(NB. Just look at the comments section to see the moral, ethical level of the NYT readership)
Let's just imagine this same article appeared in the New Tehran Times: "Iran's Revolutuonary Guard Is Said to Expand Secret Military Acts in America's Region":
"The top Iranian commander has ordered a broad expansion of clandestine military activity in an effort to disrupt militant groups or counter threats in the US, Canada, the UK and other countries in the region, according to defense officials and military documents."
Of course there would be an outcry and Iran would rightly be accused of terrorism.
This reminds us of the Bush directive which the NYT blatantly lies about in this article: "the Bush administration had approved some clandestine military activities far from designated war zones". In fact the Independent reported back in June 2008 in the article "Bush steps up covert action against Iran" that "the cross-border activities inside Iran, particularly the authorisation of lethal force by US special forces as they pursue "high value targets" was troubling "Democratic (sic) leaders".
Of course some sensible people are worried "Many in the military are also concerned that as American troops assume roles far from traditional combat, they would be at risk of being treated as spies if captured and denied the Geneva Convention protections afforded military detainees."
Spies? And terrorists too!
See here for my piece from July 2008: