How do you say you have no more troops in Afghanistan; you make them spies.
AP Sources: CIA-led force may speed Afghan exit
KIMBERLY DOZIER, AP Intelligence Writer
. . . .If the plan were adopted, the U.S. and Afghanistan could say there are no more U.S. troops on the ground in the war-torn country because once the SEALs, Rangers and other elite units are assigned to CIA control, even temporarily, they become spies. . . .
. . . . Pentagon spokesman George Little denied the idea is being discussed. . .
Reducing the U.S. presence faster would be a political boon for the White House and the Afghan government . . . .
But a CIA-run war would mean that the U.S. public would not be informed about funding or operations, as they are in a traditional war. Oversight would fall to the White House, top intelligence officials, and a few congressional committees. Embedding journalists would be out of the question. . . .
The notion of longer-term assignments to the CIA does not sit well with some senior special operations commanders, who want their units to remain autonomous in order to keep their troops under Defense Department legal parameters. If CIA-assigned troops are captured, for example, they are treated like spies, not protected by the Geneva Conventions, which govern the treatment of prisoners of war. . . .
http://www.stamfordadvocate.com/news...it-3379215.php
Interesting ploy
