Locking up both sides of the argument

I took a little tour of Oliver Willis's site today and came across the same phenomenon I've seen elsewhere lately: the incongruous argument. What do I mean by that? Well, let's take a look.

Entry #1 - dated Mon, 24 Jan:

-Democrats will work to increase our Special Operations forces by 2,000 to attack the terrorists where they are and to protect our freedoms here at home. We will further enhance our efforts against enemies by targeting the institutions that spawn new terrorists.

Entry #2 - dated Sun, 23 Jan:

Not satisfied with the gross negligence that has led to the deaths of hundreds of soldiers in Iraq, Donald Rumsfeld's tentacles grow...

Secret unit expands Rumsfeld's domain

The previously undisclosed organization, called the Strategic Support Branch, arose from Rumsfeld's written order to end his "near total dependence on CIA" for what is known as human intelligence. Designed to operate without detection and under the defense secretary's direct control, the Strategic Support Branch deploys small teams of case officers, linguists, interrogators and technical specialists alongside newly empowered special operations forces.

Don't blame me, I voted for the good one.

MORE: John McCain says he's going to "raise questions". Oh, golly, I bet they're really scared now! He might wag his finger at them, even...

So which is it, Oliver? Are we going to "increase our Special Operations forces by 2,000 to attack the terrorists where they are and to protect our freedoms here at home[?]" Or are we going to attack any action taken by a Republican-led Pentagon that might match our rhetoric but leaves us without the ability to take credit?

What does the Agency have to say about this dreadful act? From the WaPost:

At the CIA, an official who declined to be named said of Pentagon intelligence initiatives that "they've got the same objectives we do." Defense intelligence units, the official said, are especially well suited to collecting battlefield information on "bridges and tunnels and things like that, and frankly we don't always want to be pulling the CIA resources to do those."

On broader missions not directly related to combat operations, the official emphasized that the CIA has to have the final say. New Pentagon internal guidelines say a mission will be deemed "coordinated" with the CIA after 72 hours' notice to the agency. "It's critical not only to have coordination, but . . . we strongly believe the [CIA] chief of station has to be responsible" for intelligence activities in each country, the official said.

Those dastardly Pentagon fiends! Forming a unit that undermines our rhetoric! We must protest as loudly as possible! Gimme a break.

But I'm sure Oliver knows all about the difference between tactical, operational, and strategic-level intelligence. And I'm sure it would suit him just fine to have CIA case officers with no military background responsible for gathering specific military information required to "further enhance our efforts against enemies by targeting the institutions that spawn new terrorists" in place of mindless military robots who are obviously nothing more than puppets of Rumsfeld.

And I'm sure he thinks it's a GREAT idea to have said case officers put aside their strategic interests (or commit all of their assets) in the name of pinpointing low-mid level terrorists. Who needs to know what the leaders of other nations are thinking? We need to get these guys out collecting information they don't understand! ASAP!

Come on, guys. Just because the idea was implemented during Rumsfeld's tenure doesn't automatically make it a bad idea. Let's examine the circumstances surrounding the unit's formation, its goals and missions, and whether it fills a legitimate need before we slap on the war paint and throw out a knee-jerk partisan response. Hasn't anyone shown him the difference between RED and GREEN Kryptonite? Geez.

The Armchair Generalist notes, quite fairly, that the issue of concern should be proper notification to Congress rather than the unit's existence and mission.

Update:

Max Boot elaborates on the leftish desire to paint Pentagon moves as a giant neo-con conspiracy here, as he dissects the Seymour Hersh article that did much to start this whole train rolling:

In the rest of the piece, he writes about how Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld is expanding the Pentagon's covert anti-terrorism activities and intelligence-gathering. True enough. According to Bart Gellman of the Washington Post (a real investigative ace), Rumsfeld has created a new spy unit to make up for the CIA's deficiencies. Gellman's Jan. 23 story has all sorts of specifics that the New Yorker piece lacks, including the unit's name (the Strategic Support Branch). Hersh's contribution is to spin this into something nefarious by including anonymous speculation that military operatives might sponsor foreign "execution squads" or even carry out "terrorist activities." Umm, guess we'll have to take your word for it, Sy.

Daily disclaimer: Max is one of those fellas who could be described as a neo-con, depending on the definition being used.

Politics
Military
Intelligence
Kryptonite