The CIA has launched a secret drone campaign against ISIS in Syria. Washington Post.

Airmen assemble bombs for use in the air campaign against ISIS. Washington Post/AP.

The CIA has launched a secret drone campaign against the leadership of ISIS separate from the military's operations in Syria. Washington Post. The CIA, along with the Joint Special Operations Command (JSOC), have started up a targeted killing program. The CIA identifies the targets while JSOC actually carries out the strikes. The program has already killed one ISIS militant. British citizen Juniad Hussain, in charge of ISIS's social media campaign, was killed recently. The targeting of Hussain is also a major departure because in the past, militants involved in propaganda were left alone. The descion to use CIA assets shows how seriously the government takes the threat of ISIS. Already, many intelligence officials consider the group a bigger threat then al-Qaeda. 

President Obama had originally wanted the CIA to have less involvement in these kinds of operations and returning the agency to it's intelligence gathering roots instead of being a paramilitary organization. The new program, where the CIA only provides the intelligence instead of conducting the strikes themselves, is seen as a compromise between Obama and the intelligence agency. The new front in Syria is an expansion of drone campaigns, which are currently active in Yemen, Pakistan, Somalia, and North Africa. However, in those countries the CIA conducts the strikes themselves. 

My Comment:

I'm actually surprised that this is just starting to happen now. I had just assumed that there had been an active drone program in Syria the second we opened up an air war there. I guess it is still possible that we did, but it really does sound like we are just starting to do this now. Which seems odd because our drones are probably our most effective weapon to use in the region. Sure, conventional airstrikes and commando raids are useful as well, but our drones are a very effective weapon system and I am very surprised that we haven't been using them all along. 

Of course drones are a hot button issue right now and there are political consequences for using them. I have mixed feeling about them myself. I don't have a problem with them being used against terrorists and I'm not really all that concerned about civilian casualties because I think they are inevitable anyways. I do worry about the drones being used against U.S. citizens. Attacking people who we don't know are Americans are fine, but I really don't like the idea of the U.S. government killing U.S. citizens in targeted strikes. It sets a bad precedent and I'm rather uncomfortable with it.

Is this campaign going to be effective though? Going after leadership is always a good idea, and ISIS does the same thing when they have the chance. Drone strikes have proven to be effective in the past and killing the leadership of ISIS has obvious military and political benefits. It demoralizes the enemy, makes it harder for them to conduct operations and breaks the aura of invincibility that ISIS has. And I don't really buy the argument that drone strikes specifically cause terrorist groups to gain recruits. Any offensive operation will have the same effect, so it's not an argument I buy into. 

Without an actual army on the ground to fight ISIS, it won't be enough to destroy them. Without ground troops to keep the pressure on, ISIS will have time to train new leaders and commanders. There just isn't an effective fighting force in Syria right now that can take advantage of the openings created by these drone strikes. Other then ISIS, the most effective fighting forces in Syria all have problems. The regime is a non-starter, the rebel groups are dominated by other Jihadists and the Kurds have little reason to fight outside of their region and their very existence angers our Turkish allies. In short, we have no good options for allies in the region and as long as that is the case, these drone strikes will not stem the tide. 

As for the CIA being cut off from the military side of this operation, I'm in favor of it. I have never been comfortable with the CIA having their own military technology. In my mind I think there needs to be some separation from the people that collect intelligence and the people that conduct these military strikes. This is one of the rare cases where I agree with President Obama. The CIA has gotten too powerful for it's own good and I am not opposed to reigning them in.

That being said the CIA is still active in other countries. In Yemen and Pakistan, the CIA still has a free reign to do what they want. Of course, in those countries they aren't targeting ISIS, they are targeting al-Qaeda. Al-Qaeda isn't the threat they used to be but they are still worth attacking. I just wish it was the military that was conducting these strikes.