# DoD ending support to CIA CT Missions



## SierraWave (Dec 11, 2020)

Saw this on CNN yesterday:

Pentagon planning to withdraw support for most CIA counter-terror missions



> The US Department of Defense is planning to withdraw most support for CIA counter-terror missions by the beginning of next year, in a move expected to have a broad effect on the scope of the intelligence agency's paramilitary operations, a senior defense official and former senior administration official with direct knowledge of the move told CNN.
> 
> Acting Defense Secretary Christopher Miller informed CIA Director Gina Haspel of the decision in a letter this week.
> 
> The US military provides a wide range of support to CIA paramilitary operations, including air transportation, logistics and medical evacuation. The changes, which will take place by January 5, involve returning DOD personnel detailed to the CIA and some military equipment, including Predator drones.





> "The Department of Defense routinely provides logistical and other support to U.S. Government departments and agencies around the world. This support is provided in accordance with the Economy Act, and other applicable law. As a responsible actor, the Department has taken a look to better align its allocation of resources with the 2018 National Defense Strategy's shift to great power competition," Defense Department spokesperson Lt. Col. Uriah L. Orland said in a statement later Thursday.



While they note that Biden's administration plans on reversing this, it seems like a bit of a head-scratcher. I know we are moving to great power competition but it seems strange to gimp intelligence efforts against CT targets in this way.


----------



## AWP (Dec 11, 2020)

Could be for a number of reasons. Decreasing budgets? Reprioritization of low-density, high-demand resources? Some of those missions are moving from the CIA to JSOC? Politics?

Without context the story is a bit sensationalist.


----------



## Marauder06 (Dec 11, 2020)

Very interesting.  I wonder how much things will change in practice.


----------



## SierraWave (Dec 11, 2020)

NY Times has a bit more detail in its version:

Pentagon Weighs Sharp Drawback in Support for C.I.A.


----------



## DA SWO (Dec 11, 2020)

Who pays for the assets? DoD or CIA?


----------



## SierraWave (Dec 11, 2020)

DA SWO said:


> Who pays for the assets? DoD or CIA?


That's a great question, one that isn't answered in the article. I'd imagine the answer is probably not public, or not meant to be public.


----------



## ThunderHorse (Dec 11, 2020)

I know I write "But" as the start to a lot of sentences...yet, I don't see how this dude's article made it past the copy editor.  I'd get murdered by my English professor for some these sentences.  But I found this interesting.





> But other changes being considered would be far broader and more consequential, making it harder for the agency to work out of military bases, use the Defense Department’s medical evacuation abilities or *conduct covert drone strikes targeting terrorists in hot spots around the world.*
> 
> Former officials cautioned that President-elect Joseph R. Biden Jr. could immediately reverse any changes once he takes office next month.



Yep, Biden will return to the practice of extra-judicial droning.  Someone tell me how that helps this country vs, you know, peace agreements (which the Democrats will get in the way of I'm sure).


----------



## Locksteady (Dec 11, 2020)

ThunderHorse said:


> Yep, Biden will return to the practice of extra-judicial droning.  *Someone tell me how that helps this country vs, you know, peace agreements* (which the Democrats will get in the way of I'm sure).


----------



## Ranger Psych (Dec 11, 2020)

Locksteady said:


>


You can talk shit about droning that fucker when you also quote the statistics of NEW iranian designed produced and shipped to AQ/etc munitions and EFP's that killed our fucking guys in Iraq.


----------



## Locksteady (Dec 12, 2020)

Ranger Psych said:


> You can talk shit about droning that fucker when you also quote the statistics of NEW iranian designed produced and shipped to AQ/etc munitions and EFP's that killed our fucking guys in Iraq.


You misfired on that one, completely.

The clip was a direct answer to his question about how droning helps the country.


----------



## Ranger Psych (Dec 12, 2020)

Locksteady said:


> You misfired on that one, completely.
> 
> The clip was a direct answer to his question about how droning helps the country.



Maybe posting context when you throw up a video might be helpful in determining intent, else I can just, ya know, read it how many will?


----------



## Locksteady (Dec 12, 2020)

Ranger Psych said:


> Maybe posting context when you throw up a video might be helpful in determining intent, else I can just, ya know, read it how many will?


That was the whole point of placing the quote below directly above the clip and bolding out the relevant comment it addresses.


ThunderHorse said:


> Yep, Biden will return to the practice of extra-judicial droning.  *Someone tell me how that helps this country vs, you know, peace agreements* (which the Democrats will get in the way of I'm sure).


I hear your point, though, and don't see any harm in adding a few words just to be sure.


----------



## ThunderHorse (Dec 12, 2020)

Locksteady said:


> I hear your point, though, and don't see any harm in adding a few words just to be sure.



Generally speaking, President Obama basically normalized extra-judicial droning of folks that would not normally be targeted by the DoD.  Most of his drone strikes were conducted by CIA assets. Drone strikes a war, against a true enemy is one thing.  Sulemani had been on our hit list for almost a decade.  I'm talking run of the mil drone strikes here.  Do they actually help us? (probably, maybe, no one knows)

Obama’s Final Drone Strike Data


----------



## Locksteady (Dec 12, 2020)

Hey @ThunderHorse.

My quote you responded was actually directed to @Ranger Psych to show the context he requested from my first post.

I in no way agree with your point, because drone strikes have proven valuable, and they certainly aren't mutually exclusive to peace agreements.


ThunderHorse said:


> Generally speaking, President Obama basically normalized extra-judicial droning of folks that would not normally be targeted by the DoD.  Most of his drone strikes were conducted by CIA assets. Drone strikes a war, against a true enemy is one thing.  Sulemani had been on our hit list for almost a decade.  I'm talking run of the mil drone strikes here.  Do they actually help us? (probably, maybe, no one knows)
> 
> Obama’s Final Drone Strike Data


You're not illustrating anything that moves the needle on the clear value of drone strikes that you questioned in your original statement.

Additionally, President Trump is not suddenly a victim to whatever former President Obama 'normalized' during his administration, particularly given Trump's penchant for abjectly doing the opposite and even reversing strides made by Obama in even the smallest areas with which he doesn't agree.

POTUS not only cosigned Obama's approach; he launched more drone strikes than Obama's entire 8-year presidency *in less than 2 years*.
Obama specifically shifted authority for drone strike authority away from CIA and to DoD for the sake of transparency and accountability (DoD already had to follow the reporting requirements that CIA was now being asked to make).  Instead of maintaining or continuing that trajectory towards responsible oversight and transparency, President Trump reversed that important measure by granting independent drone strike powers back to the CIA, thereby further expanding drone use while removing interagency approval requirements.

If that wasn't enough, he also deliberately removed significant layers of accountability by removing the casualty reporting requirement instituted by the Obama administration.  This measure previously served to provide oversight to the public while buffering against attacks on national reputation by international political enemies who took advantage of the lack of transparency to wildly exaggerate the extent of collateral damage incurred by the strikes.

Thus, if you are supportive of drone strikes and the expansion (rather than restriction) of their use, then POTUS' policies largely should be a welcome relief.  However, if you are critical of the usage of drone strikes (and the extent to which the Obama administration pursued them), then you'd be out of excuses for not directing the same (and more) criticism towards the Trump administration, because the primary things POTUS disagreed with and removed were the stopgaps and restrictions Obama deliberately put in place to prevent its abuse, non-accountability, and further expansion.


----------



## Kraut783 (Dec 12, 2020)

"Obama deliberately put in place to prevent its abuse, non-accountability"

really?  I think Obama knowingly used a drone strike to kill a U.S. citizen in a non-combat theatre...violating the citizens right to due process. 

Drones strikes used in a combat theatre are justified and merely another arrow in the quiver.


----------



## Locksteady (Dec 12, 2020)

Kraut783 said:


> "Obama deliberately put in place to prevent its abuse, non-accountability"
> 
> really?  I think Obama knowingly used a drone strike to kill a U.S. citizen in a non-combat theatre...violating the citizens right to due process.
> 
> Drones strikes used in a combat theatre are justified and merely another arrow in the quiver.


When are you assuming the measures I am referencing were put into place, and what kinds of events do you think inspired Obama to make those changes, along with stricter targeting guidelines that factored in collateral damage potential (which POTUS has reversed), in the first place ?


----------



## Kraut783 (Dec 12, 2020)

My example is not what inspired Obama to make those changes...and you know that.

The sloppiness in the use of drones is on both DOD and CIA hands has produced issues of collateral damage, which caused the overview and restrictions....


----------



## Locksteady (Dec 12, 2020)

Kraut783 said:


> My example is not what inspired Obama to make those changes...and you know that.
> 
> The sloppiness in the use of drones is on both DOD and CIA hands has produced issues of collateral damage, which caused the overview and restrictions....


The example you provided opens up a controversial decision made by Obama, and is one of the many kinds of collateral damage events I mentioned above that contributed to inspiring the changes.

The example doesn't do the work of disproving one of the purposes of Obama instituting more oversight over the entire process, which seems to be the only point you're nitpicking.

In Awlaki's case, DoJ already concluded that the killing was justified, since he had been identified by the IC as a terrorist leader whose capture was in no way feasible.


----------



## Gunz (Dec 12, 2020)

DA SWO said:


> Who pays for the assets? DoD or CIA?



I would think whomever has the designated command over a particular operation. The CIA operates under Title 50 of the US Code; the military/SOF under Title 10. Without getting into some of the legal-ese of that arrangement, the Bin Laden raid--for example--was funded by and led by CIA under Title 50 authorization. I would also presume that some of these funding decisions would depend on which Congressional Committee is overseeing these actions.

The articles suggest to me a general down-sizing by DoD. If it's put into effect and Biden doesn't rescind it, my question is, does CIA go back to basics with regard to paramilitary operations? In other words go back to Case and SAD officers developing paramilitary capabilities with foreign personnel under contract, and CIA expanding its own support elements.


----------



## Teufel (Dec 12, 2020)

Gunz said:


> I would think whomever has the designated command over a particular operation. The CIA operates under Title 50 of the US Code; the military/SOF under Title 10. Without getting into some of the legal-ese of that arrangement, the Bin Laden raid--for example--was funded by and led by CIA under Title 50 authorization. I would also presume that some of these funding decisions would depend on which Congressional Committee is overseeing these actions.
> 
> The articles suggest to me a general down-sizing by DoD. If it's put into effect and Biden doesn't rescind it, my question is, does CIA go back to basics with regard to paramilitary operations? In other words go back to Case and SAD officers developing paramilitary capabilities with foreign personnel under contract, and CIA expanding its own support elements.


Led by the CIA probably. Funded by them as well? Probably not.


----------



## Kraut783 (Dec 12, 2020)

"In Awlaki's case, DoJ already concluded that the killing was justified, since he had been identified by the IC as a terrorist leader whose capture was in no way feasible." 

DOJ cannot take away someone's right to the constitution.  So, if Biden says to take guns away from US citizens and DOJ say ok...that's ok?  

Apples and oranges?  no.

But, back on topic....I do agree, there has to be more thought into drone strikes and collateral damage.


----------



## Locksteady (Dec 12, 2020)

Kraut783 said:


> "In Awlaki's case, DoJ already concluded that the killing was justified, since he had been identified by the IC as a terrorist leader whose capture was in no way feasible."
> 
> DOJ cannot take away someone's right to the constitution.


The DOJ, along with other law enforcement agencies, can and does operate outside of due process if that individual has been determined, like Awlaki specifically was, to be an imminent and persistent threat, which DOJ concluded in its drone white papers.



Kraut783 said:


> But, back on topic....I do agree, there has to be more thought into drone strikes and collateral damage.


Agreed.

Unfortunately, as with most new tools on the covert action block, there is often a period of less restricted 'playtime' preceding (and determining) regulations for ensuring those best practices.


----------



## BloodStripe (Dec 12, 2020)

DA SWO said:


> Who pays for the assets? DoD or CIA?



Def not an open board discussion.


----------



## Kaldak (Dec 12, 2020)

Locksteady said:


> The DOJ, along with other law enforcement agencies, can and does operate outside of due process if that individual has been determined, like Awlaki specifically was, to be an imminent and persistent threat, which DOJ concluded in its drone white papers.



By arresting them, not killing them.

ETA: I'm referring to law enforcement and DOJ.


----------



## BloodStripe (Dec 12, 2020)

Not really surprising when you read the NDS.


----------



## Teufel (Dec 12, 2020)

In broad terms it costs a lot of money to deploy specialized teams of people overseas to do special things. I think Congress estimated this cost at 500,000 to a million per person on a yearlong deployment to OIF/OEF. Im sure this cost goes up for specialized units deployed to locations without a lot of existing coalition infrastructure. Of course these units don’t deploy for a year but bottom line it’s not cheap.


----------



## Locksteady (Dec 12, 2020)

Kaldak said:


> By arresting them, not killing them.
> 
> ETA: I'm referring to law enforcement and DOJ.





Locksteady said:


> In Awlaki's case, DoJ already concluded that the killing was justified, since he had been identified by the IC as a terrorist leader *whose capture was in no way feasible*.


----------



## AWP (Dec 12, 2020)

Teufel said:


> without a lot of existing coalition *infrastructure*.



I'll bet y'all a cheeseburger this is why the CIA wants DoD UAV/ RPV assets. That shit ain't cheap and if the CIA can pay for flight hours or whatever, it is getting a bargain.

SATCOM, the link backbone, can cost a 10 spot a minute, you know?


----------



## Teufel (Dec 12, 2020)

AWP said:


> I'll bet y'all a cheeseburger this is why the CIA wants DoD UAV/ RPV assets. That shit ain't cheap and if the CIA can pay for flight hours or whatever, it is getting a bargain.
> 
> SATCOM, the link backbone, can cost a 10 spot a minute, you know?


Exactly. It’s not just jet fuel and bullets. Secure comms, contracted security, logistics support etc.


----------



## Gunz (Dec 13, 2020)

Teufel said:


> Led by the CIA probably. Funded by them as well? Probably not.



I'm _assuming_ this guy has his facts straight...maybe not


"...military forces in the Bin Laden raid were operating under Title 10 authorities, while their CIA counterparts were operating under Title 50 authorities. *Just because the CIA funded the operation* does not mean the military forces were operating under Title 50 authority. It merely means the CIA, an organization that derives its authority from Title 50, was in charge of an operation supported by military forces that derive their authority from Title 10.80..."

_Partners or Competitors? The Evolution of the DoD/CIA Relationship Since Desert Storm and its Prospects for the Future -- Major David Oakly, School of Advanced Military Studies, United States Army Command and General Staff College, 2013_


----------



## Gunz (Dec 13, 2020)

BloodStripe said:


> Def not an open board discussion.



Funding issues for certain past operations--like the Bin Laden Raid--are declassified and available from open source material.


----------



## ThunderHorse (Dec 13, 2020)

Gunz said:


> "...military forces in the Bin Laden raid were operating under Title 10 authorities, while their CIA counterparts were operating under Title 50 authorities. *Just because the CIA funded the operation* does not mean the military forces were operating under Title 50 authority. It merely means the CIA, an organization that derives its authority from Title 50, was in charge of an operation supported by military forces that derive their authority from Title 10.80..."
> 
> _Partners or Competitors? The Evolution of the DoD/CIA Relationship Since Desert Storm and its Prospects for the Future -- Major David Oakly, School of Advanced Military Studies, United States Army Command and General Staff College, 2013_


(You know that jet fuel we just expended? Here's the bill, fuck you, pay me)


----------



## Grunt (Dec 13, 2020)

During times like these - protracted wars and such - I wish we weren't so compartmentalized and were able to simply focus more on the targets and victories versus who actually funds it. I know the reasoning behind it, I just wish it wasn't so since we supposedly all have the same end-goal in mind, work for the same "people" and such. It will never happen, but it would be nice at times.


----------



## Devildoc (Dec 13, 2020)

Grunt said:


> During times like these - protracted wars and such - I wish we weren't so compartmentalized and were able to simply focus more on the targets and victories versus who actually funds it. I know the reasoning behind it, I just wish it wasn't so since we supposedly all have the same end-goal in mind, work for the same "people" and such. It will never happen, but it would be nice at times.



That was one of the theories behind creating the Department of Homeland Security, to cut through all the bureaucracy and red tape and funding issues, and to prevent communications failures that led up to 9/11. For the life of me, I know that it cannot be that complicated.  

Organizationally speaking, if you put the CIA and the DOD into a room with one ball bearing and one anvil, they're going to break one and lose the other.


----------



## Teufel (Dec 13, 2020)

Gunz said:


> I'm _assuming_ this guy has his facts straight...maybe not
> 
> 
> "...military forces in the Bin Laden raid were operating under Title 10 authorities, while their CIA counterparts were operating under Title 50 authorities. *Just because the CIA funded the operation* does not mean the military forces were operating under Title 50 authority. It merely means the CIA, an organization that derives its authority from Title 50, was in charge of an operation supported by military forces that derive their authority from Title 10.80..."
> ...


I think they probably paid for a lot of the mission development but doubt that they funded any costs the DOD incurred during the operation like aviation fuel, secure comms, shipping equipment and personnel, UAV hours etc. None of that is cheap.


----------



## BloodStripe (Dec 13, 2020)

Gunz said:


> Funding issues for certain past operations--like the Bin Laden Raid--are declassified and available from open source material.



Source? I question this because the raid is still classified despite dumb asses talking and writing about it. Finance is a huge topic of discussion for many a units right now.

Also, anything CLAN related, to include finance and logistics, is going to be classified and covered under at a minimum an ACCM.


----------



## ThunderHorse (Dec 13, 2020)

BloodStripe said:


> Source? I question this because the raid is still classified despite dumb asses talking and writing about it. Finance is a huge topic of discussion for many a units right now.
> 
> Also, anything CLAN related, to include finance and logistics, is going to be classified and covered under at a minimum an ACCM.



Not to speak for @Gunz but he posted the title to this paper.  Here's the link.  https://www.socom.mil/JSOU/JSOUPublications/JSOU14-2_Oakley_PartnersorCompetitors_27Feb.pdf


----------



## BloodStripe (Dec 13, 2020)

ThunderHorse said:


> Not to speak for @Gunz but he posted the title to this paper.  Here's the link.  https://www.socom.mil/JSOU/JSOUPublications/JSOU14-2_Oakley_PartnersorCompetitors_27Feb.pdf



Thanks. I'll give it a read through. Without reading it yet, it wouldn't be the first or last thing I've seen SOCOM publish online that contained CLASSIFIED information though.

There's even a book out there where the author thanked the SOCOM historian who he stated without their help the book never would have been possible. That book fucked a lot up.


----------



## Gunz (Dec 13, 2020)

BloodStripe said:


> Thanks. I'll give it a read through. Without reading it yet, it wouldn't be the first or last thing I've seen SOCOM publish online that contained CLASSIFIED information though.
> 
> There's even a book out there where the author thanked the SOCOM historian who he stated without their help the book never would have been possible. That book fucked a lot up.



This has been around for a long time. It was part of my profession for nearly 30 years to read every open-source military/intelligence paper/publication that I could get my hands on...as boring and nerdy as that sounds.


----------



## BloodStripe (Dec 13, 2020)

Gunz said:


> This has been around for a long time. It was part of my profession for nearly 30 years to read every open-source military/intelligence paper/publication that I could get my hands on...as boring and nerdy as that sounds.


This book was published within the past 3 years.


----------



## Gunz (Dec 13, 2020)

BloodStripe said:


> This book was published within the past 3 years.


Bro, I meant the paper I quoted, not the book you’re mentioning.


----------

