Actions of the Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld - Essay Example

Discussion Following the September 11 attacks, the initial US campaign in Afghanistan target the Tora Bora and the Shah-i-Kot Valley in which al Qaeda was operating. However, the campaign failed to kill or capture Osama bin Laden, who escaped into Pakistan with many al Qaeda personnel. How did the actions and ambitions of Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, Director of the Counterterrorist Center Cofer Black, CIA Islamabad Station Chief Robert Grenier, and Pakistani General Ali Jan Aurakzai of the Peshawar and Federally Administered Tribal Areas spell failure for the campaign to destroy al Qaeda and Osama bin Laden? The U.S. government had several opportunities to capture or kill Osama bin Laden during the attacks at Shah-i-kot and Tora Bora valleys but they let him slip to Pakistan. It is Donald Rumsfeld who made the surprising not to deploy extra American forces to hunt bin Laden. Rumsfeld, together with the Director of the Counterterrorist Center Cofer Black and other top commanders, believed that the presence of several troops in Afghanistan would be detrimental. There was a possibility of them creating an anti-American backlash that would enhance widespread insurgency. Rumsfeld strategy emphasized on a model that would rely on small and mobile troops of CIA paramilitary troops and specialized U.S. operation troops than having thousands of U.S. men there. The strategy was against the advice given by senior intelligence officers and commanders in Washington and Afghanistan who called for posting of more U.S. troops. Additionally, Rumsfeld insisted on the “light footprint” strategy aimed at minimizing the troops’ casualties. Their actions, therefore, failed to mount scale attacks. Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld tried to mold the Pentagons intelligence capability and covert action, with the CIA as his example, for his new way of war. Should Rumsfeld have done this? Did Rumsfeld bend Title 10 and Title 50 for his purposes? Is this still a problem today between the CIA and the Pentagon? Donald Rumsfeld’s decision to modify Pentagon’s covert action and intelligence was right. The Pentagon that he joined was a monolith determined to win mega wars against two opponents simultaneously. He was uncertain of America’s victory in such wars because the enemies had equal capability and strength. He anticipated for varied threats that required diverse defense capabilities rather than automatic and programmed responses. He, therefore, sought to transform the pentagon by supporting a culture that values creativity and intelligence risk-taking. It is evident that Rumsfeld did not bend both titles. For Title 50, there was need to enhance intelligence-related operations. Instead of waiting for threats to occur and start validating them, the government should anticipate for threats long before they emerge and develop capabilities to deter them. As for Title 10 that relates to operational activities, it was necessary for him to reorder the Pentagon and break some of its rules developed many years ago. The government’s war against terror calls for a remaking of Pentagon’s and CIA’s activities and incorporate strategies that were not in place by September 11. Currently, there are calls to transfer the use of drones or move the targeted killing program to the Pentagon from CIA. Is it ethical to use the internet and social media for a propaganda and data-mining operation, like the Pentagon did with U-Turn? Would this be an issue under Title 50? Where is the line between propaganda and standard media such as movies, music, games, and so on? It is unethical to use the internet for propaganda. Propaganda is usually distorted information meant to persuade the populace. The internet and social media sites such as Facebook and Twitter can help people to propagate ideas, whether it is by demonizing the opponent or mobilizing support. It is also inappropriate to use social media for data-mining operation. Data-mining poses a threat to privacy. A social media can provide personal and sensitive data only for it to be used for different purposes other than the intended one. What the Pentagon did with U-Turn was beneficial though unethical. Under Title 50, the actions helped Pentagon’s intelligence gathering operations. Music and videos among other standard media can be used to spread propaganda. The propaganda they spread, however, tends to be regulated by the various governing bodies and associations. An American television program would, for example, not support or spread extremist information. The Federal Communications Commission restricts airing of programs containing detrimental propaganda. President Barack Obama is quoted in the book to have said: The CIA gets what it wants pg. 228. Is President Obama continuing a pattern of relying on the CIA, and covert action, to promote policy when war is too costly and too expensive? Is it the right decision? Did it work for President Eisenhower, President Kennedy, President Carter, President Reagan, and so on? It is apparent that the President is relying on the CIA to devise foreign policy decisions. The CIA uses various sources to collect information and formulate its assessments. His decision is, therefore, right because throughout history, information received from human sources has been critical in shaping foreign policies. Information gathered through its operations has helped fight stateless networks such as al-Qaeda, halted the spread of catastrophic weapons, and countered cyber threats. It, therefore, makes sense for President’s Obama to embrace CIA, expand its powers, and approve the targeted killings more any other president did. From as early as the era of President George Washington, all other presidents have depended on Intelligence gathering to support their administrations. From President Eisenhower, all other succeeding Presidents have used CIA but not to an advanced level as President Obama. Should Predator drone strikes be conducted by the CIA or the Pentagon? Are drone strikes, or any airstrikes, legal and ethical? To what degree are the justifiable? Should the simplicity of killing targets be adopted over capturing and trying them in court? Is this a correct response to the unethical program of the CIAs detention-and-interrogation mission? The Pentagon is in a better state to conduct the drone strikes. If Pentagon runs the targeted killing program, there would be increased transparency. Currently, the CIA bans disclosure of its operations from the public. CIA should instead enhance its operations and stop undertaking traditional military activities. The drone strikes are legal. The U.S. constitution, Article II, gives Presidential powers that permit the use of force in countering threats. The congress does not need to approve such presidential powers. The Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF) also allows the use of armed force against al Qaeda and other affiliate parties. The UN Charter, Article 51, also details the right for self-defense that is applicable to the United States and can, therefore, use drones to defend itself. The use of drones is, however, unethical because they kill innocent civilians. It would be better to adopt the simplicity of killing targets that capturing them. Killing the targets saves time that would have otherwise been wasted pursuing the targets. It also reduces the number of casualties among the American troops. Killing targets is, however, a poor strategy compared to the detention-and-interrogation mission. The latter can help the CIA gather information that would be helpful in defeating the enemy. Read More