Obama Said 'No' to Destruction of Iran-captured Sentinel?

The RQ-170 Sentinel, is an unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) developed by Lockheed Martin and operated by the United States Air Force (USAF) for the Central Intelligence Agency. While the USAF has released few details on the UAV's design or capabilities, defense analysts believe that it is a stealth aircraft fitted with reconnaissance equipment, equipped with some of the United States most advanced technology in optics, sensors, aerodynamics, and materials. It was first launched in 2007, and for every nation in the world getting their hands on it and studying it could result in considerable advances in these fields as they reverse-engineer US technology and replicate materials.

And the United States has delivered one of these to Iran, in perfect working order without a scratch on it, and now the Russians and Chinese and Iranians are busy figuring out how it works, how to counter them, and how to counter other stealth aircraft that the United States employees, including bombers, fighters, and submarines. The security of the United States of America is threatened by this thing being in enemy hands.

So why haven't we taken it out?

Via Belmont Club's post Who Said ‘No’ to Destroying the RQ-170?:

The Christian Science Monitor describes the choices facing US decision-makers after the RQ-170 drone was lost in Iran. “US officials considered launching an airstrike to destroy the advanced unmanned spy aircraft or sending in a special operations team to blow up or perhaps retrieve the super-secret RQ-170 Sentinel drone.”

“But in the end, trying to destroy or retrieve the RQ-170 inside Iran was ruled out. … No one warmed up to the option of recovering it or destroying it because of the potential it could become a larger incident,” a US official told The Wall Street Journal. An assault team entering the country “could be accused of an act of war” by the Iranian government, the official said.

An act of war is a terrible thing; like attacking another country’s embassy or dispatching personnel to kill uniformed military personnel in another country or plotting to kill foreign diplomats in the capital city of a Third Country. It is not a step that whoever was in the decision process would have made lightly.

But the question remains, who was the “no one” who warmed up to the option of recovering or destroying the RQ-170 because it would provoke Iran? The Wall Street Journal provides an indirect clue as to who it might be.

The officials considered various options for retrieving the wreckage of the RQ-170 drone. Under one plan, a team would be sent to retrieve the aircraft. U.S. officials considered both sending in a team of American commandos based in Afghanistan as well as using allied agents inside Iran to hunt down the downed aircraft.

Another option would have had a team sneak in to blow up the remaining pieces of the drone. A third option would have been to destroy the wreckage with an airstrike. However, the officials worried that any option for retrieving or destroying the drone would have risked discovery by Iran. “No one warmed up to the option of recovering it or destroying it because of the potential it could become a larger incident,” the U.S. official said. If an assault team entered the country to recover or destroy the drone, the official said, the U.S. “could be accused of an act of war” by the Iranian government.

Some officials argued in private meetings that because the drone crashed in a remote part of eastern Iran, it might never be discovered, and therefore, leaving the remains where they were could be the safest option.

We can guess at least this much: it is apparent that a considerable amount of time elapsed between the moment the drone was down to the moment it was discovered by the Iranians. Time enough for “private meetings”. Time enough for three action options to put plans to destroy or retrieve the RQ-170 together. Time, probably on the scale of at least several hours, perhaps even days for whoever the impersonal pronoun refers to, to make or not make a go or no-go decision.

The question is: to whom would these options be presented? The highest authority surely; for only the “the ultimate lawful source of military orders” could authorize — and therefore reject an incursion into another country.

The NCA consists only of the President and the Secretary of Defense or their duly deputized alternates or successors. The chain of command runs from the President to the Secretary of Defense and through the Joint Chiefs of Staff to the Commanders of the Unified and Specified Commands.

Someone along that line someone said “no” to destroying the RQ-170. Someone who, had the decision been to retrieve it, and had it been successfully retrieved, might well be boasting of the success. But the attempt was not made and the rest is history. It may well have been the correct decision. It might just as well have been a monumental boo-boo. But it seems abundantly clearly that the buck stopped somewhere; now if only we knew where.

Update: Fox says it was President Obama. Hat tip: Jaybird

With early knowledge that the aircraft had likely remained intact, the senior U.S. official also told Fox News that President Obama was presented with three separate options for retrieving or destroying the drone. The president ultimately decided not to proceed with any of the plans because it could have been seen as an act of war, the official told Fox News.

This is exactly why President Barack Obama should not be re-elected to a second term of office. In our political system, we have a lot of different political actors who can create jobs, lower unemployment, and sponsor legislation- but we only have one primary actor in foreign and defense policy, and that is the President of the United States, and he is doing an increasingly poor job in these areas.