"US and Drone Control" Topic

Writing in Proceedings magazine, Samuel Lacinski argues that U.S. drones should be controlled by the military and not the CIA:

Doing so would allow a greater level of transparency as the military can report on its actions… military control is necessary not only to ensure the proper conduct of operators in the future but also to allow for a more robust effort to engage locals and provide a more positive narrative surrounding the campaign.

Do you agree?

Are we talking overseas, or at home?

I'd prefer the military for more openness, but can see where you might need a very high level of secrecy for some ops.

Again, even in that case, I'd prefer the military over the CIA, in most cases, especially if they are dropping ordnance.

if the quote means this: -

Military drone control = more accountability
CIA drone control = less accountability

then personally I would prefer more accountability around spying on and killing people, but I think that not allowing the CIA control would limit the US ability to spy on and kill the people they want to spy on and kill – so from a US point of view I would have thought this would be a retrograde move.

Why can't they BOTH have some, come on boys. Share. :)

It's a false argument, designed to make a different point.

Drones operations by the CIA have the same level of transparency as other CIA operations. In fact, drones themselves, are much more overt than the more traditional tools of spy tradecraft. There's no activity being carried out that is different than other CIA activities.

Really, this boils down to an argument for or against the level of transparency in CIA activities overall, as there is nothing about drone operations to distinguish them.

Spec/Black/Clandestine Ops need to stay covert. I don't care who is running the op. OPSEC is paramount in all intel and Military Ops.

Many get upset about the CD that some times occurs with the use of drones. When in fact, everything that can be done to limit that is priority. And some priority targets I'm sure got away because they know to hide among the local populous. Again, it's classic Insurgent/Guerilla warfare techniques. Of course the other option is to go old school and level an entire target area this with a flight of strike aircraft. Even with "Smart Bombs" CD could still be greater. As I have said many times, if the US/West was not concerned about CD. Places like Raqqa would look like the dark side of the Moon.

And yes, mistakes and accidents happen in many military and intel ops. We know that. All we can do is try to limit such things happening.

And the concept that this type op in the short and long run creates more radicalized fanatical islamo-fascists jihadi terrorists. Well IMO, that that horse has long left the barn. Habib has left the building. They seem to not need anymore reasons or excuses to want to kill infidels and go to paradise.

I agree, but not for the reason of greater transparency or accountability since the Pentagon is also notorious for the lack of both. The Pentagon has its own "CIA" in the guise of Task Force Orange/Gray Fox because it doesn't trust the CIA and wants the ability to act on its own intelligence. Turf wars and pissing contests are par for the course between the Pentagon and CIA since 9/11.

The reason I support taking drones away from the CIA is because CIA has no business in assassinations. President Ford banned the spy agency from carrying out assassinations in 1976, but the CIA is now back in this deadly business. The traditional role of the Agency has always been collecting and analyzing intelligence for decision-makers.

The reason I support taking drones away from the CIA is because CIA has no business in assassinations.

Leadership is a priority target in all military ops. These Jihadi/terrorists are not leaders of a real state or nation. Regardless of what Daesh calls themselves … So I don't care who is flying the drones. USAF, CIA, talented 14 year old video gamers … etc. …

The Pentagon has its own "CIA" in the guise of Task Force Orange/Gray Fox because

no matter how much people wail and gnash teeth about collaboration and efficiency in expenditure of resources in government, in the name of the transparency and accountability called for by the same populace, it is illegal for different Agencies to share some types of resources.

There are legally imposed barriers other than the ones that come with appropriations.

This creates duplication of effort and the appearance of "turf wars" and "rice bowl protection". Not to say that no genuine parochial behavior happens, but not nearly as much as it appears.

Many get upset about the CD that some times occurs

Collateral damage is also a tough thing to nail down when you look at proximity to a legitimate target. Is the financier who is laundering money for a terrorist organization an "innocent victim"? Most people would probably say not.

How about the civilian that voluntarily harbors an arms cache to support the cause? What about one who is coerced or afraid not to without explicit threat? One who does it for a relative? One who does it for cash?

My point is not to argue one side or the other WRT CD, but to raise the issue that in most cases, the specifics you need to know to make an informed decision are broad, varied, and inaccessible to most people (such as people only informed by media).

We have the responsibility to question these types of collective action. Along with that comes the responsibility to perform due diligence when forming our questions.

As I have said many times, if the US/West was not concerned about CD. Places like Raqqa would look like the dark side of the Moon.

Probably wouldn't have put it like that, but this is a common problem for prosecuting all types of crimes against humanity. Piracy (for which the term CaH was coined), has the same CD challenge.

If the CIA is running the drones then they have to be run outside of US territory and the drones must remain outside of US territory by law (1947 National Security Act). If the military is running the drones then they can operate the drones over US territory so long as the drones are not being used for law enforcement purposes (Posse Comitatus). Perhaps there is another agenda here than just transparency?
Also, IIRC Samuel Lakinski limited his promotion of drone control to UAV's and did not discuss armed drones as far as I can recall when I read his paper in Aviation Week. But I could be wrong, my memory is less reliable today.
Rod Robertson.

Technically true, Rod, but as we've seen from various breaches (Wikileaks and Snowden), laws are frequently broken, with little to no repercussions.

Is the financier who is laundering money for a terrorist organization an "innocent victim"? Most people would probably say not.

Yep … he and his crew are a valid target.

How about the civilian that voluntarily harbors an arms cache to support the cause? What about one who is coerced or afraid not to without explicit threat? One who does it for a relative? One who does it for cash?

My point is not to argue one side or the other WRT CD, but to raise the issue that in most cases, the specifics you need to know to make an informed decision are broad, varied, and inaccessible to most people (such as people only informed by media).

We have the responsibility to question these types of collective action. Along with that comes the responsibility to perform due diligence when forming our questions.

Yes, I agree and that is why generally these strikes are thoroughly vetted, etc. … If need be. And of course it really comes down each specific situation, target etc. … As well as time frame, as we know all intel is perishable.

Probably wouldn't have put it like that, but this is a common problem for prosecuting all types of crimes against humanity.

Well I said it so don't worry about it. But yes, COIN inherently revolves around the local populous. And the insurgent/guerilla understands that. Even if they never read a page of Mao or Che'.

Regardless, whether COIN or conventional, non-combatants become casualties. All me can do is very much try limit it. Keep it as close to 0 as possible. Unlike our current batch of enemies, they kill non-combatants purposefully. As a matter of policy, etc. … The West only does in accidently or a matter of CD … More of the tragedy of war.