The CIA's senior management saw problems with the armed Predator as well, problems that Clarke and even Black and Allen were inclined to minimize. One (which also applied to reconnaissance flights) was money. A Predator cost about $3 million. If the CIA flew Predators for its own reconnaissance or covert action purposes, it might be able to borrow them from the Air Force, but it was not clear that the Air Force would bear the cost if a vehicle went down. Deputy Secretary of Defense Wolfowitz took the position that the CIA should have to pay for it; the CIA disagreed. Second, Tenet in particular questioned whether he, as Director of Central Intelligence, should operate an armed Predator." This was new ground,"he told us. Tenet ticked off key questions: What is the chain of command? Who takes the shot? Are America's leaders comfortable with the CIA doing this, going outside of normal military command and control? Charlie Allen told us that when these questions were discussed at the CIA, he and the Agency's executive director, A. B." Buzzy" Krongard, had said that either one of them would be happy to pull the trigger, but Tenet was appalled, telling them that they had no authority to do it, nor did he. Third, the Hellfire warhead carried by the Predator needed work. It had been built to hit tanks, not people. It needed to be designed to explode in a different way, and even then had to be targeted with extreme precision. In the configuration planned by the Air Force through mid-2001, the Predator's missile would not be able to hit a moving vehicle. White House officials had seen the Predator video of the "man in white." On July 11, Hadley tried to hurry along preparation of the armed system. He directed McLaughlin, Wolfowitz, and Joint Chiefs Vice Chairman Richard Myers to deploy Predators capable of being armed no later than September 1. 
What question would one ask from this paragraph?
Why was there concern with the "chain of command"?
CIA:s högsta ledning såg problem med den beväpnade Rovdjuret också, problem som Clarke och även Black och Allen var benägna att minimera. En (som även gällde spaningsflygningar) var pengar. En Predator kostade omkring 3 miljoner dollar. Om CIA flög Predators för egen spaning eller hemlig aktion kanske man kunde låna dem av Flygvapnet, men det var inte klart att Flygvapnet skulle bära kostnaden om ett fordon åkte omkull. Vice försvarsminister Wolfowitz intog ståndpunkten att CIA skulle få betala för det; CIA var oense. För det andra ifrågasatte Tenet i synnerhet om han som chef för centralunderrättelsetjänsten borde operera en beväpnad Rovdjur." Det här var en ny mark", berättade han. Tenet tickade av nyckelfrågor: Vad är befälsordningen? Vem skjuter? Är USA:s ledare bekväma med att CIA gör detta, går utanför normal militär ledning och kontroll? Charlie Allen berättade att när dessa frågor diskuterades på CIA, han och byråns verkställande direktör, A. B." Buzzy" Krongård, hade sagt, att någondera av dem gärna skulle trycka av, men Tenet blev bestört, och sade dem, att de inte hade någon myndighet att göra det, och inte heller gjorde han det. För det tredje behövde den Hellfire-stridsspets som Rovdjuret bar arbete. Den hade byggts för att träffa stridsvagnar, inte människor. Den behövde konstrueras för att explodera på ett annat sätt, och även då måste den vara riktad med extrem precision. I den konfiguration som Flygvapnet planerade genom mitten av 2001 skulle Rovdjurets missil inte kunna träffa ett rörligt fordon. Vita husets tjänstemän hade sett Predator-videon av "mannen i vitt". Den 11 juli försökte Hadley skynda sig med förberedelserna av det väpnade systemet. Han beordrade McLaughlin, Wolfowitz, och Joint Chiefs vice ordförande Richard Myers att sätta in Rovdjur som kan vara beväpnade senast den 1 september. Vilken fråga skulle man ställa sig från denna paragraf?
The CIA's top management saw problems with the armed Predator as well, problems such as Clarke and also Black and Allen were prone to minimize. One (which also concerned reconnaissance flights) was money. A Predator cost about $3 million. If the CIA flew the Predators for their own reconnaissance or covert action, you might be able to borrow them from the Air Force, but it was not clear that the Air Force would bear the cost if a vehicle went down. Deputy Secretary of Defense Wolfowitz took the position that the CIA would have to pay for it; the CIA disagreed. Second, Tenet particularly questioned whether as head of the Central Intelligence Service he should operate an armed Predator." This was a new land," he told me. Tenet was ticked by key questions: What is the chain of command? Who's shooting? Are the U.S. leaders comfortable with the CIA doing this, going beyond normal military command and control? Charlie Allen told me that when these issues were discussed at the CIA, he and the agency's chief executive officer, A. B." Buzzy" Krongård, had said that either of them would gladly pull the trigger, but Tenet was appalled, and said them that they had no authority to do so, nor did he. Thirdly, the Hellfire warhead carried by the Predator needed work. It had been built to hit tanks, not humans. It needed to be constructed to explode in another way, and even then it had to be directed with extreme precision. In the configuration planned by the Air Force through mid-2001, the Predator's missile would not be able to hit a moving vehicle. White House officials had seen the Predator video of the "man in white". On 11 July, Hadley attempted to hasten with the preparation of the armed system. He ordered McLaughlin, Wolfowitz, and Joint Chiefs vice chairman Richard Myers to deploy Predators that may be armed by September 1. What question would be raised from this paragraph?
Varför var det oro med "kommandokedjan"?
Why was there concern about the "command chain"?