> Former President Truman, whose Administration established the C.I.A. in 1947, said in 1963 that by then he saw “something about the way the C.I.A. has been functioning that is casting a shadow over our historic positions, and I feel that we need to correct it.”
> And President Kennedy, as the enormity of the Bay of Pigs disaster came home to him, said to one of the highest officials of his Administration that he “wanted to splinter the C.I.A. in a thousand pieces and scatter it to the winds.”
It's possible for both things to be true, that Oswald did it and the CIA still had to perform a massive cover-up (for institutional self-preservation, as you pointed out). If you view Oswald as a "Wannabee" who tried to ingratiate himself into the intelligence community and failed (because he was a loser and also mentally unbalanced), you can apply Occam's Razor and come up with a plausible way to explain the CIA's odd behavior as pure bureaucratic CYA. And when you add in how scared both the US and Soviet intelligence communities were after the Cuban Missile Crisis, the picture that comes into focus is just a banal story of a loser who got ridiculously lucky in carrying out his true motivation, to throw a big fat middle finger at the CIA.
I think it’s as likely as him being killed right before he reigned in the Federal Reserve with Executive Order 11110. That is, not very likely. It sounds attractive on paper but neither theory has anything more that extremely tenuous circumstantial evidence to support the claim.
Look at the Bay of Pigs failure. The CIA is not some omnipotent power that topples stable countries via a few quite words while enjoying cigars and brandy.
The CIA doesn’t topple regimens itself, it backs locals who do.
Not that different than what the US is doing in Ukraine right now. Not “toppling” this time, rather “backing” and last I checked lots of Americans seem to approve of our meddling.
My take is you either shit or get off the pot. The US decides to either “meddle” in other countries or not.
If you decide to “meddle”, well, you also need to accept that things can go sideways and the locals and the US end up in a worse situation than if they avoided getting involved in the first place.
Unless you have a crystal ball, nobody can tell what the outcome of meddling will be.
Yea helping country invaded by barbarians that destroy whole cities, rape and kill civilians les masses also openly speak about using nukes is same as destroying government elected in fair election (vatnik-meme.jpg).
Russia was attacking west for past 10+years on the cyber-front they even blew up few ammo depos in Central Europe (European Union and NATO countries), assassinate people living in UK without consequences, they were corrupting German politicians with Gasprom money, they were killing opposition inside and outside their country for past 10+ years.
They are barbarian nation and should be stopped and that was common knowledge for everyone living in Central/Eastern Europe and post USSR central asian countries for decades.
It's good that US and West wake up and I'm hoping Russia can get proper XX/XXI century leap in mentality sooner then later cause they definitely stopped growing as society about 1960. (or they can go all in and get destroyed in conventional war vs NATO both options seems good for everyone that isn't Russian oligarch)
> Not that different than what the US is doing in the Ukraine right now.
No. I know that we Americans are bone-weary of war. I know that there is a sector of industry and enabling politicians who will always be keen for more war. I know that Russia has been a scapegoat for American political failures.
No. This war is different. It is a genocidal, expansionist invasion from the last old-school, colonialist empire in Europe, and it has the potential to end our current era of unprecedented peace and prosperity.
Russia must be defeated not appeased, and Russian mafia leaders must be brought to trial for breaking international law. Anything other than that outcome will lead to instability for generations.
If you read the wikipedia page (1), there are 37 sub sections under history. Almost every one is a total failure, both from an international and a purely US-interests view. Some of the biggest threats to US interests today (Iran, Pakistan, North Korea) and biggest embarrassments (Cuba) are the direct result of the CIA bungling.
Few other institutions could survive even 1 such farce. One has to wonder, if the CIA continues because no one has noticed such incompetence. Or if there is some more sinister reason...
This only looks at failures as it is very hard to attribute success in such cases. For example you list North Korea as a failure, but American involvement there is the only reason why South Korea exists and we don’t have one giant North Korea.
The fact of the matter is that the Cold War was won, and the CIA was a major part of it. You could analyze every coup that was started in Latin America as a mistake, but you can’t really say what was the alternative
> but American involvement there is the only reason why South Korea exists and we don’t have one giant North Korea.
True, but nobody knows how a unified communist Korea would have turned out. Without a direct threat at their border and an easy bad gut to point the finger at, they might have progressively opened up à la Vietnam (the closest comparison we have).
The counterfactual scenarios about this are interesting to think about. NK dictators base the state identity and national grit pretty much solely on that conflict. Most asian communist countries without the frozen conflict and perpatual state of war opened up on their own.
(And of course the division of Korea was a US idea to begin with...)
Pakistan is a threat ? Pakistan is an ally, with active defense funding from the US (and China), whom CIA & co have always used as a proxy to hit India.
Take this with a massive grain of salt given I can’t provide a citation but a close family member and a close friend both served in the Hindu Kush region of Afghanistan and said Pakistan was the single largest source of funds and weapons for the Taliban and Al-Qaeda and absolutely with the implicit, if not explicit, support of Pakistani officials.
On one hand, as you say, they're an "ally" with US bases etc. On the other they actively assisted the Taliban. They've been useful in some situations, but have undermined the US in others. It's not clear whether they'd side with the US or China. And they leak nuclear secrets like a sieve. Plus they're basically turning into an Islamic theocracy so the long term does not bode well for the US.
But yes, it's also true that the US has backed Pakistan, sold them F-16s etc. This is the problem: the US can back countries that it itself regards as dangerous!
Pakistan was definitely a problem in the War on Afghanistan. The northwestern area of Pakistan, the "federally administered tribal areas", are basically lawless and Taliban could operate from there and strike over the border. There were also attacks on US convoys.
Invading Afghanistan without having either a coastline or a neighbouring solid ally was a big part of the disaster. Every air conditioner running on a US base was powered by diesel that had to be trucked two thousand miles across semi-hostile territory.
Boss: "I'm sorry, but, you're fired. You're incompetent, you're constantly making mistakes, you've caused immense collateral damage, you've shown no signs of improving, and, frankly, you come off as downright evil."
Employee: "Have you considered that I'm actually quite competent in all the areas you can't observe?"
I don't think this is true. If the CIA intervention in X had been a huge success, we would have heard all about it. If the CIA were involved in (say) removing dictator X and that somehow led to democracy and peace how and why would they keep that secret when they don't and can't keep secret when the opposite occurs.
Also, just looking at CIA actions we know about (removing democratic leaders for autocrats) it seems very unlikely the CIA has a super secret program doing the exact opposite. Do the two departments take turns or flip a coin to decide whether to give a job to the successful or counterproductive department?!
but what a list of failures it is... caused millions of deaths directly and indirectly, destabilized whole parts of the world for centuries, and NO obvious success to boast about and justify all that mayhem and making sworn enemies for life instead of very good friends who share all major values with US (ie whole Iran affair is CIA and MI6 clusterfuck par excellence).
I don't credit CIA with any major influence on Soviet Union collapse for example, although I grok very well why they would like to promote that emotion and feel the same. It was just a forceful amalgam of nations, not unlike Yugoslavia but much worse, without any real merging happening over decades, and once distinct parts realized the grip is not anymore so strong they went their own ways (given what people like Stalin did to many ethnicities in USSR they are hardly to blame... I mean who wants to be willingly with Russians in one state)
I listened to Jordan Peterson's interview with Stella Morris (married to Julian Assange) today, and that in combination with everything Snowden has talked about has really got me feeling pretty uneasy about the state of the US gov't. I guess it has been easy to turn a blind eye because it doesn't affect me, or at least it hasn't yet.
I’m not saying I know a lot about this - I don’t - but JP is a master of speaking confidently and authoritatively about subjects he knows nothing about.
At home we use a phrase from an interview with a EU politician that was done BEFORE the ukraine war and asked about the US/CIA warnings of an upcomming war and he said "Always remember, the CIA was the agency that told US presidents for years the vietnam war would be over next week" ...
The irony here is that in this case they were right, and the Ukraine war is turning into a "Vietnam-like" defeat for Russia. Given another six months they might recapture all the territory lost since 2014.
It's strange to see what is in essence a handful of book reviews turned into an article with such a contentious title. Little of the article is actually about whether the CIA does more harm than good, and they don't even try to draw a conclusion on the matter.
Wow, Rhodri Jeffreys-Jones' hot takes sound insane. Rice was a warmonger because her ancestors were slaves?
I wouldn't have a problem with the CIA if they were focused solely on protecting the safety of Americans and not also working for their financial interests via engaging in overseas sabotage operations (E.g. we all remember false reports about Iraq having weapons of mass destruction and most people today believe it was all about oil).
Impossible to say without knowing about things that are probably still classified.
The failures become public, the successes would just kind of quietly dissolve into the background and maybe nobody would even know the CIA was involved. Success could also be something that didn’t happen that nobody even knew was something that might have happened.
Readit News
> And President Kennedy, as the enormity of the Bay of Pigs disaster came home to him, said to one of the highest officials of his Administration that he “wanted to splinter the C.I.A. in a thousand pieces and scatter it to the winds.”
They had the ability to do it and probably get away with it, and they had motive: self preservation.
Look at the Bay of Pigs failure. The CIA is not some omnipotent power that topples stable countries via a few quite words while enjoying cigars and brandy.
The CIA doesn’t topple regimens itself, it backs locals who do.
Not that different than what the US is doing in Ukraine right now. Not “toppling” this time, rather “backing” and last I checked lots of Americans seem to approve of our meddling.
My take is you either shit or get off the pot. The US decides to either “meddle” in other countries or not.
If you decide to “meddle”, well, you also need to accept that things can go sideways and the locals and the US end up in a worse situation than if they avoided getting involved in the first place.
Unless you have a crystal ball, nobody can tell what the outcome of meddling will be.
Russia was attacking west for past 10+years on the cyber-front they even blew up few ammo depos in Central Europe (European Union and NATO countries), assassinate people living in UK without consequences, they were corrupting German politicians with Gasprom money, they were killing opposition inside and outside their country for past 10+ years.
They are barbarian nation and should be stopped and that was common knowledge for everyone living in Central/Eastern Europe and post USSR central asian countries for decades.
It's good that US and West wake up and I'm hoping Russia can get proper XX/XXI century leap in mentality sooner then later cause they definitely stopped growing as society about 1960. (or they can go all in and get destroyed in conventional war vs NATO both options seems good for everyone that isn't Russian oligarch)
A little bit different, in that the Ukraine is a country that is being invaded by a much larger neighbour.
What's your stance on France being invaded by Germany in World War 2?
No. I know that we Americans are bone-weary of war. I know that there is a sector of industry and enabling politicians who will always be keen for more war. I know that Russia has been a scapegoat for American political failures.
No. This war is different. It is a genocidal, expansionist invasion from the last old-school, colonialist empire in Europe, and it has the potential to end our current era of unprecedented peace and prosperity.
Russia must be defeated not appeased, and Russian mafia leaders must be brought to trial for breaking international law. Anything other than that outcome will lead to instability for generations.
Few other institutions could survive even 1 such farce. One has to wonder, if the CIA continues because no one has noticed such incompetence. Or if there is some more sinister reason...
1: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Central_Intelligence_Agency
The fact of the matter is that the Cold War was won, and the CIA was a major part of it. You could analyze every coup that was started in Latin America as a mistake, but you can’t really say what was the alternative
True, but nobody knows how a unified communist Korea would have turned out. Without a direct threat at their border and an easy bad gut to point the finger at, they might have progressively opened up à la Vietnam (the closest comparison we have).
(And of course the division of Korea was a US idea to begin with...)
On one hand, as you say, they're an "ally" with US bases etc. On the other they actively assisted the Taliban. They've been useful in some situations, but have undermined the US in others. It's not clear whether they'd side with the US or China. And they leak nuclear secrets like a sieve. Plus they're basically turning into an Islamic theocracy so the long term does not bode well for the US.
"One of the most dangerous in the world".
But yes, it's also true that the US has backed Pakistan, sold them F-16s etc. This is the problem: the US can back countries that it itself regards as dangerous!
Pakistan was definitely a problem in the War on Afghanistan. The northwestern area of Pakistan, the "federally administered tribal areas", are basically lawless and Taliban could operate from there and strike over the border. There were also attacks on US convoys.
Invading Afghanistan without having either a coastline or a neighbouring solid ally was a big part of the disaster. Every air conditioner running on a US base was powered by diesel that had to be trucked two thousand miles across semi-hostile territory.
Employee: "Have you considered that I'm actually quite competent in all the areas you can't observe?"
Also, just looking at CIA actions we know about (removing democratic leaders for autocrats) it seems very unlikely the CIA has a super secret program doing the exact opposite. Do the two departments take turns or flip a coin to decide whether to give a job to the successful or counterproductive department?!
I don't credit CIA with any major influence on Soviet Union collapse for example, although I grok very well why they would like to promote that emotion and feel the same. It was just a forceful amalgam of nations, not unlike Yugoslavia but much worse, without any real merging happening over decades, and once distinct parts realized the grip is not anymore so strong they went their own ways (given what people like Stalin did to many ethnicities in USSR they are hardly to blame... I mean who wants to be willingly with Russians in one state)
I’m not saying I know a lot about this - I don’t - but JP is a master of speaking confidently and authoritatively about subjects he knows nothing about.
Dead Comment
Wow, Rhodri Jeffreys-Jones' hot takes sound insane. Rice was a warmonger because her ancestors were slaves?
The failures become public, the successes would just kind of quietly dissolve into the background and maybe nobody would even know the CIA was involved. Success could also be something that didn’t happen that nobody even knew was something that might have happened.