Joining the program are: Michael O'Hanlon, who is a senior fellow at The Brookings Institution, specializing in defence and foreign policy issues, and Rhys Crilley who is a Teaching Fellow in Intelligence and International Security at the Department of Politics and International Studies at The University of Warwick.
In the beginning of the program, an attempt is made to define what Black Ops are. Rhys Crilley says that Black Ops are covert operations designed to be non-attributable, and can include acts like sabotage, assassinations, support for coup d’états, and often have a somewhat dubious moral and legal standing. However, as we are told very little about these operations, we can only guess at their scale, size and importance from what we can piece together from whistle blowers, investigative journalism, and disclosures. Michael O’Hanlon broadened the definition to include things that “Russian and the United States are haggling over right now in regard to whatever role Russia may have played in regard to the 2016 US Presidential race.” To Michael, cyber warfare and propaganda can also be viewed as being within the broad construct of Black Ops.
The underlying commonality between all ‘Black Ops’ seems to be that the authorizing agents do not have to go through any kind of public justification. This is one of the problems, says Rhys Crilley, as one would expect discussion in a liberal democracy. However, Rhys points out, that since Vietnam, there has been more oversight and accountability present in the authorizing procedure in the US at least than previously. Michael O’Hanlon agrees but says that since 9/11, the State has “got a little more assertive.” Michael considers that if you look at US military actions since 9/11, it is “our overt actions that have been more controversial.” A discussion ensues about the exact procedures involved in authorising Black ops.
In the second part of the program, the difference between terrorism and Black Ops is discussed; as the methods involved may actually be quite similar. Michael argues that the motivation behind organizing Black Ops undertaken by a State and the motivation of terrorist groups is completely different. Rhys Crilley agrees that the actors are the crucial factor, as states are the legitimate actors; holding a monopoly on the use of force, but there needs to be more discussion about what kind of methods are in fact legitimate.
The discussion of Black Ops is widened to consider the necessity of broadening the legal framework of warfare in general, as new technology constantly seems to be shifting the goal posts. Rhys considers it important to put together stronger international limits on Black Ops, something that would demand a greater emphasis on diplomacy in international politics. But in the meantime, Rhys sees Black Ops increasing in frequency, although, at the moment, if we take America, the President does not have a good relationship with the intelligence agencies, and this may act as a limiting factor, as for Black ops to take place there needs to be a good relationship between the executive branch and the intelligence agencies.
The program covered a subject that does not officially exist, so it was difficult to come to a conclusion, however a number of crucially important themes are discussed.
We'd love to get your feedback at radio@sputniknews.com
Have you heard the news? Sign up to our Telegram channel and we'll keep you up to speed!
