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.