The suicide bombing of a CIA outpost has revealed that the Agency is far more involved in combat-esque activities than we might have imagined. In my work on caveats, I have observed, I think, the temptation to use special forces that face fewer restrictions, due to less oversight, than conventional forces. I am not clear whether the reliance on the CIA is driven by the same concerns, but it has the same impact--less oversight than conventional forces.
I wonder whether security is better at CIA FOBs (Forward Operating Bases) or at those run/dominated by conventional forces?
Clearly, if one is going to pursue this kind of war, there is going to be a need for a mix of conventional, unconventional, and intelligence ops. The challenge is getting the mix right both to be most effective and to maintain sufficient oversight. I am not saying that the mix here is wrong, just that the US needs to be careful to get it right.
how did they know CIA agents were present? The Taliban are alleging that they had a mole.....Does the CIA advertise its presence at FOBs? Why isn't the msm asking these questions.
Post a Comment