Another Undeclared War
Spencer Ackerman’s latest piece for Wired is pretty chilling. Especially this part:
White House counterterrorism adviser John Brennan didn’t say it on the Sunday chat shows, but there’s a plan gaining momentum within the Obama administration to expand the CIA’s “operational control” over “U.S. hunter-killer teams” from the Joint Special Operations Command tracking al-Qaeda’s Yemen-based affiliate. The Wall Street Journal reports that the proposal would let the U.S. “unilaterally” attack al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula — the presumed (but not directly accused)culprits of the plot – while the Yemeni government retained “deniability” for counterterrorism raids. Most likely, that means official public denunciation of commando assaults and drone strikes from President Ali Abdullah Saleh while he privately winks at the operations and takes U.S. cash.
There are a few good reasons to get queasy about the possibility of another undeclared war (a “Pakistan 2.0, as Spencer puts it), but one of the things that really sticks with me is what this could do for an already severely engorged national security state. The Washington Post’s Top Secret America exposé faded from public consciousness far to quickly, but the essential problem it highlighted remains. Our defense/intelligence apparatus has a bigger budget than the total GDPs of more than a few countries, and yet its size and complexity means that no one is capable of grasping the extent of its activities or evaluating its effectiveness. Another undeclared war could mean more money for defense contractors, manufacturers, and consultants.
Of course, as Spencer is careful to stress, this would be the CIA’s baby. That should make everyone a little queasy; I’m with Matthew Yglesias in preferring to not have a CIA in the first place, but if we must have one, I’d prefer it not to be an instrument for prosecuting undeclared wars. At present we’re looking at an agency that seeks to fulfill many of the same functions as a military, but without even the pretense of public accountability. Greater involvement in Yemen would likely mean the solidification and expansion of that role.
And then what? Spencer writes that “bombarding al-Qaeda targets in Pakistan has led to the group’s reliance on its Yemen branch, which operates with relative impunity.” That’s the problem with a network of cells. If we put military (well, CIA and military contractor) pressure on the Yemen branch, what other cell is going to pick up the slack? Perhaps someone with greater knowledge of these things could assure me that in two years I won’t be reading an article about how, say, Somalia is to become Pakistan 3.0.
How much longer can the United States sustain this approach? And is there actually any way to reverse it?
Repeal the AUMF.Report
Perhaps we ought to vote for Democrats.Report
The philosophical question of: “Is this function of undeclared war a necessary evil of the CIA to protect America and Americans?” requires an ongoing discussion. I think any reasonable American would agree that protecting us from very evil people requires agents to go “under cover” on the world’s stage just as they do domestically in drug busts, mafia busts, etc. However, any reasonable American would agree that we do not want a return to the Nixon days of unchecked illegal activities. Having served in the military and now a civilian, I see both sides and I see the justification but limits are required. What those limits and accountability parameters are is, as with many issues, up for debate.
Nice article Ned, well written and informing.
C’yaReport
It’s not just the CIA that runs these teams. The NSA, DoD, etc all have teams that operate on and off the books. They are the ‘tip of the spear’ for most of our counter-terrorism activity and they do more good than bad. AQ isn’t going to be defeated by the 82nd Airborne. They are going to be defeated by serious men doing serious work that never makes it into the press. Personally I sleep a lot beter knowing those guys are out there.Report
@Mike at The Big Stick,
Imagine:
-You are a boy and live in squalor
-You rely largely on your extended family’s cooperation to maintain what little livelihood you have
-Your uncle supports a radical religious group and tells you about the evils of America every day
-One day an American kicks in your door with a boot that costs more than your house, shoot your uncle and your sister in the face (oops, collateral damage)
-On the way out of town Americans hold a vote with armed troops at every voting booth
-Unsurprisingly a leader who cooperates with all American interests and does nothing to improve your life wins
-You say “Thank you American for your gift of democracy”
-You drop out of school and trudge off to work to help pay for the loss of your uncle’s income (even though you can’t earn half of what he did)
So we can all rest assured that no more radical anti-American activity will take place in this town.Report
This is the kind of thing that makes me very, very glad that I’m not an Americans, because I don’t have to decide whether or not I would vote today.Report
Did any of you folks ever think that some of those terrorists need to be killed before they put another bomb on an airplane?Report
@Scott,
Sure, that plan is logical enough. The problem is in the execution. When the American government is ordering robot planes to bomb “terrorists” how do you guarantee that only the terrorists die? When a home or source of income is destroyed in the process, who fixes it?
From the perspective of the collaterally damaged who live in constant fear from unpreventable death from above, or black ops teams, how is this any different from terrorism? Can you really blame people for eventually joining the only resistance to foreign sponsored death squads?Report
@Tony B,
Whether you drop a bomb from a manned plane or a robot you can’t guarantee that there won’t be collateral damage. That shouldn’t stop you from doing it but rather should shape the process of targeting to be as careful as possible.
The difference is that the US doesn’t specially target innocents or soft targets like the terrorists do.Report