SOCOM and the CIA

[Uboat509]

This whole thing is a symptom of the idea that if one is good then two must be better. If closer cooperation between SF and all the various Intel agencies is good (and it is) then actually assigning ODAs to one or more of those organizations must be better (it is not).

There is some discussion of this over at PS.com. BLUF while there is certainly overlap between what SF does and what the civilian Intel agencies do, they are not interchangeable. They have very different missions, very different cultures and very different pools of manpower that they draw from.

SFC W

[John T. Fishel]

on original sin. "Once upon a time" , COL William O. Donovan, Coordinator of War Information was granted license by Pres FDR to create a full blown intel agency. Donovan borrowed a great deal from the British but concluded that having a separate intel collection/analysis agency (MI6/SIS) and covert action/paramilitary agency (SOE) was inefficient so he combined the capabilities in the OSS. This "original sin" was incorporated in the National Security Act of 1947 when the CIA was created. It has been, IMO, responsible for all sorts of mischief such as the Bay of Pigs, among other dumb ops.

Fast forward: The Intel Reform Act of 2004 did not rectify the original sin. So, combining military SOF with CIA will likely compound the error. What needs to be done, IMO, is to separate CIA's paramilitary capability from the intel collection and analysis functions, preferably in a new organization that is civilian run, similar in function to SOE. I would also keep it separate from SOCOM although there could be much work done together under an OPCON authority.

Cheers

JohnT

[Tom Odom]

on original sin. "Once upon a time" , COL William O. Donovan, Coordinator of War Information was granted license by Pres FDR to create a full blown intel agency. Donovan borrowed a great deal from the British but concluded that having a separate intel collection/analysis agency (MI6/SIS) and covert action/paramilitary agency (SOE) was inefficient so he combined the capabilities in the OSS. This "original sin" was incorporated in the National Security Act of 1947 when the CIA was created. It has been, IMO, responsible for all sorts of mischief such as the Bay of Pigs, among other dumb ops.

Fast forward: The Intel Reform Act of 2004 did not rectify the original sin. So, combining military SOF with CIA will likely compound the error. What needs to be done, IMO, is to separate CIA's paramilitary capability from the intel collection and analysis functions, preferably in a new organization that is civilian run, similar in function to SOE. I would also keep it separate from SOCOM although there could be much work done together under an OPCON authority.

Cheers

JohnT

Agreed, John T. We went through an episode of this in the 1980s. I researched and wrote about some of it in the 60s and again in the 70s in the Congo/Zaire. It also tends to give CIA its bifurcated personality although completely as part of that comes froom the clan side.

Best
Tom

[zenpundit]

"What needs to be done, IMO, is to separate CIA's paramilitary capability from the intel collection and analysis functions, preferably in a new organization that is civilian run, similar in function to SOE"

Not all paramilitary covert ops should look like a raid by Delta Force. Sometimes- maybe often -the government might want a very quiet and unobtrusive operation that while requiring a limited use of paramilitary skills to be done quietly by people who have plausibly blended into the environment. That blending requires the sort of cultural/in-country familiarity of experienced collections personnel or diplomats.

For that reason I'm not sure that rigid organizational separation is a great idea unless you intend to also slide ppl with the right experience into place.

Sort of like they are talking about in the news article.

[George L. Singleton]

Trial and error, whatever works, use it and do it.

[Ken White]

doing just that.

That's why Winston noted "You can always trust the Americans to do the right thing -- after they have tried every conceivable alternative."

OTOH, whenever we try to organize things, we generally screw it up -- ad hocery is what we do best.

[ODB]

the experiences and knowledge here on SWJ.

What would be the advantages to doing this and why?

What would be the disadvantages to doing this and why?

Lastly if you had complete control what would you do to reorganize our current system?

Understand the limitations of open source, so may not be able to be to detailed, but looking to see different perspectives and experiences.

[George L. Singleton]

doing just that.

That's why Winston noted "You can always trust the Americans to do the right thing -- after they have tried every conceivable alternative."

OTOH, whenever we try to organize things, we generally screw it up -- ad hocery is what we do best.

Not to digress but Churchill is my favor historic figure from my youth, followed by Teddy Roosevelt and Ike.

And of course Churchill himself epitomized trial and error in his repeated moves "across the floor" of Parliament from one party, back to the other, back again, it makes historians dizzy. His failed Dardinelles campaign was another example of his "under belly" attack theories which didn't work.

Churchill was originally opposed to the coast of France landings, wanted to go in from the south, as best I can recall, Vichy France.

Have a good weekend. Correct me if my history recall is flawed.