• Comment (3)

Former Joint Chiefs Chair Questions Giving Special Ops Boss More Sway

April 11, 2012 RSS Feed Print

A former top U.S. military officer is calling proposals to increase the autonomy of commando units to launch missions across the globe "bad for democracy."

Retired Gen. Peter Pace, the Chairman of the Joints Chiefs during the second term of President George W. Bush, said during remarks in Washington on Wednesday that the only people who should have the legal authority to give an order that shifts U.S. combat hardware and personnel around the world are the president and secretary of defense.

[See pictures of U.S. Navy SEALs.]

"Anything else is, I think, bad for our democracy," Pace said.

At issue is a proposal floated recently by U.S. Special Operations Command chief Adm. William McRaven that would give him—and future SOCOM chiefs—more power to move elite commandos around the globe without necessarily consulting diplomats or other U.S. government officials.

While several former senior U.S. military officials clashed over whether the change is even needed during Wednesday's forum sponsored by the Center for Strategic and International Studies, former spec ops chief Adm. Eric Olson endorsed the proposal, saying the elite commandos are uniquely skilled to respond to worldwide flashpoints and often can't afford to get caught up in bureaucratic red tape.

"This is about getting in front of the sound of guns," Olson said. "It's not meant to circumvent the Joint Chiefs of Staff or the secretary of defense."

Pentagon brass say they are still mulling the proposal.

[Read Experts: U.S. Pact with North Korea Becoming a 'Fiasco'.]

"What Admiral McRaven is proposing is that ... he would have the ability to maneuver forces across geographic combatant command lines to keep up with an agile enemy," current Joint Chiefs Chairman Army Gen. Martin Dempsey told lawmakers in February.

Here's how the process works now, according to Dempsey: If Pentagon officials are considering sending a special operations unit to Mali to train indigenous forces, "right now the AFRICOM commander has that authority," Dempsey said, using Pentagon shorthand for U.S. Africa Command. But in what would be a radical change, McRaven "is suggesting maybe SOCOM should."

Former Pacific Command chief Adm. Timothy Keating argued against the increased autonomy for SOCOM.

"I'm not sure the proposal will fix anything," Keating said, "because I'm not sure what needs fixing."

During his time as a senior military leader, Keating said he "wasn't aware of a situation where an immediate [special operations] response was needed that it wasn't provided."

After Pace and Keating took swings at the plan, Olson, who's a former Navy SEAL, contended his support stems from a feeling that Special Operations Command is best-suited to know when its commandos are needed for non-combat missions like training allied forces.

"This is much more about indirect action," Olson says. "SOCOM's job is to track trends."

Tags:
Department of Defense,
foreign policy,
national security terrorism and the military,
military

Reader Comments Read all comments (3)

Add Your Thoughts
Your comment will be posted immediately, unless it is spam or contains profanity. For more information, please see our Comments FAQ.

Protocol prevents these elite leaders from saying outloud what most on the sidelines are thinking: "We trust more in military leadership than in the political leadership at least where geo-political readiness is the issue.

Bob Montague of FL 10:00AM April 19, 2012

Several significant factors should influence this decision, and most of them are unknown to the public. 1) Joint Special Operations Command is made up of widely different functional warfare groups, NOT only the Seal teams. 2) US Marine Corps units do not participate in the Special Ops command and Gen. Peter Pace is a retired Marine General. 3) Gen. Pace was the first Marine chairman of the joint chiefs, held the job for only 2 years and was not recommended for the customary second tour of duty because he flat out contradicted false statements by Sec. Defense Gates and Rumsfeld as well as Pres. Bush, especially concerning torture and Iranian actions in Iraq. 4) Gen. Pace was, and still is, well aware of the "free lancing" special commands that "do not play well with others" and generate massive control, command, and communications problems for the Dept. of Defense. 5) Jack Bauer and "24" are fantasy nonsense, not U.S. military policy.

wurman of WA 1:50AM April 12, 2012

The United States mission should never be to take it upon ourselves to police the governments of other countries. To consider the job of "policing" by military presence is nothing more than furthering the possibility of military dictatorship within our own country. To seriously suggest that we are "upholding democracy" by military force is the quintessential oxymoron.

It is understandable that we feel compelled to aid those citizens of other countries who are trying to cast off the hardships of a dictatorship, and are struggling to change the country into a democracy. But, even in America, citizens have already lost their political power to the interests of global corporate power. When we accept the workings of powerful corporate interests above our own human interests, we are endangering our democracy, within our own country. Can we, then, justify creating a "Democracy" in another country?

Advocating for a U.S. military presence in the World does not mean that American citizens will be immune to our own military forces as overwhelming corporate interests turn our our America, even now, into a complete Oligarchy. History has shown that an oligarchy must use military force to keep order within the citizens/population. With an oligarchic government, military force becomes a necessary adherent for citizen disagreement and unrest. "Beware of those who insist they must get hold of us in order to save us from ourselves."

Serfs Ruled by Oligarchs:

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article23304.htm

America Already An Oligarchy?:

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20110620160710AAuB7XJ

Plutocracy:

http://www.wisegeek.com/what-is-a-plutocracy.htm

Types of Government:

http://stutzfamily.com/mrstutz/WorldAffairs/typesofgovt.html

Oligarchies Rule:

http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_countries_have_oligarchy

ann keenan of MI 7:29PM April 11, 2012

DOTMIL

Brought to you by veteran national security correspondent John T. Bennett and the U.S. News & World Report staff, DOTMIL takes you inside the offices of the Pentagon's E-Ring, behind the scenes with congressional policymakers and beyond the boardrooms of America's top defense companies to report, analyze, and interpret the evolving international security environment and how it impacts U.S. interests at home and abroad.

Latest Videos

advertisement

Photo Galleries

History of U.S. Bombings, Failed Attempts

A look at some of the worst bombings in the U.S. and infamous failed attempts.