Freer Hand

[Judi Lynn]

Admiral Over Special Forces Pushes for a Freer Hand
By ERIC SCHMITT, MARK MAZZETTI and THOM SHANKER
Published: February 12, 2012

WASHINGTON — As the United States turns increasingly to Special Operations forces to confront developing threats scattered around the world, the nation’s top Special Operations officer, a member of the Navy Seals who oversaw the raid that killed Osama bin Laden, is seeking new authority to move his forces faster and outside of normal Pentagon deployment channels.

The officer, Adm. William H. McRaven, who leads the Special Operations Command, is pushing for a larger role for his elite units who have traditionally operated in the dark corners of American foreign policy. The plan would give him more autonomy to position his forces and their war-fighting equipment where intelligence and global events indicate they are most needed.

It would also allow the Special Operations forces to expand their presence in regions where they have not operated in large numbers for the past decade, especially in Asia, Africa and Latin America.

While President Obama and his Pentagon’s leadership have increasingly made Special Operations forces their military tool of choice, similar plans in the past have foundered because of opposition from regional commanders and the State Department. The military’s regional combatant commanders have feared a decrease of their authority, and some ambassadors in crisis zones have voiced concerns that commandos may carry out missions that are perceived to tread on a host country’s sovereignty, like the rift in ties with Pakistan after the Bin Laden raid.

More:
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/13/us/admiral-pushes-for-freer-hand-in-special-forces.html?_r=1&partner=rss&emc=rss

[1ProudAtheist]

1. This Is A Bad Idea

America needs to stay out of other country's affairs and spend more time, money, and attention, on our problems at home.

[Kurska]

2. Totally disagree, the Obama doctrine is the way of the future.

A couple hundred men and predator drones do what would normally take hundreds of thousands. The united states has obligations to protect it's interests and it's allies, this is the only way to do it cheaply.

[cstanleytech]

3. We tried that, it is partly what led to WWII and things like concentration camps.

I am not saying we should intervene in every little thing though, we can only do some much however we should not repeat the mistakes of the past either and pretend that whatever happens outside the US wont cause us problems because that way has bitten us on the ass before.

[kenfrequed]

22. Uhm...

One could make an equally plausible argument that intervention prior to WWII led to concentration camps and WWII. Ad Hitlerum. WWII and by obvious extension the Nazi's had many origins. Simplifying it to being caused by slightly more isolationist urges is ridiculous and faulty in reasoning. There was this other war that we fought before WWII. For some reason I can't recall what it was called. It's right on the tip of my tongue...

Very few are arguing for absolute isolationism but we have to be much more measured and thoughtful in the entanglements we do get into. Right now the neocons are trying to push us into war with Iran. Would you be as hasty at making strikes agaisnt them?

[cstanleytech]

23. Check out this link

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_non-interventionism

[The Doctor.]

4. The request is only relevant to foreign policy because it's a result of the directives.

Giving them more autonomy is necessary given the realities he must deal with.

[Brettongarcia]

12. Semi-covert US military presence - and action - in every country of the world?

Pretty big project

[marasinghe]

6. totally agree. stay the hell out of other people's lives; and deaths.

unless for purely humanitarian reasons & on invitation by someone getting shafted.
and when was the last time the US did anything for purely humanitarian reasons?

[denbot]

20. Kosovo

To stop the Serbian from ethnically cleansing Albanians.

[24601]

29. Ron Paul posts on DU! Who knew?

[Sgent]

5. I think this is more of a chain of command issue

Instead of having to go through every bureaucratic agency in the pentagon it will allow them more flexability to pre-position in various areas.

I really don't see an issue here.

[Brettongarcia]

11. More than that: let some little individual decide what nations to invade?

Note that most such deployments are illegal, in whatever countries they deploy to. They violate national integrity. THey weren't invited, in most cases.

And when they start killing local citizens? Guess what; looks bad.

[TwilightGardener]

7. Dumb. They need to work with the rest of the military and the State Dept.

This one guy (or his underlings) shouldn't get to have this much autonomy and decision-making power. I foresee bad shit happening. This is a power grab, and I'm not convinced it's just this admiral behind it.

[Grassy Knoll]

8. Hey Admiral, If you want a FREED Hand...

Use your other one dumbass, Bush would have fired your ass for A blatant attempt to
undermine the President of the USA and the Pentagon, But under Obama you feel free
to pump your chest, Go Wack off to what Rush Limbaugh tells you to, Like underaged
Dominican boys.

[denbot]

9. No Commander in Chief should allow any subordinate autonomous deployment of force.

If Admiral McRaven squawks about this publicly he should be canned. There is a chain of command, the Admiral knows it.

[Marcel]

42. +1 n/t

[Fool Count]

10. Foreign military deployment on a whim of an admiral, what can possibly go wrong here?

He made an admiral, didn't he? He must be some kind of genius then. Who needs Congress
when a smart admiral can decide if US should go to war?

[Brettongarcia]

15. He'd better be making daily reports to: DNI/POTUS; Chiefs; Sen. Intel. Comm.

In accordance with a congress-approved, long-term global strategy plan!

[24601]

28. Combatant Commanders report directly to the Secretary of Defense

Title 10 Command authority is POTUS - SECDEF - Combatant Commanders

The Joint Staff is advisory and not in the Chain of Command
Service Secretaries (Army - Navy - AF) are not in the Operational Chain of Command and instead are responsible for Organizing, Training and Equipping the forces that are then assigned to Combatant Commanders for employment.

The DNI isn't even a Title 10 Officer, but instead operates under Title 50. The only authority the DNI has over DoD Intelligence organizations is the validation and prioritization of Intelligence Requirements. The DNI cannot hire or fire any of the DoD Intelligence Chiefs who, when they appear for Senate Confirmation, go before the Armed Services Commiteee - not the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence. While the DNI is in the Chain of Command of the CIA (less Covert Action, where he is "advised&quot all other IC Compenent Chiefs work for officials in the Cabinet Departments.

[Bohunk68]

13. Freer hand?

How about retirement, like MacArthur? There's your freer hand. I really wonder about those posted above who think this is a wonderful thing. Do they really understand the Constitution?

[OnyxCollie]

24. People think this is a wonderful thing?

Behold the effectiveness of Ignore.

[MADem]

14. Ah, turf wars! Those regional commanders don't like it when someone is operating in their theatre!

And they are the last to know!

The challenge you have there is that if the direction doesn't come from the Commander in Chief, the operational commander IS "stepping on State"--State being senior to Defense in the pecking order.

Interesting conundrum.

[24601]

30. You couldn't be more wrong. Your place in the line of Presidential Succession

does not make you in the Chain of Command - as Al Haig found out in 1981, unless you actually do become President or Acting President under the 25th Amendment.

And before you get to SECSTATE, you have the VP, the Speaker of the House and the President Pro Tempore of the Senate. None of them are in the Chain between the President and Secretary of Defense.

The VP may have influence with the President, but is not a deputy Commander in Chief, and may give lawful orders to his personal staffs in the WH and Senate Office.

[MADem]

35. Who is talking about presidential succession? Way to completely not understand my point.

And who even mentioned the VP?

Good grief, I'm talking about operational issues, not line of succession.

You try running a NEO operation overseas and cutting State out, and see how well that works. Your foreign government making runways and ports available isn't going to talk to some schmuck in uniform, they're going to want to talk to the Ambassador and get the thumbs up before anything goes down.

You try operating in a regional commander's AO without cutting in his staff--it can and does get very ugly.

No one's playing Al Haig here. You're not taking my point at all.

[dreamnightwind]

16. This totally sucks

Not in my name, and not in my country. Out of control assassins, no thanks.

[lunatica]

17. What he really wants is for the Commander in Chief to be unnecessary in the processes

As much as I dislike the entire thing we don't need strutting tin dictator wannabe's being able to make decisions independent of Congress and the President.

Just what we need. Special Ops making decisions without any oversight whatsoever. I guess they'll do the data gathering and the analysis for their own assassination operations too. Sure let them have all they want.

[24601]

31. I love a good laugh - you're telling us that you didn't know that the SECDEF

already has force deployment authority? Oops - don't let POTUS know....
Most of this thread is not based in the reality of how things work today.
I'll bet 80%+ don't know that deployment authority is different from employment authority.

USSOCOM Commander is doing precisely what he should do - working this issue through his chain of command and responding to the House and Senate Armed Service Committees - who exercise this kind of DoD Oversight and would hold the hearings of any changes are required to Title 10, USC.

Read the article at the top - SOF would still be employed by GCCs (Geographic Combatant Commanders) but the USSOCOM Commander would have the authority to position SOF forces for GCC employment.

Now, this particular Admiral, as a 3-star last May, Commanded the Bin Laden mission - under Title 50 - as his force was temporarily chopped from DoD to CIA OPCON, under then CIA Director - now SECDEF - Leon Panetta. This is the biggest reason Pres Obama has a real chance in November. This authority is going to be granted - bank on it - bet the house on it.

With a straight face - tell me it ain't in the cards.

[lunatica]

32. Your post is alphabet and word salad

to me. It means exactly zero. So you love to laugh at people?

[24601]

38. At people, never! At things that are said, absolutely! Let me know which terms

you didn't get - and a simple Goolge search doesn't clarify - and I'll drop back in.

[lunatica]

39. What part of

Didn't you get? Pedantic people are boring

[24601]

40. Silly me for believing you the 1st time. Sorry I mistook you for someone who

cared sufficiently to engage.

[hack89]

44. Military organization and command are technical and legal in nature

if you don't want to take the time to understand how the military works and what laws govern their use, then don't complain when you say silly things and get called on it.

[lunatica]

45. Oh please!

You're certainly not my father to wag your stupid finger in my face. I have no interest in the military organization, but I do have an interest in some Generals deciding who to assassinate all by themselves with their elite special forces.

It all sounds too much like a slow motion military coup where life and death decisions are made by 'those who know better than anyone else what's good for us'.

[hack89]

46. "Slow motion military coup" is the kind of silliness that stems from ...

ignorance of the subject at hand.

Thanks for making my point.

[Blue_Tires]

18. I wonder if the unspoken proposal here is more reliance on the mercenary firms...

Most of them are former special forces, and they don't let silly things like a chain of command or law or ethics color their conscious...

[bemildred]

19. This is why military leaders need to be subordinate to accountable politicians.

What a self-seving asshat.

[Brettongarcia]

21. At least its been declassified, to be thrown out to the public for discussion

Because in fact, this might be a major policy decision, that pretty much all voters "need to know" about.

Will it be accepted? Unfortuntely, thanks to the history of the CIA, then fictional shows like "24" and "The Unit," the public has become used to the idea of semi-covert US military action in almost any nation you could think of. As a sort of world police force.

Allowing small, limited army operations in other countries, which may - or may not - be short of real wars? That's been done in fact. But again, it is a major policy decision, that needs to be publically debated, of course. Oddly though, this kind of move, is well known by now. So that this dangerous move, seems to be increasingly ... accepted by many. The US military went into Pakistan, to get Bin Ladena - and no one said much. There is even public talk of a perhaps limited strike by US in Iran, taking out Iranian nuclear facilities.

Such limited operations of course raise ethical questions on their own. And then too? There have always been problems, with "limited wars," and so forth.

Scary stuff, to be sure.

But no doubt, whatever commander it was who allowed the US to kill Pakistani soldiers in Pakistan, a month or two ago? Should be reduced in rank, and quickly retired. That's all we need: some military hot shot on the border, picking a fight with a nuclear-armed, Muslim fundamentalist country.

[OnyxCollie]

25. If McRaven's asking for this,

it means he already can.

[Brettongarcia]

26. Past or future? It's timely to look at this now. It's offered up for public commentary, after all.

[OnyxCollie]

27. It's a trial balloon for the new normal.

The legal-rational authority, publicly requested to condition the masses, to provide permission for pre-determined actions to achieve an objective incentive.

[Tripod]

34. It doesn't work.

[OnyxCollie]

36. It worked in Libya.

Edit to add: It worked because the US claimed it wasn't engaged in "hostilities."

[Tripod]

37. Us has done this over,and over again.

Come on.

[24601]

41. Who specifically made that claim?

[Tripod]

33. This is a good idea. n/t

[Citizen Worker]

43. This is crossing the Rubicon.