"The CIA- On balance, good or bad?" Topic
37 Posts
All members in good standing are free to post here. Opinions expressed here are solely those of the posters, and have not been cleared with nor are they endorsed by The Miniatures Page.
Please do not use bad language on the forums.
For more information, see the TMP FAQ.
Back to the Cold War (1946-1989) Message Board
Areas of InterestModern
Featured Hobby News Article
Featured Link
Top-Rated Ruleset
Featured Showcase ArticleTime to upgrade your BMP1s and 2s?
Featured Profile Article
Featured Book Review
|
Please sign in to your membership account, or, if you are not yet a member, please sign up for your free membership account.
Tgerritsen | 21 Mar 2018 6:26 p.m. PST |
I'm putting this clearly in the Cold War area and making trying to keep this as a civil historical and analytical discussion, and not dawghouse fodder and I hope people will keep the discussion in that vein. I'm definitely trying avoid conflicting with the the whole ten year recent politics rule on TMP. As someone who loves the whole spy and spy gaming genre, and Espionage movies, books and graphic novels, I enjoy discussing and exploring the darker unknown aspects of the Cold War, be they real or fictional. Hell, growing up I wanted to be James Bond- who didn't? He was suave, worldly and a hit with the ladies. I even ended up as an intelligence analyst in the Navy (though for NSA and DIA, which is a whole separate world from the CIA, albeit on the same side.) However, let's look at the Cold War in a sober light. Keeping this to the time period of the Cold War and perhaps up until 9/11, on whole, has the CIA on balance been a good thing or bad thing for the USA? I don't mean in a naive 'give peace a chance' sense, but in a cold hard facts sense. I believe very much that you strive for peace but prepare for war. This isn't about swords into plowshares, but analyzing return on investment. Historically, the CIA stemmed out of the OSS of World War II- a sort of spy / wetwork / dirty tricks agency with the intention of making sure that threats remained far away and not impacting American soil. However, this the same agency that set up the circumstances that led to modern Iran and Afghanistan, (allegedly) funded Castro in the early days as a hedge against Batista and then opposed him when he took power, decided that with the French out of Vietnam that it was just right for the US to step in, and any number of bush wars and possible involvement in dubious actions such as the mysterious death of the UN General Secretary Hammarskjöld in 1961 and the overthrow of the government in Chile in 1973. Was the US better off / safer with the CIA in the Cold War, or would it have been better off / safer without them, relying only on the Departments of State and Defense as it had pre-war? Did the CIA create the world it was trying to prevent, or was it the best chance for avoiding conflict on a greater scale? Is it time to assess the entire value of the CIA- an organization that is a wholly modern construct- in the Post War world? I'm trying to keep this apolitical, though I admit that's really hard for some folks to do. Let's keep modern us vs. them politics out of the discussion if possible. If it gets toxic, I wholeheartedly invite Bill to nuke this topic from orbit. |
Cacique Caribe | 21 Mar 2018 6:32 p.m. PST |
I think it was useful for a time, as a vital extrajudicial dispenser of evil to those who would do us even greater evil, but the monster is way out of control specially now in this century. I think the beast could still be useful, but it definitely needs a strong de-wormer. My uncle would have said that it picked up too many bad habits and parasites while playing with its enemy counterparts and with those who claimed to be on our side. Dan |
Bunkermeister | 21 Mar 2018 9:04 p.m. PST |
We won the Cold War. I think they had a large role in that. Post-Cold War not enough direction from above, nor oversight from the Hill. Every great power needs to gather data and create intelligence from that data, knowledge is power after all. Mike Bunkermeister Creek CPT, MI, USAR, Former bunkermeister.blogspot.com |
Lion in the Stars | 21 Mar 2018 9:40 p.m. PST |
Honestly, I'm not sure. In hindsight, their shenanigans in replacing local rulers have definitely screwed the US years later. |
Private Matter | 22 Mar 2018 4:28 a.m. PST |
I agree with Bunkermeister. The biggest problem with this discussion, in my opinion, is that their failings come to light very quickly, while most of their successes will not reach the public domain for years to come (if at all). |
GypsyComet | 22 Mar 2018 4:29 a.m. PST |
"In hindsight…" Without getting too political, I doubt we are fully able to claim hindsight yet. Too much remains hidden or "forgotten". I'm not saying your conclusion is wrong, though. |
Emphatz | 22 Mar 2018 5:13 a.m. PST |
The CIA are definitely BAD even EVIL you could say, this you can see in hindsight as you look back into history at how the CIA has interacted on the world stage, we may not know the specifics of what they do, but we do know, quite well, the general behavior of the CIA, today we have a remarkably accurate and consistent picture, repeated in country after country, and verified from countless different directions. The CIA follow the same script every time, at first it was against communist opposition now its against any government that doesn't look after CIA business interests, all in the name of fighting communism (there calling it Terror nowadays) the formula is the same, First it identifies right-wing groups within the country (usually the military), and offers them a deal: "We'll put you in power if you maintain a favourable business climate for us." The Agency then hires, trains and works with them to overthrow the existing government, using every dirty trick in the book, These efforts culminate in a military coup, which installs a right-wing dictator, the CIA then trains the dictator's security apparatus on how to run a successful police state, The ironic thing about all this intervention is that it frequently fails to achieve American objectives. Often the newly installed dictator grows comfortable with the security apparatus the CIA has built for him. He becomes an expert at running a police state. And because the dictator knows he cannot be overthrown, he becomes independent and defiant of the American will. The CIA then finds it cannot overthrow him, because the police and military are under the dictator's control, The only two options for the U.S at this point are a loss of investment in that country or war. |
Cacique Caribe | 22 Mar 2018 5:56 a.m. PST |
A necessary evil, nonetheless. They kept us from much worse. Dan |
Col Durnford | 22 Mar 2018 6:12 a.m. PST |
Of course, Emphatz, no one ever did anything like that on with the left. |
Ed Mohrmann | 22 Mar 2018 6:22 a.m. PST |
I turned down an employment opportunity with CIA when I separated from the service back in 1966. Nothing 'juicy,' no running agents or spying in foreign places, etc., just a low-level analysis position much as I'd done for part of my service time. The Agency has been too much full of itself for many years – that said, DIA, State and the other 'intelligence' gathering functionaries (including the various DOD assets such as NSG, ASA, etc.) are far too concerned with their own affairs to look at the larger picture. As far as DIA goes, it has always been way too political to do a proper 'big picture' look. If CIA had been able to avoid the temptation to foment 'change' in different places and instead focused on the gathering and analysis of intel, it's legacy would not be the tarnished rubbish many think of today. |
TheWhiteDog | 22 Mar 2018 9:10 a.m. PST |
Most of my experience with them was about 10 years ago, but the SAD/SOG guys I met were incredibly intelligent, capable, and almost universally very patriotic. Granted, my sample size is only 6-7 individuals, but they were all good men as far as I was concerned. |
ToysnSoldiers | 22 Mar 2018 9:35 a.m. PST |
Was it the CIA what was bad? Or were the politicians that asked impossible things from its agents? Bahia Cochinos is a case in point. |
hocklermp5 | 22 Mar 2018 10:10 a.m. PST |
Totally failing to detect the collapse of the Soviet Union until it happened tends to shake one's confidence in the CIA as defender of the republic. |
Cyrus the Great | 22 Mar 2018 11:20 a.m. PST |
The CIA, for better or worse, did/does not exist in a vacuum. Imagine a world where the KGB, among others, had no counterbalance. |
Dynaman8789 | 22 Mar 2018 2:07 p.m. PST |
Necessary evil. Same for there being a need for top secret information as well. My preference is that everything be open and above board, but I am not naive. |
raylev3 | 22 Mar 2018 2:45 p.m. PST |
Remember there are two parts to the CIA -- analysis and operational. Analysis -- gotta have it. It can't always be right…trying to get into the heads of a thinking, human adversary is not easy. But, decision makers need something to go on. Operations side, much tougher call. The collectors (spies) are needed to gather the information for the analysts. On the one hand the operational side that gets the most attention allows states to act short of war. Without it, your option would be peace or war with nothing in between. WE can't escalate everything to a war level, and there is no such thing as peace at any price. Keeping in mind CIA successes are rarely known, whereas failures see the light of day I'd fall on the side of "necessary evil" during the Cold War. But a tough call. |
McWong73 | 22 Mar 2018 3:27 p.m. PST |
The cold War ended when the USSR colapsed. The CIA played little, if any, role in that. |
Lion in the Stars | 22 Mar 2018 3:45 p.m. PST |
So, the CIA installing the Shah in Iran, which led to the Iranian Revolution, was a good thing? |
Tgerritsen | 22 Mar 2018 4:03 p.m. PST |
Good and evil is a pretty subjective term. I probably should have worded the question better. My intent was to discuss if we were better off with our without them during the Cold War- or were they worth having on balance? They could have been completely evil, and the US might be very much better off with them. They might be completely good, and the US might still have been better off without them. On balance, was it worth putting up with The Bay of Pigs, Iran, Chile and all the other negatives to get the positive benefits? Are we now safer because of them, or would be have been safer without them? |
ScoutJock | 22 Mar 2018 4:38 p.m. PST |
I would say that given we only hear of the colossal blunders or successes with many years between the event and public disclosure, we really can't say, other than that most governments keep a clandestine service so there must be some perceived value. |
Wolfhag | 22 Mar 2018 4:50 p.m. PST |
Emphatz is on the right track as far as what is "known". In order to have a real opinion on this you need to know all of the history and track record – you don't. Otherwise, it is just how you "feel" about it. I kind of think of the CIA like I do about women – can't live with them and can't live without them and you'll never be able to figure out their actions – and don't get them pissed off at you either. I used to work at one of those three letter agencies and I can tell you right now what they are doing is not pretty and you don't really want to know about it. Wolfhag |
Sundance | 22 Mar 2018 6:56 p.m. PST |
Yes, they supported Castro at first. He was not a commie when he first approached the US for assistance in overthrowing Batista. He turned to the Soviets and took up communism as a matter of convenience when we decided to stick with Batista, whom we had pretty much publicly supported all along. |
Dn Jackson | 22 Mar 2018 11:00 p.m. PST |
"So, the CIA installing the Shah in Iran, which led to the Iranian Revolution, was a good thing?" Um…, he came to power in 1941 after the UK and USSR invaded Iran and forced his father to abdicate in his favor. |
Dn Jackson | 22 Mar 2018 11:35 p.m. PST |
They were a definite positive. Can you imagine fighting the Cold War with no intelligence apparatus? Or relying on the State Department, which was riddled with Communists? Yes they had some colossal failures. Some caused by too little over site, some caused by too much. It is possible that the 9/11 attacks were as successful as they were because the Church Commission gutted the CIA's ability to gather intelligence from human resources. They also had some increadable successes. Yes, we cozied up to some very bad people who did very bad things. However, look what we were up against. An opponent willing to kill tens of millions of their own citizens through enforced famines, executions, and thuggery to accomplish their goal, which was world domination. Imagine what would have happened if they won? Just read about what happened in Hue City, or in South Vietnam as a whole. Finally, look at what happened in those countries run by bad people after we won; Spain, the Philippines, Nicaragua, El Salvador, South Korea, etc. Vibrant democracies where the people have far more rights than in those countries where we lost. |
Legion 4 | 23 Mar 2018 6:48 a.m. PST |
They have been two sides of the same coin. Regardless Intel gathering is paramount and always has been. You do have to know what your opponent or possible opponent is doing or may be going to do. It's been that way since Day1. At least if you want to be "successful" … Any nation, republic, etc., has the first duty of protecting it's citizens. Sometimes that may not be pretty or they maybe won't always be/appear "clean". With some advantages being taken of the system, etc. That sadly is human nature. As they say, You don't want to see how the sausage is being made. You might never eat it ! But as in all cases it comes down to "context". There generally never any "absolutes". Especially in geopolitics/Realpolitik/etc. As we know there is more than just black & white, and even more than 50 shades of grey. Do the means always justify the ends ? IMO only based on context … |
All Sir Garnett | 27 Mar 2018 8:02 a.m. PST |
Ah, good or bad; or effective or not… On the whole effective. |
Legion 4 | 27 Mar 2018 2:26 p.m. PST |
Yeah, I'd have to go with that as well … |
Rudysnelson | 27 Mar 2018 3:52 p.m. PST |
Good. When I worked as a consultant for the local Homeland Security office, I found out how much went on in the States that the citizens never knew about. And the extra training that different agencies including volunteers participated in. Based on the number of incidents stopped in the States, even more are stopped overseas. So yes a good job by the CIA. |
Legion 4 | 28 Mar 2018 8:24 a.m. PST |
Every time their actions stopped "bad guys" was/is a good thing. And as we see … there are still a whole bunch of "bad guys" out there. Some old … some new … |
Khaki08 | 28 Mar 2018 1:54 p.m. PST |
For what it's worth, I visit this page to read about toy soldiers. This is why I do so less and less frequently. |
15mm and 28mm Fanatik | 28 Mar 2018 2:53 p.m. PST |
The CIA is a necessary, but not always effective, instrument of the Cold War. Without the CIA or civilian equivalent, there would be no counterweight to the "big bad KGB." As a spy agency, its successes tend to be unheralded (at least until they're de-classified) and its failures highlighted. People love to hear about attempts to kill Castro link or other comedies of error that illustrate its bungling incompetence link But intelligence gathering and analysis is not an exact science and the CIA has always been a political tool beholden to the president and other politicians, so it would be unfair to lay all the blame at their feet. |
Legion 4 | 28 Mar 2018 4:08 p.m. PST |
Come on Khaki, it's a harmless discussion online. As I say so often, nothing anyone here says/posts really means anything and no one here has the power to make their views, good or bad, effect reality. Plus AFAIK, Bill does not force anyone to read or comment on any thread. Has that changed Bill ? Just say'n … |
Achtung Minen | 29 Mar 2018 6:55 a.m. PST |
Bad. We could save tax dollars by shutting them down. |
Legion 4 | 29 Mar 2018 7:06 a.m. PST |
We still need intel and spies regardless … Even with other agencies, like NRO, NSA, DIA, etc., etc. You still need some spies/eyes on the ground. |
Wolfhag | 29 Mar 2018 10:02 a.m. PST |
One of the big problems with intel gathering and reporting is the Intel "loop" and politicisation of the intel. Gathering and reporting intel are two different things. Political and military departments often have different motives and struggle for internal power not wanting the other to ace them out for influence. Any strategic or tactical intel needs to be verified through other sources before action can be taken. Just before the Arab-Israeli War in 1973 the Egyptians had been going on alert and moving units up to the Suez Canal. This forced the Israeli's to call up their reserves which were very expensive. The Egyptians did this a number of times creating false alarms. They pulled another one just before Yom Kippur and the low-level analysts that gather the raw data identified additional activity and com frequencies not used in previous activations. Also, the Russian families of the military advisors were being evacuated. He was ignored mainly because it was an inconvenient truth. From: link Politicized and the Intel Loop or who is going to listen to a lowly LT: Israeli Military Intelligence actually suppressed views contradicting its senior officers' unconcern. On October 1, a young intelligence officer, Lieutenant Benjamin Siman -Tov, presented a startling document entitled "Movement in the Egyptian Army-the possibility of resumption of hostilities." This document summarized and analyzed the information concerning the build-up across the Suez Canal. On October 3, Siman-Tov presented a second and more detailed report. In these two reports he pointed to a number of important facts that could not be squared with the view of the Egyptian moves as an exercise. On the basis of these facts the Lieutenant gave his evaluation that the exercise camouflaged the final phases of preparation for all-out war. Siman-Tov's reports got no further than the senior intelligence officer in the Southern Command, Lt. Col. David Geddaliah. Geddaliah's reports to GHQ in Tel -Aviv contained no trace of Siman-Tov's dissenting conclusions. He had "erased" the penetrating questions which were apt to arouse doubts about the non-offensive intentions of the Egyptians because "they stood in contradiction to Headquarters' evaluation that an exercise was taking place in Egypt." His thinking, the Commission concludes, was trapped in a vicious circle. He did not fulfil his duty as an intelligence officer to treat every item of information and every evaluation without prejudice. His conduct was particularly reprehensible because the evidence of a picture taken by a reconnaissance flight on October 4, which showed an alarming reinforcement of the Egyptian forces, should have assumed a special significance in the light of Siman -Tov's evaluation I think this was not a failure of intel gathering, it was a command failure and politicians playing it safe. PM Meier said she could have had a pre-emptive strike on massing Egyptian forces but doubted that the US would back her and the world would have perceived Israel started the war. I don't know what led her to think that as in 1967 they did strike first. When attempting to define CIA failures you need to really look behind the scenes and see what really drove the final decisions and who really failed. The above example has happened to all major intel organizations more than once. An example is the Bay of Pigs invasion. Was that a failure of the CIA intel and operation or a failure of political leadership or a combination. When Israeli higher ups checked to confirm with the US State Dept about an attack they said their "sources" in the area did not detect one. Unfortunately, the US State Department "sources" were Israeli's that were ignoring the reports themselves. This will continue to happen in the future. Wolfhag |
Wolfhag | 29 Mar 2018 10:57 a.m. PST |
Lion, Regarding the CIA, Shah and Iran. link Yes, the CIA was involved. Yes, the Shah eventually was overthrown 26 years later. However, remember in 1953 were into the Cold War which was mainly the West and Soviet-aligned countries vying for political and economic influence. Communist countries do not make good trading partners with Capitalist countries. Having less foreign trading countries undermines the US national security (or so the politicians would have us believe). The United States saw the coup essentially as a Cold War maneuver. For the British, who were also eager to overthrow Mossadegh, the main beef with the Iranian Prime Minister was that, in May of 1951, he had nationalized the oil fields controlled by the Anglo Iranian Oil Company, the precursor to BP. (my addition: the Brits may have been cheating the Iranians on the revenues) From the perspective of Washington, though, as the newly released documents confirm, Mossadegh's biggest sin was his flirtation with the Soviet Union, which, like Britain, had colonial ties to Iran. As the animosity between Tehran and London escalated, the British moved to prevent Iran from selling any oil internationally, thus depriving the government of much-needed revenues. The C.I.A. and other U.S. agencies became concerned that Mossadegh would turn to the Soviets for economic and even military help. From the Agency's history: Had the British sent in the paratroops and warships, as they were to do a few years later against the Egyptians at Suez, it was almost certain that the Soviet Union would have occupied the northern portion of Iran.… It was also quite probable that the Soviet army would have moved south to drive British forces out on behalf of their Iranian "allies." Then not only would Iran's oil have been irretrievably lost to the West, but the defense chain around the Soviet Union which was part of U.S. foreign policy would have been breached. The Soviets would have had the opportunity to achieve the ancient Russian dream of a port on the Persian Gulf and to drive a wedge between Turkey and India. Under such circumstances, the danger of a third world war seemed very real. When it became apparent that many elements in Iran did not approve of Mosadeq's continuing gamble or the direction in which he was pushing their country, the execution of a U.S.-assisted coup d'etat seemed a more desirable risk than letting matters run their unpredictable course. Evidently, the C.I.A. was a bit bemused by Mossadegh, who hailed from a well-to-do Iranian family, and who refused all entreaties to engage him in a deal with the British. "At any time in 1951 or 1952, he could have had the same compromise through which his successors gained a nationalized oil industry efficiently run by foreign experts to give Iran the revenues that financed the Shah's White Revolution," the internal history says. "He chose to gamble on total victory over Britain, the United States, and the international oil industry—and he lost." So while Iran eventually broke away, the West did keep it from Soviet influence from 1953 to 1979. In light of how the Cold War was fought, I think that can be taken as somewhat of a victory keeping Russia out of Iran without starting a war. Did the CIA have any other clandestine victories? Would the death of 500,000 Communists and their collaborators without a single US death or money spent on a war count as a Cold War CIA victory? link Wolfhag |
Legion 4 | 29 Mar 2018 3:27 p.m. PST |
|
|