CIA and SOF

[BMT (RIP)]

http://www.fas.org/man/crs/RS22017.pdf

BMT

[Pete]

I found the bottom of 4, top of 5 and page 6 to be of interest.

No comment on the paper as a whole

Pete
A very "fluid" guy if required.

[Max_Tab]

"What Are the Legal Considerations of this Change? Some experts believe
that there may be legal difficulties if SOF are required to conduct covert operations. One issue is the legality of ordering SOF personnel to conduct covert activities that would require them to forfeit their Geneva Convention status to retain deniability.17 In order to operate covertly and with deniability, SOF could be required to operate without the protection of a military uniform and identification card which affords them combatant status under the Geneva Convention if captured. Another issue is that covert operations can often be contrary to international laws or the laws of war and U.S. military personnel
are generally expected to follow these laws."

Who have we fought in the past 50 years, that actually follow the geneva convention ? I would rather have the flexibility to be able to do what I need to do, to accomplish the mission, than have this "card" that say's AQ can't hurt me.

[Swindleous]

Originally Posted by Pete

I found the bottom of 4, top of 5 and page 6 to be of interest.

No comment on the paper as a whole

Pete
A very "fluid" guy if required.

I wouldn't be too concerned about the retention problem if this shift were to happen, because I'm sure with it would come a huge funding shift to allow further incentives and bonuses for SOF retention.

The biggest problem I see with this idea is, as you mentioned, the Reduction in Flexibility paragraph. If this shift were to take place they would need to remove the roadblocks in the way of SOF's operations and keep the bureaucracy out of it, because I don't think there's any room for red tape in covert ops.