Covert Action

Tactics that are more proactive than diplomacy but more secretive than overt military action. Covert action is initiated by the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), undertaken by the CIA or a subcontracted party, and intended to advance U.S. foreign policy goals abroad.

According to the National Security Act, which set up the National Security Council (NSC) and the CIA in 1947 under President Harry S. Truman, covert action is defined as “an activity or activities of the United States Government to influence political, economic or military conditions abroad, where it is intended that the role of the United States Government will not be apparent or acknowledged publicly.” The rationale behind the use of covert action is that policymakers and U.S. leaders need a third option when diplomacy is insufficient to achieve a goal and when military intervention is inappropriate.

Planning of covert action is generally done by leaders in the intelligence community, usually in the CIA and the NSC, then approved by the president, who issues a presidential finding to commence the activity. According to the National Security Act, to justify a covert action, the president must deem that “such an action is necessary to support identifiable foreign policy objectives of the United States and is important to the national security of the United States.”

Covert action is controversial for many reasons. For one, the inherently secret nature of the activity is a moral issue raised by many of its detractors, who believe that all government activity should be public and question how the actions fit into the causes, standards, and morals supported by the United States. Although the National Security Act requires that the president inform Congress, or at least the heads of congressional committees overseeing the intelligence community, when covert action is undertaken, the act also makes provisions for occasions on which this requirement may be waived. More often than not, it is the case that Congress is not immediately informed of ongoing covert activity.

Another point of controversy is the belief that any infiltration by U.S. government–sponsored actors into the borders of another state, particularly when the goal is to influence the economic, political, or military conditions within that state, is tantamount to military action. Some believe that taking action of such consequence should be a matter of public debate, not a decision made quietly by the president and his advisers.

Further, cost is a central issue because covert operations can go on for longer periods of time, and it is generally difficult to know at the commencement of an activity what its duration will be. The risk of exposure [Page 171]is another issue, as is failure of the operation, which can cost human lives and cause political crises if uncovered.

Finally, the argument has been advanced that past operations are too often neglected when determining whether covert actions are appropriate because of the nature of bureaucracy and its focus on short-term goals. A great deal can be learned from past failed or misguided covert actions, such as the Bay of Pigs invasion in 1961, the overthrow of Chilean president Salvador Allende in 1973, and the Iran-Contra affair of 1986.

...