Tweet
OUT IN THE OPEN WHY AMERICA NEEDS TO DECLASSIFY ITS FOREIGN POLICY.
[ Part 2.2: "Attached Text" ]
BY SEN. BOB CORKER | JULY 31, 2013
[intelligence79000168_0.jpg]
For the past 11 years, and especially the during the last five,
a significant portion of U.S. foreign policy and warfighting has
been conducted through covert action -- the secret efforts led by
intelligence agencies to protect America's national security abroad.
While these efforts have clearly been successful in many cases,
they have grown much larger than the unique, limited means they were
designed to be. Today, covert operations appear to have expanded to
include what have traditionally been overt military and diplomatic
functions, blurring the lines of authority and leaving the public
and most of Congress in the dark.
To ensure the continued availability of covert action -- a highly
valuable and effective tool under the right circumstances -- we must
make certain that no president misuses, overuses, or employs this
tactic simply out of convenience or the desire to avoid oversight
and debate. As a result, it is important to ask just how much of U.S.
foreign policy is conducted secretly. The answer, unfortunately,
appears to be too much.
As President Barack Obama seeks to engage Congress on the future
of the 2001 Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF), the
congressional authorization that grants the president authority to
use force against those responsible for the 9/11 attacks, the time
has come for our reliance on covert action to come out into the open
and be subject to real policy debate and oversight.
In the immediate aftermath of the 9/11 attacks, U.S. intelligence
agencies took the fight to the enemy, working to protect America's
vital interests and inform our decision makers, while at the same
time preparing the battlespace in Afghanistan for our men and women in
uniform. That effort, and those that followed, demonstrated the value
of quick, decisive, and precise action by U.S. intelligence agencies.
Since the creation of the modern intelligence community in 1946,
various declassified operations attest to the vital role that covert
action can play in advancing American interests. Its very existence
ensures that overt military action -- with its significant footprint of
American boots on the ground -- is not the only option when diplomacy
fails. Covert action can also provide America's partners -- who for
domestic or international political reasons cannot accept overt
assistance from the United States -- with a measure of plausible
deniability.
But the trend toward ever-increasing use of covert action also has
damaging effects. In particular, it can undermine -- or at least run
counter -- to larger, publicly stated foreign policy goals. Earlier
this year, for example, Afghan President Hamid Karzai claimed to have
been receiving cash in secret from the CIA for more than a decade.
Press accounts alleged that the amounts involved may have reached into
the tens of millions of dollars, but questions about the accountability
of the U.S. tax-payer-funded cash transfers have been stonewalled. If
the claims are accurate, they raise significant foreign policy issues,
not least because a pillar of U.S. assistance in Afghanistan has been
to reinforce the rule of law and combat corruption.
The president, who has so far refused to provide any explanation for
these payments in public or in private, must work with Congress to
make sure overt U.S. aid and covert intelligence activities do not
run at cross purposes.
Covert action must also not be a substitute for major military
operations. While the Pentagon conducts a publicly acknowledged drone
campaign targeting terrorists in Yemen, published reports suggest that
the intelligence community runs a parallel program of significant scope
and scale. While the success of many of these operations is not in
dispute, it is also clear that our broad counterterrorism efforts --
visible and obvious as they are -- should not be handled primarily
through covert action designed for unique circumstances where the
role of the United States must truly be hidden.
The Obama administration has announced that responsibility for most
drone activities will be shifted to the Department of Defense, but
more must be done to bring America's offensive activities out into the
open. In particular, the president and Congress must work together
to ensure, over the long run, that large-scale offensive operations
are conducted overtly, preserving covert action for the more precise,
high value efforts it is designed to address.
The problem isn't limited to alleged cash transfers or ostensibly
covert counterterrorism operations. In May, the Senate Foreign
Relations Committee approved, with broad, bipartisan support, a bill to
provide targeted arms and training to vetted, moderate elements of the
Syrian opposition. This type of public debate stands in stark contrast
to the Obama administration's approach -- conducting its deliberations
behind the veil of executive privilege, emerging only to announce
the result on television, and then retreating back into the shadows
to carry out its policies through covert methods. This approach not
only lacks decisiveness, but it effectively prevents any real debate
about U.S. policy in Syria. It also flies in the face of the statutory
requirement that "the role of the United States Government ... not
be apparent or acknowledged publicly" in covert actions.
This is not to suggest that the United States should avoid covert
means to go after terrorists or to protect U.S. national interests.
But it is to suggest that there must be safeguards in place to ensure
that U.S. policies are well coordinated, moving in the same direction,
and that covert action is not used simply to avoid public discussion
and oversight.
Indeed, it a disservice to members of the intelligence community to
ask them to take on foreign policy and warfighting responsibilities
except in truly unique circumstances when national security is at
stake. Covert action is a valuable tool, but misuse and overuse
undermines it.
What is really missing from this equation is responsible leadership
in Congress to hold the administration accountable on questions of
foreign policy. Right now, we have a unique opportunity to fix this
problem, at least with respect to our counterterrorism operations.
Since the passage of the AUMF in 2001, Congress has largely sat
silent as hundreds of thousands of Americans have served in harm's
way in Iraq, Afghanistan, and elsewhere. This feckless dereliction
of duty must end. Congress must take up and debate a new AUMF that
is appropriate for the threats and challenges we face today. Only by
owning up to our responsibilities can Congress bring foreign policy
out into the open, where the American people can hold it accountable.
Charles Ommanney/Getty Images
[arr-indent.gif] SUBJECTS: U.S. FOREIGN POLICY, SECURITY, INTELLIGENCE
Bob Corker is a U.S. Senator from Tennessee and is the Ranking Member
of the Committee on Foreign Relations.
http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2013/07/30/out_in_the_open_america_dec
lassify_foreign_policy?page=full
[ Part 2.2: "Attached Text" ]
BY SEN. BOB CORKER | JULY 31, 2013
[intelligence79000168_0.jpg]
For the past 11 years, and especially the during the last five,
a significant portion of U.S. foreign policy and warfighting has
been conducted through covert action -- the secret efforts led by
intelligence agencies to protect America's national security abroad.
While these efforts have clearly been successful in many cases,
they have grown much larger than the unique, limited means they were
designed to be. Today, covert operations appear to have expanded to
include what have traditionally been overt military and diplomatic
functions, blurring the lines of authority and leaving the public
and most of Congress in the dark.
To ensure the continued availability of covert action -- a highly
valuable and effective tool under the right circumstances -- we must
make certain that no president misuses, overuses, or employs this
tactic simply out of convenience or the desire to avoid oversight
and debate. As a result, it is important to ask just how much of U.S.
foreign policy is conducted secretly. The answer, unfortunately,
appears to be too much.
As President Barack Obama seeks to engage Congress on the future
of the 2001 Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF), the
congressional authorization that grants the president authority to
use force against those responsible for the 9/11 attacks, the time
has come for our reliance on covert action to come out into the open
and be subject to real policy debate and oversight.
In the immediate aftermath of the 9/11 attacks, U.S. intelligence
agencies took the fight to the enemy, working to protect America's
vital interests and inform our decision makers, while at the same
time preparing the battlespace in Afghanistan for our men and women in
uniform. That effort, and those that followed, demonstrated the value
of quick, decisive, and precise action by U.S. intelligence agencies.
Since the creation of the modern intelligence community in 1946,
various declassified operations attest to the vital role that covert
action can play in advancing American interests. Its very existence
ensures that overt military action -- with its significant footprint of
American boots on the ground -- is not the only option when diplomacy
fails. Covert action can also provide America's partners -- who for
domestic or international political reasons cannot accept overt
assistance from the United States -- with a measure of plausible
deniability.
But the trend toward ever-increasing use of covert action also has
damaging effects. In particular, it can undermine -- or at least run
counter -- to larger, publicly stated foreign policy goals. Earlier
this year, for example, Afghan President Hamid Karzai claimed to have
been receiving cash in secret from the CIA for more than a decade.
Press accounts alleged that the amounts involved may have reached into
the tens of millions of dollars, but questions about the accountability
of the U.S. tax-payer-funded cash transfers have been stonewalled. If
the claims are accurate, they raise significant foreign policy issues,
not least because a pillar of U.S. assistance in Afghanistan has been
to reinforce the rule of law and combat corruption.
The president, who has so far refused to provide any explanation for
these payments in public or in private, must work with Congress to
make sure overt U.S. aid and covert intelligence activities do not
run at cross purposes.
Covert action must also not be a substitute for major military
operations. While the Pentagon conducts a publicly acknowledged drone
campaign targeting terrorists in Yemen, published reports suggest that
the intelligence community runs a parallel program of significant scope
and scale. While the success of many of these operations is not in
dispute, it is also clear that our broad counterterrorism efforts --
visible and obvious as they are -- should not be handled primarily
through covert action designed for unique circumstances where the
role of the United States must truly be hidden.
The Obama administration has announced that responsibility for most
drone activities will be shifted to the Department of Defense, but
more must be done to bring America's offensive activities out into the
open. In particular, the president and Congress must work together
to ensure, over the long run, that large-scale offensive operations
are conducted overtly, preserving covert action for the more precise,
high value efforts it is designed to address.
The problem isn't limited to alleged cash transfers or ostensibly
covert counterterrorism operations. In May, the Senate Foreign
Relations Committee approved, with broad, bipartisan support, a bill to
provide targeted arms and training to vetted, moderate elements of the
Syrian opposition. This type of public debate stands in stark contrast
to the Obama administration's approach -- conducting its deliberations
behind the veil of executive privilege, emerging only to announce
the result on television, and then retreating back into the shadows
to carry out its policies through covert methods. This approach not
only lacks decisiveness, but it effectively prevents any real debate
about U.S. policy in Syria. It also flies in the face of the statutory
requirement that "the role of the United States Government ... not
be apparent or acknowledged publicly" in covert actions.
This is not to suggest that the United States should avoid covert
means to go after terrorists or to protect U.S. national interests.
But it is to suggest that there must be safeguards in place to ensure
that U.S. policies are well coordinated, moving in the same direction,
and that covert action is not used simply to avoid public discussion
and oversight.
Indeed, it a disservice to members of the intelligence community to
ask them to take on foreign policy and warfighting responsibilities
except in truly unique circumstances when national security is at
stake. Covert action is a valuable tool, but misuse and overuse
undermines it.
What is really missing from this equation is responsible leadership
in Congress to hold the administration accountable on questions of
foreign policy. Right now, we have a unique opportunity to fix this
problem, at least with respect to our counterterrorism operations.
Since the passage of the AUMF in 2001, Congress has largely sat
silent as hundreds of thousands of Americans have served in harm's
way in Iraq, Afghanistan, and elsewhere. This feckless dereliction
of duty must end. Congress must take up and debate a new AUMF that
is appropriate for the threats and challenges we face today. Only by
owning up to our responsibilities can Congress bring foreign policy
out into the open, where the American people can hold it accountable.
Charles Ommanney/Getty Images
[arr-indent.gif] SUBJECTS: U.S. FOREIGN POLICY, SECURITY, INTELLIGENCE
Bob Corker is a U.S. Senator from Tennessee and is the Ranking Member
of the Committee on Foreign Relations.
http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2013/07/30/out_in_the_open_america_dec
lassify_foreign_policy?page=full