There is a lot more in the world than terrorism.  I think we really need to cease being a one trick pony and putting everything in the counterterrorism box.  I am really coming to believe that our myopic focus on terrorism is one of the reasons we are unable to develop good policy and strategy with balance and coherency among ends, ways, and means.  Yes terrorism is a threat but it is not the only threat and it is actually only a part of or a supporting element of larger and more comprehensive strategies of our enemies.  But this is an illustration of the tired adage about nails and hammers. We need to take a step back from terrorism and force ourselves to think more strategically and creatively and understand the full range of strategic problems we face.  Further, rather than looking to establish these funds we should focus on informing Congress of the strategy and requesting funding for specific campaign plans designed to support national policy and achievement of the established objectives of the strategy.   Establishing these funds without clearly articulated strategy and campaign plans prevents us from exercising the intellectual rigor needed to address the security challenges we face.  In effect these funds make us intellectually weak.

All that said this is an important quote from GEN Votel:

“I do think it is important that we continue to have SOF forces forward deployed in locations where they can assess, they can understand, and they can, most importantly, work with our international partners who share our interests," he said. 

He is articulating some of the important tasks that are routinely conducted by SOF in the conduct of special warfare and that can facilitate surgical strike operations by appropriate forces when the situation warrants.  But the special warfare forces are the ones who can conduct continuous assessments of a wide range of security threats to include terrorism but also well beyond.  And it is the special warfare forces that are the appropriate ones to be working through and with international partners (and train advise and assist host nation and indigenous forces). If I were king for a day I would include the following among foundational SOF tasks:

•       SOF (primarily those that conduct special warfare) must have as a primary task on every deployment (from JCET to JCS Exercise to Combat Operations

to others

) to spot and assess resistance and insurgent organizations and assess their resistance potential.

•       These organizations (from potential to nascent to developed) must be identified, assessed, and tracked.  If "friendly" or aligned to our interests we can consider working through and with them.  If hostile to our interests (or friends, partners, and allies) then we must focus on developing the capability and strategy to counter them, often working through and with host nation elements.

With this as a foundational task, SOF would exploit its unique capabilities to provide situational awareness and situational understanding of significant threats around the world that would include those organizations that use terrorism as part of their strategy but also do so much more to threaten the interests of the US and its friends, partners, and allies.  

I would also take GEN Votel's comment one step further.  Rather than simply forward deployed, we need to have the right SOF forward stationed so that there is long term continuous presence in the right areas of the world and so we can eliminate the strategy of "random acts of touching" that characterize our deployments of JCETs, JCS exercises and others where we simply deploy forces for relatively short periods of time to conduct training when long term presence is needed to really support strategy and campaign plans (those short term deployments are necessary and important for some SOF and conventional forces but we need a long term presence of specific SOF to provide the capabilities to achieve our objectives).  We have many historical examples of SOF forward stationed to accomplish a variety of different objectives from DET-A in Berlin, 46th Company in Thailand DET-T in Taiwan, to DET-K in Korea and others.

And again at the risk of beating a dead horse this requires a comprehensive strategy and supporting (and supported) campaign plans.

Lawmakers leery of counterterrorism fund

http://thehill.com/policy/defense/budget-appropriations/212739-lawmakers-leery-of-obamas-counterterrorism-fund?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter

on email

By Kristina Wong - 07/20/14 06:00 AM EDT

President Obama is seeking $5 billion for a counterterrorism fund that will boost deployment of special operations forces to combat terrorists in hotspots such as Libya, Somalia and Syria. But Congress is balking at providing the funds without more details on how it will be spent.

With the war in Afghanistan drawing to a close, the administration is increasingly relying on special operations forces to stamp out terrorist threats around the globe.

According to the administration, the forces would train and partner with foreign militaries in those nations as they take on terrorist threats. 

The administration also wants the funding to bump up conventional support forces, to provide intelligence, transportation and logistics for those foreign militaries.  

White House adviser Lisa Monaco said the initiatives are "vital tools to help our military and counterterrorism professionals confront this challenge" in a "turbulent and uncertain world." 

The initiatives are part of the president's $58.6 billion overseas contingency operations request for 2015. The fund was created in 2006 to pay for operations related to the Iraq and Afghanistan Wars, but has expanded to include counterterrorism operations in various places such as the Horn of Africa and Yemen. 

The new counterterrorism initiative would expand train and equip programs, currently undertaken by mostly special operations forces. 

Gen. Joseph Votel, nominated to become the next commander of U.S. Special Operations Command, has endorsed the idea.

“I think the Counterterrorism Fund could certainly help us with some of our partnership activities,” he said, during his July 10 confirmation hearing. 

“I do think it is important that we continue to have SOF forces forward deployed in locations where they can assess, they can understand, and they can, most importantly, work with our international partners who share our interests," he said. 

Monaco said the initiative “ultimately" would lead to less reliance on the U.S. military.

But in the short term, the effort would rely heavily on special operations troops who, commanders say, are facing strain after 13 years of war.

Defense officials say that special ops personnel could train vetted Syrian opposition forces, as one facet of the new counterterrorism initiative.

Officials say details of this $500 million plan are still being put together and are classified, though they said the training would likely occur outside Syria. 

The Wall Street Journal reported Thursday that the program could train a force of 2,300, and that defense officials have promised to increase those numbers. 

Training and equipping Syrian rebels would be a new authority, defense officials said. The CIA is currently training and equipping small numbers of rebels, but the initiative would see the Pentagon taking over the mission to ramp up the program.

There is also in the request $500 million "to address unforeseen contingencies related to counterterrorism or regional instability."  

"The current situation in Iraq is one example that underscores the importance of reserving funds that can be allocated quickly based on unforeseen needs," according to a White House fact sheet. 

Training and partnering with foreign militaries would not require any new Pentagon authorities -- but would be an expansion of existing authorities: under Section 1206 — which allows for training and equipping partner military forces; Section 1207 — which allows the Pentagon to transfer materials to State to train and equip partner forces; and Section 1208 — which allows for training and equipping partner forces for classified operations. 

However, the initiative would increase current funding for these activities by $2.5 billion.

The spending request sparked a heated debate Thursday over increased funding and presidential authority, as the Senate Appropriations Committee marked up the draft bill.

"There is just too much of a chance that those weapons will land in the hands of extremists, just like in Iraq," said Sen. Mark Pryor (D-Ark.).

Pryor., who is looking at a tough re-election battle this fall, proposed an amendment to quash the Syrian training program. His measure failed 9-21. 

Obama’s proposal also received sharp reactions in the House.

“If the president had this authority a year ago, we’d be involved in a war with Syria right now ... Americans are tired of being at war," said Rep. Austin Scott (R-Ga.) at a House Budget Committee hearing on Thursday. 

Lawmakers at the hearing grilled defense officials on why the administration did not put its request for the counterterrorism initiative into its base defense budget request due in March, so lawmakers could scrutinize the proposal before drafting their defense authorization and spending bills. 

Deputy Defense Secretary Robert Work said that the request could not be made earlier, because war funding depended on knowing troop numbers in Afghanistan, and those figures were not clear until May. 

“We were caught by a time issue,” he said. 

Rather than try to predict which account would need more money next year, it made more sense to have a generic fund they could tap into based on emerging needs, Work said. 

“We felt that this would be -- actually provide us with more flexibility,” Work said. 

Adm. James “Sandy” Winnefeld, who testified alongside Work, said the Pentagon also was too constrained by Congress-imposed defense budget caps under sequestration. 

“See, most of the authorities that Congress has provided, sir, have caps on them. And the whole purpose of the Counterterrorism Partnership Fund was to use those existing authorities in a flexible way,” he said.

Lawmakers, however, said the details were lacking and accused officials of trying to create a “slush fund” they could tap into to spend without congressional scrutiny. 

“This seems like a lot of leeway that really hampers Congress' oversight mission,” said Rep. Tammy Duckworth (D-Ill.) at a House Armed Services Committee hearing on Wednesday. 

“It seems this has become yet another slush fund where you can just transfer it between accounts without accountability and you can transfer it even between departments and you're asking for $5 billion, which seems like a large amount of money to have that little oversight on,” she said. 

Work responded that officials did not believe it was a “slush fund that will allow us to just go willy-nilly.” 

“We think there are going to be all sorts of checks and balances,” he adding that there is a 15-day notification for Congress for use of the funds. 

But Rep. Adam Smith (D-Wash.), ranking member on the committee scoffed, referencing the administration’s decision to ignore a 30-day notification period in advance of releasing Guantanamo Bay detainees in exchange for  Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl. 

“I'm not sure arguing right now about notification requirements is the best approach with this committee,” he said. 

Read more: http://thehill.com/policy/defense/budget-appropriations/212739-lawmakers-leery-of-obamas-counterterrorism-fund?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter#ixzz380JuiYrk
Follow us: @thehill on Twitter | TheHill on Facebook

The fundamental problem is in the name.  "Counterterrorism partnership."  First we need a strategy and second such as strategy has to look beyond terrorism.  Counterterrorism partnership is no substitute for strategy nor the intellectual rigor required to develop strategy.

The irony is that counterterrorism has become like communism in the Cold War.  The perception is anything to do with counterterrorism is going to be funded as we have seen since 9-11. Not only our friends, partners, and allies (and lesser developed countries in particular) have learned that all they have to do is play the counterterrorism card and they will receive funds, resources, and training; but also US state and local law enforcement and other agencies can play the counterterrorism card and will likely receive funding (and often massive amounts that provide dubious capabilities to really defend the homeland).

I think we need to put CT back in the box and make it the discreet operation that it should be (the other issue that many of us lament is how often our national mission forces are exposed in the media).  We would better protect and allow for more effective operations of our national mission forces if we reduced the emphasis and visibility on counterterrorism.   Our national leaders call attention to their every operation as they try to scare congress into providing resources. It is interesting to see Congress standing up and saying perhaps "No Mas."

Please do not misunderstand me.  Counterterrorism is critically important and not going away.  However, I believe it is a mistake to make it the "focal point" of our strategy.  (pun perhaps intended here)   But what we really need to focus on are effective policies and strategies that are broader than counterterrorism and that take a holistic, comprehensive (and dare I say grand) approach to our national security.  Sometimes I think our national focus on resourcing counterterrorism is an example violating the principle of doing the hard right over the easy wrong.  The hard right is getting our national security strategy right.  But we put everything in the counterterrorism box from Afghanistan to Iraq to Africa to developing our SOF partners around the world to fight terrorism for us (another dubious concept perhaps).  There is more to national security than counterterrorism.  We need to think bigger than counterterrorism because our adversaries are exploiting terrorism and our focus on it while they pursue much larger strategies through variations on unconventional and political warfare.

Obama's New CT Program Meets Bipartisan Resistance on Capitol Hill

http://www.defensenews.com/article/20140716/CONGRESSWATCH/307160028/Obama-s-New-CT-Program-Meets-Bipartisan-Resistance-Capitol-Hill

Jul. 16, 2014 - 01:39PM   |  

By JOHN T. BENNETT   |   Comments

Sgt. 1st Class Grady Hyatt, with US Army Africa, leads an after-action review with soldiers of the Ghana Army. (US Army)

• FILED UNDER

• CongressWatch

WASHINGTON — US House Armed Services Committee leaders struck a skeptical — and bipartisan — tone about a $5 billion counterterrorism program proposed by President Barack Obama.

Obama first proposed the CT program, designed to help train and equip US allies to fight violent extremist groups, during a major foreign policy speech at West Point in May. Since, Republicans have criticized him for providing scant details of what he envisions with the CT program and another proposal aimed at “reassuring” European allies.

The new program was codified in a $58.6 billion overseas contingency operations (OCO) request the White House recently sent to Capitol Hill. On Tuesday, the first panel dug into the request in a public setting.

“We understand that these initiatives were levied on the [Defense] Department by the White House without coordination, and you’re now working to develop spending plans,” House Armed Services Committee Chairman Rep. Buck McKeon, R-Calif., told a panel of senior Pentagon officials.

“But while counterterrorism partnerships and reassuring our European allies are important and necessary, the president’s approach lacks detail and is too broad in scope,” McKeon said.

The panel’s top Democrat, Rep. Adam Smith of Washington, joined McKeon, as did numerous members of Obama’s own party.

“Most members of Congress are broadly supportive of building the capacity of our international partners and understand the necessity of providing a fair amount of flexibility to the department to carry out these activities,” Smith said.

“Nonetheless, the legislative proposal for the [CT program] the department submitted to the Congress can fairly be described as unconstrained — it is written so that it could be used for almost anything the department does,” Smith said, “up to and including refueling an aircraft carrier while circumventing all the normal reprogramming and transfer rules.”

HASC Vice Chairman Rep. Mac Thornberry, R-Texas, viewed as the frontrunner to replace McKeon, also criticized the proposed CT fund.

Rep. Mike Turner, R-Ohio, considered another contender for HASC chairman, said, “The reason people are concerned this a slush fund” is, in part, because “the detail is lacking.”

Moments earlier, Rep. Tammy Duckworth, D-Ill., questioned the Pentagon witnesses on how they could prevent the account from becoming a slush fund.

Deputy Defense Secretary Robert Work told the panel he sees a number of “checks and balances,” including a need to get White House Office of Management and Budget approval for any spending plans, which would prevent the Pentagon from “going willy-nilly” with the OCO monies.

Rep. Tulsi Gabbard, D-Hawaii, raised concerns that some of the requested OCO funds might go toward new initiatives that would be “duplicative” with existing programs.

Another Democrat, Rick Larsen of Washington, told Work “you’re not doing a very good job of explaining it.”

Work responded by saying the proposed CT fund would give the Pentagon greater flexibility to spend monies when crises happen around the world.

Joint Chiefs Vice Chairman Adm. Sandy Winnefeld said the department “is running out of” funds allocated for CT operations under existing programs.

Larsen said lawmakers spent the last decade ensuring a number of post-9/11 CT programs function as the executive branch wanted and in a way that suited Congress.

The new proposed program, he said, “seems backward.”

Work described the aims of the proposed CT program this way: “The overall goal of the CTPF is to increase the ability of partner countries to conduct counterterrorism operations, prevent the proliferation of terrorist threats from neighboring states, and participate in multinational counterterrorism operations.” ■

Email: jbennett@defensenews.com.