home

Pentagon v. State Dept.

by TChris

Believing it should be a government unto itself, unhindered by checks and balances, Donald Rumsfeld's Pentagon "is promoting a global counterterrorism plan that would allow Special Operations forces to enter a foreign country to conduct military operations without explicit concurrence from the U.S. ambassador there, administration officials familiar with the plan said."

The plan would weaken the long-standing "chief of mission" authority under which the U.S. ambassador, as the president's top representative in a foreign country, decides whether to grant entry to U.S. government personnel based on political and diplomatic considerations. The Special Operations missions envisioned in the plan would largely be secret, known to only a handful of officials from the foreign country, if any.

The Pentagon hopes to avoid "time-consuming debates" about the advisability of transgressing the borders of a sovereign nation. To its dismay, the pesty State Department has been standing in the way of the Pentagon doing anything it pleases.

The State Department and the CIA have fought the proposal, saying it would be dangerous to dilute the authority of the U.S. ambassador and CIA station chief to oversee U.S. military and intelligence activities in other countries. Over the past two years, the State Department has repeatedly blocked Pentagon efforts to send Special Operations forces into countries surreptitiously and without ambassadors' formal approval, current and former administration officials said.

The State Department has reason to oppose the change of policy, given its experience with Special Forces operations. In one instance, it blocked a plan to send Special Forces soldiers into Pakistan without ambassadorial approval.

The soldiers eventually entered Pakistan with proper clearance but were ordered out again by the ambassador for what was described as reckless behavior. "We had SF [Special Forces] guys in civilian clothes running around a hotel with grenades in their pockets," said one source involved in the incident, who opposes the Pentagon plan.

In another, "a group of Delta Force soldiers left a bar at night in a Latin American country and shot an alleged assailant but did not inform the U.S. Embassy for several days."

< TalkLeft 's Comment Policy | HST: Son is Sad But Proud, He Went Out Like a Warrior >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Re: Pentagon v. State Dept. (none / 0) (#1)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Thu Feb 24, 2005 at 10:05:15 AM EST
    I remember when there was a country where the American Embassy was overran and all the Americans were held hostage. How would the discovery of a secret military force on the homeland be responded to. Wouldn't our Diplomats be endangered. Somebody with a brain has got to talk to these folks.

    Re: Pentagon v. State Dept. (none / 0) (#2)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Thu Feb 24, 2005 at 10:14:14 AM EST
    Sooo....It is A-OK for the CIA to conduct ops without informing the Mission, but not the Pentagon? BOTH already require a finding or some form of authorization from the Executive Branch. This would seem to be a streamlined, common sense approach that also allows for an additional layer of Operational Security (less in the know the better).

    Re: Pentagon v. State Dept. (none / 0) (#3)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Thu Feb 24, 2005 at 10:16:59 AM EST
    Beckmann- Your concern seems to be more focused on whether o not the Pentagon should even conduct these sorts of Ops, rather than what protocols should be in place.

    Re: Pentagon v. State Dept. (none / 0) (#4)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Thu Feb 24, 2005 at 10:24:54 AM EST
    Given that the Ambassador is responsible for relations with a country, not military activities, and given that most Ambassadors are political types or siginificant campaign contributors who lack any real knowledge of either diplomacy or military operations, they should have no say whatsoever in what the military does. The President is still the commander in chief, and is authorized to use the military. If an Ambassador doesn't like the policy, they can resign.

    Re: Pentagon v. State Dept. (none / 0) (#5)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Thu Feb 24, 2005 at 10:38:47 AM EST
    Is justpaul saying that sending the military into another country is not going to have an impact on our relations with that country. Taking the Ambassador out of the loop will certainly stream line things just as it would stream line things if you didn't have to get divorced before getting married again.

    Re: Pentagon v. State Dept. (none / 0) (#6)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Thu Feb 24, 2005 at 10:38:47 AM EST
    So, the debate here is over whether or not the Department of Defense needs the concurrence of the Department of State to wage war without declaration?

    Re: Pentagon v. State Dept. (none / 0) (#7)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Thu Feb 24, 2005 at 10:42:54 AM EST
    Gee, Don... you go to war with the ambassador you have, not the ambassador you wish you have.

    Re: Pentagon v. State Dept. (none / 0) (#8)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Thu Feb 24, 2005 at 10:48:52 AM EST
    Remember Pearl Harbor. Protocol schmotocol. This is another exercise in giving unbridled power to the neocons. They justified invading Iraq, Torturing folks, now Invading a soverin Country under the cover of Special Ops

    Re: Pentagon v. State Dept. (none / 0) (#9)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Thu Feb 24, 2005 at 10:51:14 AM EST
    Gerry Owen at February 24, 2005 11:14 AM who do you work for, its becoming apparent that your presence here has a specific agenda, seems more gannon/guckert like, just repeating the wh/party line press releases or some other standard prepared response. you jump to support every bad and/or controversial decision coming from this admin, with the SOS that it could never happen or were not close to that yet, but it is happening, and you refuse to acknowledge this reality. ?whats the agenda? sublime them dem-nuts to submission!!!, shout louder every time an inquiring question is raised!!! the rules of engagment are in place for a reason, no agency should be able to just go off and do what it feels is in the best interest of national security or america for that matter, absent oversight and accountability. ?do you not see the problem in that?

    Re: Pentagon v. State Dept. (none / 0) (#10)
    by desertswine on Thu Feb 24, 2005 at 10:52:36 AM EST
    State vs. Defense... sort of like Godzilla vs. Gigan... who to root for???

    Re: Pentagon v. State Dept. (none / 0) (#11)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Thu Feb 24, 2005 at 10:54:46 AM EST
    Mfox Great line LOL :)

    Re: Pentagon v. State Dept. (none / 0) (#12)
    by kdog on Thu Feb 24, 2005 at 10:56:28 AM EST
    Sounds a little too much like perpetual war to me. The bullet and missile stockpiles get too high, the Pentagon ok's an attack on the "enemy du'jour", so they can get funding to replenish said stockpiles. I'm very skeptical.

    Re: Pentagon v. State Dept. (none / 0) (#13)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Thu Feb 24, 2005 at 10:57:54 AM EST
    Hardleft Don't chase Gerry away. Its fun to sock it to em! Who will we argue with if he goes?

    Re: Pentagon v. State Dept. (none / 0) (#14)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Thu Feb 24, 2005 at 11:10:31 AM EST
    Perspective here, the vast majority of these sorts of missions have historically been sneak and peeks, and cross border at that.

    Re: Pentagon v. State Dept. (none / 0) (#15)
    by kdog on Thu Feb 24, 2005 at 11:13:30 AM EST
    I find Gerry to be one of our better "conservative" posters. He seems to be genuine in his debates. I certainly appreciate it.

    Re: Pentagon v. State Dept. (none / 0) (#16)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Thu Feb 24, 2005 at 11:19:20 AM EST
    Hardleft- I actually work in Telecom now. I was in Military Intelligence for 4 years followed by a 6 year stint with a couple of agencies doing pretty much the same thing. I left out of frustration with the "Chasing Windmills" approach we had at the time to terrorism. I like this site because of the debate- don't go freaky thinking with the conspiracy theories on me now.

    Re: Pentagon v. State Dept. (none / 0) (#17)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Thu Feb 24, 2005 at 11:22:26 AM EST
    kdog- I just try to think for myself- there are plenty on both sides of the issues that don't. I know I'm coming from the right side of the spectrum, but I see the points and agree with the Left in many instances.

    Re: Pentagon v. State Dept. (none / 0) (#18)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Thu Feb 24, 2005 at 11:26:09 AM EST
    kdog- Thanks, you too seem reasonable and thoughtful. (I meant to put that in the last post, but my dog hit the mouse and entered the post before I was through- at least She didn't leave me in a hanging participle or something).

    Re: Pentagon v. State Dept. (none / 0) (#19)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Thu Feb 24, 2005 at 11:30:22 AM EST
    Gerry In Vietnam we called it sneak,peak and assinate, in el Salvador and chile something else. I not worried about the vast majority. It's the minority actions

    Re: Pentagon v. State Dept. (none / 0) (#20)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Thu Feb 24, 2005 at 11:59:43 AM EST
    Beckmann- Snatch and grabs plus shoot and scoots would occur regardless of whether the Ambassador wants to let the personnel in to do these or not. I just view the proposed changes as a simplification and updating of some pretty antiquated diplomatic protocols. Seriously, outside of an known terrorist quantity/leader, can anyone picture an instance where we'd send in an officially recognized unit as a hit squad? That's more in the CIA's realm, and they are better equipped and trained for those sorts of things.

    Re: Pentagon v. State Dept. (none / 0) (#21)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Thu Feb 24, 2005 at 12:08:13 PM EST
    Dan, No, I'm saying that if the Ambassador wants to control the military, he has two options: Join the military and work his way up to general rank, or run for President and win. War is politics by another means. Ambassadors handle the diplomacy side, not the war side.

    Re: Pentagon v. State Dept. (none / 0) (#22)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Thu Feb 24, 2005 at 12:10:52 PM EST
    "We had SF [Special Forces] guys in civilian clothes running around a hotel with grenades in their pockets," Too funny! I can see this, and I don't doubt it. Pretty poor craft to let them have hand grenades in the first place, though.

    Re: Pentagon v. State Dept. (none / 0) (#23)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Thu Feb 24, 2005 at 12:13:05 PM EST
    ...don't go freaky thinking with the conspiracy theories on me now.
    why i love a good conspiracy theory you know the best lies in the world are 80-92% truth, only a few small details have to be altered/manipulated. like the one about aliens!!! the gov't says there are no little gray men visiting us from outer space. which is probably true. but what if the little gray men live here on earth, were here prior to the ape standing on two and walking. ?did he lie to us by saying no? technically he told the truth, but did not resolve my concern (little gray men) which in reality was my question. like the one about the moon shots were faked!!! if the moons atmosphere is as the scientist say, it would be impossible to see a reflection in glass (the helmet shot), for some american pride to defeat the russians to the moon this gigantic lie was conceived, perpetrated, and is still currently maintained. oh yeah G.O. i'm a truth is out there kind of guy. as i have absolutely no faith in human groups and/or institutions, Murphy prevails, i tend to questions all their actions and motives.

    Re: Pentagon v. State Dept. (none / 0) (#24)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Thu Feb 24, 2005 at 12:19:10 PM EST
    justpaul- in the old days the President's representative NEEDED the authorities highlighted here. With modern communications being what they are, they are not always necessary.

    Re: Pentagon v. State Dept. (none / 0) (#25)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Thu Feb 24, 2005 at 12:32:16 PM EST
    Gosh. And then you wonder why people from those other countries fly planes into your scyscrapes or behead your soldiers.

    Re: Pentagon v. State Dept. (none / 0) (#26)
    by kdog on Thu Feb 24, 2005 at 12:59:04 PM EST
    The Pentagon hopes to avoid "time-consuming debates" about the advisability of transgressing the borders of a sovereign nation
    Jesus H. Christ!!! I, for one, would hope the invasion (aka transgressing sovereign borders)of any country would be debated till all of congress, the cabinet, and the joint chiefs were blue in the face!

    Re: Pentagon v. State Dept. (none / 0) (#27)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Thu Feb 24, 2005 at 01:52:52 PM EST
    Ok, If we have personnel in a country on an aboveboard mission, the Ambassador should have some say and control. After all, he is the guy who is going to feel the heat and hear about it if the troops muck it up into a thunder run (as the examples given seem to suggest). And, as kdog put it, "I, for one, would hope the invasion (aka transgressing sovereign borders)of any country would be debated till all of congress, the cabinet, and the joint chiefs were blue in the face!" makes perfect sense as well. But If the Pentagon wants to sneak a couple guys across the border to check out a possible terrorist camp, or run a quick, time sensitive raid to grab or poke holes in a terrorist leader, these decisions and authorizations shouldn't and do not need to have some Ambassador's blessing. They are made above his pay grade. This dispenses with a level of Bureaucratic BS. However, if the changes eliminate the Ambassador's check on decidedly "undiplomatic" behavior by troops assigned to official missions, than that would at some point reflect rather badly on the country as a whole (I and every other soldier hated the whole "your a diplomat first" speech, but you had to live by it). It will be interesting to see if this ends up producing something totally stupid or a workable compromise. I'll put my money on the DoD, though.

    Re: Pentagon v. State Dept. (none / 0) (#28)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Thu Feb 24, 2005 at 02:15:20 PM EST
    kdog, I for one would hope that this debate would involve professionals or people elected to a position, not someone who was able to trade $300,000 in campaign cash for an ambassadorship. And given the lackadaisical attitude toward security of too many of our ambassadors, they are th elast people I would want to know about a covert operation. Asking questions about the advisability of entering a foreign nation's soil with combat forces is a far cry from asking the permission of the ambassador, who is there as our spokesman, nothing more.

    Re: Pentagon v. State Dept. (none / 0) (#29)
    by Che's Lounge on Thu Feb 24, 2005 at 02:31:21 PM EST
    Gerry Owen, Those special ops you're so enamored with are violent tools used to insert, and then prop up, petty dictators. Did you ever think that maybe some of those countries don't like us because of those policies? Now, whatever shall we do with Venezuela? Obviously not a military threat (tho any vaccine lab could be magiclally converted into a "bioweapons facility"). But damnit, they're socialistas! And they've got our oi...I mean they have all that oil. So send in a few million to bribe the right people to incite riots and demonstrations. Then back it up with your famous sneek and peek, or spray and slay, or whatever cute name you want to give it. All in the name of liberty. The recipe for "pre emptive regime change to liberty and justice for all" Where's the dramamine?

    Re: Pentagon v. State Dept. (none / 0) (#30)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Thu Feb 24, 2005 at 03:01:13 PM EST
    Che- Actually, those type ops you are concerned about toward Venezuela wouldn't be ran by the Pentagon! That's CIA's dept.

    Re: Pentagon v. State Dept. (none / 0) (#31)
    by Che's Lounge on Thu Feb 24, 2005 at 03:22:47 PM EST
    It's US, dude. You and me.

    Re: Pentagon v. State Dept. (none / 0) (#32)
    by Walter on Thu Feb 24, 2005 at 03:31:45 PM EST
    where's April Glasbie when you really need her?

    Re: Pentagon v. State Dept. (none / 0) (#33)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Thu Feb 24, 2005 at 04:11:17 PM EST
    The only people who are suprised at this are people who have never been in the military or worked in the State Department. It has been like this for decades. I've seen this quite a bit.

    Re: Pentagon v. State Dept. (none / 0) (#35)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Thu Feb 24, 2005 at 05:35:35 PM EST
    Dan - Don't be obtuse. If needed the ambassador can be briefed. BTW - If I remember, the ambassador serves at the pleasure of the President.

    Re: Pentagon v. State Dept. (none / 0) (#36)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Thu Feb 24, 2005 at 08:18:55 PM EST
    "If needed the ambassador can be briefed." Exactly. Man, re reading all this, you guys act like we are blowing through every country on earth unannounced and guns a blazing. The world don't work like that no more, people! Nothing is ever done without it being talked to death and authorized, and no one wants to sign off on something that could get them jacked up on the cross before a congressional hearing.