The Harvard National Security Journal Vol 3 states “Concerns about appropriate roles and missions for the military and intelligence agencies, or the [Title 10-Title 50 issues] as commonly articulated, can be categorized into four broad categories: authorities, oversight, transparency, and [rice bowls.]” The link between CIA and SF has worked brilliantly in the past, Afghanistan after 9-11 is a good example even though it was not a traditional UW campaign. Often the debate …show more content…
A conference report from Congress states, “An activity is not covert action [unless the fact of United States government involvement in the activity is itself not intended to be acknowledged.]” This was the third essential element of covert action according the conference report. To civilians, lacking real world experience, activities conducted during UW; specifically subversion, sabotage and intelligence activity relate to Title 50 not Title X. One of the key requirements for a covert action is a lack of acknowledgement from the US government. Politicians illustrate a lack of understanding between UW and covert action when they categorize subversion, sabotage and intelligence activities as covert action. As we discussed in class Title X and Title 50 often come down to who is providing oversight. The problem facing SF and the CIA is how do we bridge the gap of understanding? How do we get Congress to understand UW activities covered under Title X though when required they become Title 50