- ISIL creates all-female brigade to terrorize women into following Sharia law
- ISTOOK: Obama wants to be impeached
- Obama to Latin leaders: Help with border
- Military bans troops from Baptist church event honoring ‘God’s Rescue Squad’
- ‘Pocket drones’: U.S. Army developing tiny surveillance tools for the next big war
- Belgian cafe posts sign: Dogs allowed, but Jews stay out
- Gen. Dempsey: Pentagon studying Russian readiness plans not viewed ‘for 20 years’
- John McCain: Botched, two-hour execution of murderer is ‘torture’
- House GOP ready to move border bill
- Bomb squad called after live WWII artillery washes on Cape Cod beach
U.S. commanders: No plan to cede Afghan war to CIA
Question of the Day
WASHINGTON (AP) — U.S. military commanders said Wednesday there are no plans to turn the Afghan war over to CIA control after 2014, with special operations answering to American intelligence officials.
“There are absolutely no plans right now to put special operations under Title 50 in Afghanistan now that I am aware of,” said Adm. Bill McRaven, the overall special operations commander, referring to the legal authority under which the CIA operates.
Marine Corps Gen. James N. Mattis, who heads U.S. Central Command, and Adm. McRaven told the House Armed Services Committee that they will continue an emphasis on special operations training of Afghan forces, especially at the village level.
Adm. McRaven also defended the continued use of “night raids” against Afghan enemy targets, saying they are all led by Afghan troops.
The commanders were giving lawmakers a bird’s-eye view of where their forces stand since last year’s U.S. withdrawal from Iraq and where they might be headed as military leaders grapple with how to draw down troops fast enough to meet the White House’s 2014 deadline to end the U.S. combat role in Afghanistan.
Pentagon staffers already have put forward a plan to hand over much of the war-fighting to special operations troops in Afghanistan.
The chairman of the House Armed Services, Rep. Howard P. “Buck” McKeon, California Republican, spoke of the option to add a three-star special operations general to the structure to help coordinate the drawdown and shift to a U.S. special-operations-backed Afghan force.
Adm. McRaven answered several questions about his proposal to allow him to move more of his forces more quickly around the globe when asked by U.S. regional commanders to train local forces or supplement existing U.S. operations. He said none of those troop movements would move ahead without the request by or coordination with the regional U.S. military chief or ambassador.
“I would never recommend circumventing any of those,” Adm. McRaven said.
The idea of turning the Afghan campaign over to the intelligence community after 2014 has been floated by a senior defense intelligence official and reported by the Associated Press last week. The plan is one of several possible scenarios that Pentagon officials are debating but has yet to be presented to Defense Secretary Leon E. Panetta, the White House or Congress.
The notion did not sit well with either Adm. McRaven or Gen. Mattis, when consulted by lawmakers in closed sessions, according to an official who was briefed on the meetings and who spoke on condition of anonymity to discuss private conversations.
Proponents of the draft proposal say one advantage would be a smaller, less visible footprint at a time when Afghan President Hamid Karzai is eager to show that his troops are in the lead and U.S. troops are on the way out.
But a CIA-run war would mean that the U.S. public would not be informed about funding or operations, as they are in a traditional war. Oversight would fall to the White House, top intelligence officials and those two congressional committees, plus a few other key lawmakers.
While Adm. McRaven stressed repeatedly that no such plan is in the works, he acknowledged that when special operations troops are put under CIA control, as they were for last year’s raid against Osama bin Laden, they answer to the intelligence agency. That means congressional oversight falls to the intelligence committees, not defense oversight bodies.
Rep. Henry C. “Hank” Johnson Jr., Georgia Democrat, expressed concern that “we have budgetary control” in the committee, but no authority over when Special Operations Command passes off operational authority to intelligence agencies.
TWT Video Picks
President wants everyone but himself to pay more
- ISTOOK: Obama wants to be impeached
- NAPOLITANO: What if our democracy is a fraud?
- 'We're coming for you, Barack Obama': Top U.S. official discloses threat from ISIL terrorists
- 'Pocket drones': U.S. Army developing tiny spies for the next big war
- Brian Kelly, Notre Dame ready for different route to title
- Russia shipping sophisticated weapons systems to Ukraine separatists
- Michelle Obama says money in politics is bad, asks donors for 'big, fat check'
- Ted Nugent loses second casino gig for 'racist remarks'
- White House readies for House GOP impeachment push: 'Foolish' to ignore
- EDITORIAL: Detroit's water 'spigot bigots'
Obama's biggest White House 'fails'
Celebrities turned politicians
Athletes turned actors
20 gadgets that changed the world
Fighting in Iraq