1. LEGACY OF ASHES ~ AUTHOR'S NOTE AND CHAPTERS 1 - 3 (xiii - 31) (01/03/11 - 01/09/11) ~ No spoilers, please

[Bentley, Group Founder, Leader, Chief]

Excellent and very well written post Vheissu. You identify and categorize and define the various tensions incisively. It does seem that the CIA has had success in the analytical areas but the actual covert operations have not fared as well. Obviously as you so aptly stated; it does seem that our governmental organizations have a way of stepping on each other's toes. And since power does sometimes corrupt or lead some to imagine that they have more power than they actually do in their office; with certain individuals fine lines have been crossed.

[Alisa]

Vheissu, great post and remarks. The tension that you describe of secrecy v. competence really jumps out at me in this book. For me it exemplifies the kind of 'we're American/damn the torpedos' culture we as a country seem to apply, whatever the cost. You point out several themes that can be examined as we all read along.

[Vincent]

Bentley wrote: "We do have the glossary where folks may comment at length about any of the personages involved. There are indeed quite a few."

Amy wrote: "Bentley wrote: "Since we are just beginning this book, I thought that I would solicit from all of you what your impressions are/were of the CIA before you begin/began reading Weiner's book.

KICK..."

Hi Amy

Just an observation that we may be a much younger country than many but we are probaly, except the Brits, one of the oldest functioning governements around.

Here is a comment I wrote for myself analysising the situaiton after the second week of reading (not a spoiler I think)
---------------------------------
This is an illustration of one of the fallacies of government incompetence. People work hard or not but do not have to succeed because there is no documentation of success or failure so often. Working hard is not a reason to pay someone or to keep them in their position and perks if they do not accomplish their job/mission. And I believe many support the value of their work to continue their personal power, income and position.
-------------------------------------

and just a comment on the valuations of Vheissu in message 55 which I think is probaly a very accurate anaylsis of the conflicting tensions but I think there is not a conflict with competence as he describes it - being competent does not interfere with tasks I think.

I would also note that, this is more to Vheissu than to you I think, that following the law in counter-intelligence is correct to my mind for us(the US)in domestic counter-intelligence but in international counter-intelligence maybe that has to be revisited depending upon the country or jurisdiction the activity is based in.

[Bentley, Group Founder, Leader, Chief]

Some interesting comments Vince; thank you for the post. A lot to think about.

[Vheissu]

Good points all, Vince. Permit me to address one or two.

Vince wrote: This is an illustration of one of the fallacies of government incompetence. People work hard or not but do not have to succeed because there is no documentation of success or failure so often. Working hard is not a reason to pay someone or to keep them in their position and perks if they do not accomplish their job/mission. And I believe many support the value of their work to continue their personal power, income and position.

Accountability for covert operations has long confounded representative government and ours is no exception. If CIA didn't invent the notion of "plausible deniability," it might well have. One conclusion of the Church Committee was that Members of Congress shirked their responsibility to oversee the operations of U.S. intelligence agencies lest they be held responsible for their more unsavory operations. What Member of Congress would like to explain to the widows and orphans of American sailors why it was necessary to sink a U.S. battleship in Guantánamo Bay in order to provoke a war with Castro's Cuba ("OPERATION NORTHWOODS")?

There are many good and obvious reasons for keeping covert operations secret, of course. Yet the simple ability to authorize secret action creates a tremendous temptation for policy-makers to abuse that authority, which I mentioned, above. In addition, as I also suggested, the absence of accountability occasionally results in activities that can only be considered harebrained. The most notorious example would be assassination plots against foreign leaders without having in place a plan for replacing them with anybody. If one wishes to murder foreign leaders, it probably is a bad idea to put your own president in an open limousine and parade him around a big city like Dallas, Texas. That would be stupid.

One need only open today's newspaper to find yet one more example of a harebrained American operation. In its coverage of Stuxnet, The N.Y. Times reports:

Nor is it clear the attacks are over: Some experts who have examined the code believe it contains the seeds for yet more versions and assaults.

“It’s like a playbook,” said Ralph Langner, an independent computer security expert in Hamburg, Germany, who was among the first to decode Stuxnet. “Anyone who looks at it carefully can build something like it.” Mr. Langner is among the experts who expressed fear that the attack had legitimized a new form of industrial warfare, one to which the United States is also highly vulnerable.

Called "blowback" by intelligence officers, covert operations frequently take on a life of their own, especially the stupid ones (see U.S. assistance to the Afghan mujaheddin in the 1980s).

Critics of CIA tend to fall into one of two categories. The first views CIA as an omniscient, omnipresent puppet-master; the other considers them to be the "gang that couldn't shoot straight." I confess that I fall into the latter group. It would be a mistake, however, to dismiss U.S. intelligence officers as mere incompetents or to view them as in it solely for "the money and perks." CIA analysts are notoriously underpaid and operations officers endure extreme conditions in some of the world's most awful places. Many if not most intelligence officers are motivated by patriotism, not paychecks. After World War II, CIA recruited officers from the "best families" in America in order to defend their class against the menacing "Bolsheviks." There is nothing wrong with that as far as I can tell.

[Bentley, Group Founder, Leader, Chief]

I guess sinking our own vessels is despicable as far as I am concerned no matter what the purpose.

Yes, I mentioned above that the US assistance to the Afghan mujaheddin helped fund and train Bin Laden. Blowback, I guess is what we would call it.

I guess I am reserving judgement right now of the CIA until I learn more; but so far, there have been quite a few things which disturb my idea of America as being morally correct and following the founding fathers "moral compass'.

Thank you Vheissu - once more - for giving us all a lot to think about.

[Vincent]

Vheissu wrote: "Good points all, Vince. Permit me to address one or two.

Vince wrote: This is an illustration of one of the fallacies of government incompetence. People work hard or not but do not have to succeed..."

A lot to think about and I would probably generally agree.

I would note however in my experience low pay (if that is the case) does not make competent people underperform - it sometimes makes them look for other work.

Thanks

[Chris]

Bentley wrote: "Democracy is so open and yet here we were talking about a secret organization with secret purposes and activities which could not and should not probably be disclosed. Together, the CIA and democracy made an odd couple. "

I see this as a fundamental problem with the CIA. We can argue about how effective the rest of our governmental institutions are, but it is hard to argue that they would not be more ineffective if they were shielded from public scrutiny and journalistic investigation.

The CIA is basically government without any public oversight.

[Bentley, Group Founder, Leader, Chief]

For sure Chris, at least that is my feeling, the more that I read. However, I have to say that I have not read much about the CIA before this book.

[Vincent]

Vheissu wrote: "Good points all, Vince. Permit me to address one or two.

Vince wrote: This is an illustration of one of the fallacies of government incompetence. People work hard or not but do not have to succeed..."


So I just got a chance to read the "operations Northwoods" link.

It is interesting that the Pentagon is not only replying to stragegic questions but also is putting forth possible political and non-military actions and their potential results.

I would be curious how the military selects, if they are selected, the officers who work on these types of reports

[Bentley, Group Founder, Leader, Chief]

I wish I knew Vince. I cannot answer that one. Maybe there is someone in the group who could answer for you. I actually believe there is although they have not introduced themselves.

Why the Pentagon is venturing into political and non-military actions is beyond me.

[Bryan]

I'm not sure how they select the report writers, maybe seniority??

I do believe, at times, the military will expand its scope. I'm not sure they have deep respect for an organization like the State Department that should be talking about such things.