The History Book Club discussion
This topic is about
Enemies
AMERICAN DEMOCRACY - GOVERNMENT
>
Q&A with Tim
Mod
message 3:
by
Bentley, Group Founder, Leader, Chief
(last edited May 14, 2012 12:16PM)
(new)
-
rated it 4 stars
Mod
Tim Weiner
Mod
Question:Could you tell us a little about the new oral histories and documents you were able to use for this book and how you came across them?
message 6:
by
Bentley, Group Founder, Leader, Chief
(last edited May 14, 2012 01:36PM)
(new)
-
rated it 4 stars
Mod
What can you tell us about your experiences then and now in relationship to being a reporter. What are your feeling about Afghanistan at this point and do you feel that it will still be difficult to extricate ourselves from this conflict? And what skills as a journalist prepared you for your writing of Legacy and Enemies?
both by
Tim Weiner
Bentley wrote: "Question: How soon after your success with Legacy of Ashes did you decide to write about the FBI"Bentley, that decision was made for me. Shortly after Legacy of Ashes was published, I got a call from a lawyer I knew slightly who had just won a 26-year-old Freedom of Information Act case. The winnings: more than 7,000 documents of FBI intelligence files, mostly from Hoover's heyday, 1945 to 1972. He asked: did I want those files? I did! These are the files that have hundreds of handwritten notations by Hoover, and reading those is like looking over his shoulder and listening to him think out loud. I knew I had at least part of the foundation for a new book that would allow a new look at Hoover. Another stroke of fortune: the FBI began declassifying tens of thousands of pages of files to mark its centennial in 2008. A third and final stroke: access to the FBI oral histories used throughout the book. These were the three legs on which the foundation of Enemies was built. Those of you who read Legacy of Ashes (and thanks to each and every one of you) will see that the structure of the two books is similar: rigorously chronological, all on the record, and with chapters broken into short passages to help the reader through the long trek to the end.
Bentley wrote: "Question: When did you become interested in the FBI as a group that you wanted to write about? What was the genesis of that interest?"Bentley, I covered the CIA for many years for The New York Times, and it's impossible to get into that world without trying to understand the interrelationships between the CIA and the FBI, including the passionate hatred that Hoover had for the CIA, and their efforts (intermittently successful) to cooperate on existential problems of national security after his death, which I note was 40 years ago this month.
Bryan wrote: "Could you tell us a little about the new oral histories and documents you were able to use for this book and how you came across them?"Bryan, the oral histories are produced by the Society of Former Special Agents of the Federal Bureau of Investigation. The interviewers are usually retired FBI agents, so they know what to ask! Some run to several hundred pages. They are a previously untapped gold mine. I check the oral histories against the documentation, as people sometimes misremember dates and places But they are a treasure trove to me -- and like Hoover's handwritten notes, they help an outsider understand what the FBI was up against, and how hard the mission could be. We write history looking at the rear-view mirror on a sunny day. But these agents were looking through the windshield, driving down a dark road on a rainy night. As a reporter and writer, I try to see through their eyes to the degree it is possible to do so, to try to understand what they lived through in their time.
Just wanted to say thank you to Tim for answering questions. I don't have any - I'm just reading the thread and will start the book very soon - this week? I read Legacy of Ashes about a year ago and was very impressed with the depth and the scope and I'm looking forward to the same quality read with Enemies. Thanks again for this opportunity to read responses to questions I would have liked to have asked. (g)
message 11:
by
Bentley, Group Founder, Leader, Chief
(last edited May 14, 2012 01:10PM)
(new)
-
rated it 4 stars
Mod
Bentley, that decision was made for me. Shortly after Legacy of Ashes was publishe..."
Tim, that is an absolutely remarkable story. In other words, the decision to write the book was dropped into your lap by this attorney. What a find; it must have given you the ability to look into the mind of Hoover at the same time. Access to the oral histories and the declassification of documents seemed to also fit nicely with the 7,000 documents. Remarkable story and I thoroughly enjoyed the group's Legacy discussion. I look forward to this read.
both by
Tim Weiner
message 12:
by
Bentley, Group Founder, Leader, Chief
(last edited May 14, 2012 01:14PM)
(new)
-
rated it 4 stars
Mod
"We write history looking at the rear-view mirror on a sunny day. But these agents were looking through the windshield, driving down a dark road on a rainy night.
So true how everything is a matter of perspective, frame of reference. You have to respect so much the good agents who actually lived through these situations and times. And sifting through everything must have been a monumental task.
Bentley, I first went to Afghanistan in 1987, during the Soviet occupation, when the CIA was shipping great quantities of weapons and money to the Afghans who were fighting the Red Army. I last returned as the American occupation of Afghanistan began (to quote Gen. David Petraeus, now director of the CIA, "Every Army of liberation has a half-life beyond which it turns into an Army of occupation." That time has passed; the U.S. is now an occupying force). I always went into Afghanistan overland from Pakistan with the Afghans, never "embedded" with American armed forces (or the Soviets, it should go without saying). Anyone who went into Afghanistan in the 1980's or the 1990's knew or should have known that no one can conquer, subdue, or control Afghanistan. Not Alexander the Great, not Ghenghis Khan, not Tamurlane, not the British, not the Soviets, and not we Americans. We have a moral obligation to try to rebuild at least part of what has been destroyed in Afghanistan, and that will take good intelligence, not blunt force, as well as a commitment of billions of dollars and many years of time.
My experiences in Afghanistan -- actually watching the results of a major CIA covert operation, including seeing a Stinger ground-to-air antiaircraft missile fired by an illiterate tribesman at a Soviet fighter-bomber -- were riveting, as you might imagine. Before I went that first time, when I was a 30-year-old reporter at the Philadelphia Inquirer, I rather brashly telephoned CIA headquarters and said, in so many words: "I'm going into Afghanistan on foot to write about your major covert operation to support the mujahideen. May I have a briefing before I go?" The answer was no. But after I returned, months later, I'd been back in Washington only a day before the telephone rang. It was the fellow from the CIA who handled the press. "Hi, Tim. Have a good trip? How'd you like to come in for that briefing now?"
I walked into CIA HQ, looked up at the great golden inscription from the Gospel of John graven into the left-hand lobby wall -- "And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free."
At that moment I knew what I wanted to do for the forseeable future: cover the CIA. Twenty years later I was ready to finish Legacy of Ashes.
Becky wrote: "Just wanted to say thank you to Tim for answering questions."Becky, it's my pleasure. Though I would like to focus on Enemies, I'd be happy to answer questions on Legacy of Ashes as well.
Mod
Question: Why do you say that we (I guess you mean the United States) has a moral obligation to try to rebuild at least part of what has been destroyed in Afghanistan. I am not saying I disagree with you either; but what about all of the other nations who have had a hand in that destruction over the past 40 years. Shouldn't somebody like the UN take over that responsibility? These liberation attempts always end up being occupations and I think as a country some feel that we are spreading ourselves too thin.
Also, thank you Tim for the segue into how your Afghanistan experiences led to Legacy. In some respects your success with Legacy led to the attorney calling you and deciding that you were the best person to inherit those 7,000 documents. Legacy really led to this book and this topic. Odd, how life and a chain of circumstances seem to have a hand in what we do next.
We are really looking forward to a deep discussion of Enemies. We really dive deep into any book we cover so we are delighted that you are on board.
Let's focus on Enemies after this last question on Afghanistan. My next book is a history of the Pentagon and we will really dive deep on that issue!
But in short: during the cold war the US (along with China, the Saudis, Pakistan, and others) armed the Afghan rebels against the Soviets. Now, thirty years later, some of those same rebel forces, led by some of the same CIA-backed political warlords, are killing Americans and their allies in Afghanistan. That has to be set right by a just peace, and some basic building blocks of a civil society: schools, roads, water, and an economy based on something beyond opium poppies.
We owe the people of Afghanistan that much. They suffered and died for us in the last great battle of the cold war.
We now return you to the FBI, J. Edgar Hoover, the war on communism, and the war on terror!
tw
Mod
I agree with your synopsis. And by the way, you can pop in to any of the threads and this one at any time. What we like to do is to get some questions in the queue whenever you pop back in. We know that you have limited time and are quite busy.
We will be starting Enemies on June 4th and I know that the discussion and for the most part the questions will focus mainly on the book. And by the way if there is any question that you do not feel like answering for any reason, just don't answer it. We are an understanding bunch. Just skip over it. And we are beginning the discussion on June 4th so these are questions in advance of the discussion.
Question: The war on terror - what do you think is the definition from the FBI's point of view? Who or what are the Enemies in terms of the war on terror? Are they exclusively focused on Al Qaeda, Hamas, Hezbolleh? Or are their homegrown entities at large? Has the focus morphed for any reason over time?
Question:If you could interview J. Edgar Hoover, what three questions would you ask? (or one question if he plays difficult to get and only gives you time to have one question answered)
message 19:
by
Bentley, Group Founder, Leader, Chief
(last edited May 14, 2012 09:15PM)
(new)
-
rated it 4 stars
Mod
Bentley asked: "The war on terror - what do you think is the definition from the FBI's point of view? Who or what are the Enemies in terms of the war on terror? Are they exclusively focused on Al Qaeda, Hamas, Hezbollah? Or are their homegrown entities at large? Has the focus morphed for any reason over time?"As readers will see from the opening pages of ENEMIES, people have been trying to destroy pillars of American powers -- institutions and individuals -- since World War One. The anarchists of the early 20th century are not so different from Al Qaeda and its allies in the early 21st century. Their goals are similar: to destroy power itself. The aim of the FBI's intelligence operations for the past century has been to prevent those attacks. The tools for those intelligence operations are essentially unchanged: wiretaps, bugs, eavesdroppping, black-bag jobs, undercover infiltrations. The dilemma: how do you conduct secret intelligence operations in an open democratic society? This is the tug-of-war that runs throughout the book: we want to be safe and we want to be free. But security and liberty are often opposing forces. This struggle started from the first days of the FBI, and it continues today.
Thank you, Tim. Not to give away too much at this point, but do you also see this tug of war being played out between the three branches of government?
Craig asked: "If you could interview J. Edgar Hoover, what three questions would you ask? (or one question if he plays difficult to get and only gives you time to have one question answered)."Hoover was a master of filibuster, so one question would be all you'd get.
I would ask the central question of ENEMIES: How do you conduct secret intelligence operations in an open democratic society? I think Hoover would say: by keeping them secret. He would say, as President Nixon said, that if it's secret, it's legal. He would also say, as Nixon and President George W. Bush said, that anything the President does, anything the President commands the FBI or the CIA to do, is legal. The Supreme Court, as recently as 2006, disagrees. Under the Constitution, a President is not a king -- even in a state of war.
Bentley asked (I'm paraphrasing): "Why did the American government place that much power in Hoover's hands for so long -- 48 years?"No President dared fire Hoover (though Presidents Truman, Kennedy, and Nixon thought about it). Hoover was held in the highest esteem until his last years in office under Nixon. If a President had fired Hoover, a great hulabaloo would have arisen. The press and the public would have asked: Why are you firing Hoover? What have you got to hide?
It is interesting you bring up Nixon, and I am really looking forward to that section of the book. Would it be fair to say Nixon and Hoover saw the world through the same lenses, so to speak?
Bryan wrote: "Do you also see this tug of war being played out between the three branches of government?"Yes, indeed. See message 22 for a very brief synopsis of the conflict between the President and the Supreme Court. The question: Can the President (and his executive agencies, like the FBI and the CIA) do anything he commands in the name of national security? The answer is no, the Court has ruled.
But then Congress can compliantly change the boundaries of the laws and rules governing national security. Since 9/11/2001, it has constantly expanded the chalk lines of the playing field, if you will; redefining what is in-bounds and out-of-bounds with measures like the Patriot Act.
No matter where the lines of the law are drawn, you can bet the FBI and the CIA will have chalk on their spikes. And this is a game without an end.
Bryan asked: "Would it be fair to say Nixon and Hoover saw the world through the same lenses?"Absolutely. Hoover ground those lenses. And almost every President from FDR onward saw the world of national security through his eyes until he died 40 years ago this month.
Tim, thank you so much for making yourself available to answer questions. I am sure everyone who participates in this book discussion will gain tremendous insights. Question: In as much as the FBI and CIA are both law enforcement and *should* at some level be aligned in their goals, there must be turf wars between them. How much do you see this getting in the way of their mission success?
Alisa, the CIA by statute has no law enforcement powers. Yet there have been turf wars ever since the CIA was created in 1947. Hoover wanted to run world-wide intelligence for the United States, and he had personally despised the godfather of CIA, Wild Bill Donovan, ever since 1924, when Donovan was briefly his superior at the Justice Department. So there was conflict from before day one. It lasted throughout the cold war, and it continues to this day, although the nature of the conflict has changed, and there is more cooperation now than in days gone by. But as you will see in ENEMIES, when the elephants fight, the grass gets trampled.
message 29:
by
Bentley, Group Founder, Leader, Chief
(last edited May 16, 2012 11:47PM)
(new)
-
rated it 4 stars
Mod
We would like to get to know you better. Here are some questions that we would like to ask; but please feel free to answer whatever you feel comfortable doing prior to our June 4th kick-off. Feel free to cherry pick the ones you want to answer.
Questions: How do you structure your writing time? Do you write every day at certain hours, certain days of the week, how do you structure your formal writing schedule around your other professional obligations as well as maintain your own personal home life?
Do you have a favorite room to do your writing in, what are your favorite writing tools, do you write your first drafts by hand or do you use a computer for the entire process, do you go to a specific location to do your writing or do you do it at home? How do you prepare to write your books and how long does that preparation process take? Do you work with an outline or do you just write?
What did the timeline look like for Enemies? Timeline for research versus the writing cycle?
When did you know that you wanted to write for a living and what was the first piece that you had published?
What do you enjoy doing when you are not writing?
What authors do you enjoy reading as an adult and what authors and books have influenced you the most growing up? Who are your heroes?
What has been the toughest criticism given to you as an author? What has been the best compliment?
How do you measure success as a writer? The Pulitzer must have been one of those accomplishments.
Being a journalist you experienced a lot of excitement and adventure on your tours in Afghanistan and in other parts of the world. You have met many leaders and important people. Writing books must be a totally different animal and the environment must be more solitary I would assume. How did you transition yourself from the frenetic and fast paced environment of frequent deadlines to the solitude of writing books with longer range deadlines and submissions? Was that transition much of a challenge or a welcome relief?
In Enemies, what is the timeline of the book? How many US Presidents are discussed in Enemies (in terms of their relationship to the FBI)?
After writing Enemies did your impression of certain presidents change after reading the intelligence and research (for better or for worse)? Which presidents impressed you the most and why. Which ones - not so much?
After reading your answer in message 26, I have to wonder who was more powerful: Hoover or the presidents?
Bentley, thanks for these thought-provoking questions. A good start.How do you structure your writing within your personal life?
I write every day when I am working on a book. It’s a job that requires intense concentration. It’s a discipline. Like playing an instrument, you get better over time if you do it every day. Mark Twain once said that writing is nothing more than applying the seat of your pants to the seat of a chair. This is difficult at first but becomes easier over the years.
I became a full-time author and left The New York Times in 2009 to write Enemies and a forthcoming history of the Pentagon for Random House. I had been a newspaperman for 30 years, half that time for The New York Times. I plan to write books for the next 30 years. I have two daughters, 15 and 12, and one of the beautiful parts of this life is that I am home for them almost every day, and I cook supper for them and my wife almost every night. Her work calls for her to be on the road, often abroad, about 20 weeks a year – just as I was on the road as a foreign correspondent for many years. The balance works well over time.
I live in an apartment in New York City. I’m lucky to have a room of my own in which to write. It is filled with built-in bookcases, a desk-top computer, and banker’s boxes of documents. During Enemies and Legacy of Ashes I was incredibly fortunate to have two-month stays at Yaddo, a well-known artists’ colony in Saratoga Springs, N.Y., three hours north of the city. Yaddo admits few non-fiction writers; my luck at gaining admission was staggering. I timed these stays after compiling a critical mass of declassified documents – tens of thousands of pages – so that my time was devoted only to writing, not research. There is no Internet at Yaddo, no distractions at all. You have a desk and a laptop, and three meals a day. In a good week, I could write and re-write 10,000 words or more at Yaddo. And writing is rewriting. I rewrote the first chapters of both books two dozen times.
What did the timeline look like for Enemies -- research versus writing?
Enemies took three years from the beginning of page one to publication. Preparation -- research and reporting – requires about half of the time; writing and rewriting (and rewriting, and rewriting) takes the other half. The reporting and the writing overlapped, as tens of thousands of pages of new documents were declassified during those three years. Documents declassified in November 2011 made it into the book, which was published in February 2012. That’s a rare stroke of fortune.
When did you know that you wanted to write for a living and what was the first piece that you had published?
I was an early reader as a child. I knew in high school that I wanted to write. My mother is a history professor and I watched her writing her first book when I was five (it took seven years). I was a college freshman intent on a history major at Columbia University when President Nixon resigned. That was an incentive to learn how to do the documentary research underlying investigative reporting. The first piece I published was a long profile of Sonny Greer, who was the drummer in the Duke Ellington Orchestra from 1919 to 1952. He was 84 and playing a weekly gig at the West End, across Broadway from Columbia. He told marvelous stories, many of which were true. I got a job as a wire-service reporter covering the federal and state courts in Manhattan in 1979, later worked for a decade at the Philadelphia Inquirer, and joined The New York Times in 1993, where I covered the CIA in Washington and worked as a foreign correspondent in 18 nations.
What do you enjoy doing when you are not writing?
Reading, listening to music, cooking, and other creature comforts; I like to take a backpacking trip at least once a year.
What authors and books have influenced you the most?
A short and selective list: the historians I admire include Barbara Tuchman, Robert Caro, and Taylor Branch. Tuchman’s The March of Folly is a model for my own books. The modern fiction writers include Don DeLillo, Robert Stone, and James Ellroy. The old masters include Dickens and Conrad.
What has been the toughest criticism given to you as an author? What has been the best compliment?
The CIA tried hard to undermine Legacy of Ashes. I think it failed; every quotation and every source in the book is backed up by on-the-record documentation in the end notes. The best compliment: Legacy received the National Book Award against strong competition.
How do you measure success as a writer? The Pulitzer must have been one of those accomplishments.
I won the Pulitzer Prize for journalism; that was for reporting, not for writing. They are two different skills. I think the hardest thing to do is to write a simple declarative sentence – to achieve clarity out of complexity. If people want to read a 500-page book about the FBI or the CIA, and come away feeling enlightened, I’ve succeeded.
How did you adjust from the frenetic environment of newspapers to the solitude of writing books?
You write books alone in a room. As a newspaperman, I
got a free education in the law, in military and political affairs, in the intelligence world, in the foreign relations of the United States, and in the lives of people in little villages across the world as well as in the power centers of the American government. I’ve interviewed Presidents and tribal warlords. What I am doing now in this trilogy of books on the CIA, the FBI, and the Pentagon is putting that knowledge to use. It’s immensely satisfying work.
What is the timeline of Enemies?
Enemies runs from 1901 to 2011. It covers Presidents from Theodore Roosevelt, who created the FBI, to Barack Obama. Because of the richness of the Hoover intelligence files in my hands, it concentrates deeply on the cold-war Presidents: Truman, Eisenhower, Kennedy, Johnson, and Nixon.
After writing Enemies did your impression of certain presidents change after reading the intelligence and research (for better or for worse)?
I was surprised at how much unfettered power FDR gave to Hoover. He was fascinated by secret intelligence. I was stunned at how much President Truman distrusted Hoover, and fascinated at how Hoover essentially broke with the Truman White House and consolidated his power base by cultivating Congressmen like Richard Nixon. I once again admired the steeliness of President Eisenhower, the general who kept the United States out of war. I was mortified by the fecklessness of President Kennedy and Attorney General Robert Kennedy in their dealings with Hoover. President Johnson used Hoover’s power masterfully -- both to attack the American left and to crush the Ku Klux Klan. Their conversations, caught on tape by LBJ, are to me some of the most riveting passages of the book. President Nixon is the gift that keeps on giving: his use and abuse of power remains breath-taking. He deserves his own Robert Caro. Skipping ahead, I am still amazed that President Clinton and FBI director Louis Freeh spoke on average less than once a year. I am grateful that the United States survived the secrecy and deception of President Bush and Vice President Cheney. And I am impressed that the national security of the United States has increased under President Obama, perhaps the most liberal commander-in-chief in American history.
Who was more powerful: Hoover or the presidents?
Hoover’s power flowed from Presidents; but it ebbed and flowed. He reached his zenith when he trumped President Truman in 1947 and became the de-facto leader of American anticommunism until the Kennedy years. He fought the Kennedys to a draw. LBJ gave him more power than he could use effectively. And in the end he said “no” when Nixon ordered him to carry out black-bag jobs. That “no” led directly to the Watergate break-in forty years ago.
Tim, thanks so much for those great answers.I completely agree that Nixon needs a Robert Caro. I hope, in time, he will get one.
Was there any one book or author that got you hooked into history early in life?
Robert A. Caro
message 32:
by
Bentley, Group Founder, Leader, Chief
(last edited May 17, 2012 10:06AM)
(new)
-
rated it 4 stars
Mod
It is interesting to me that your mother is a history professor; the acorn did not fall far from the tree. You had an interesting first piece on Sonny Greer.
I noted that you said that LBJ gave Hoover more power than he could effectively handle and I would like to ask you some additional questions regarding that transfer. I will leave those questions till we begin discussing the book (which I will begin reading with the group). I read and led the discussion on Legacy so I know that I will not be disappointed.
Hard to believe that Hoover had boundaries considering the contents of his files and that he actually refused Nixon. And if Nixon had abided by Hoover's obvious recommendation that he not participate in these activities; after Hoover's death - the history and in some ways respect for the office of the presidency might not have been forever altered.
by
Tim Weiner
Mod
Tim, thanks so much for your thoughtful answers. Good to hear of your plans to keep writing and am looking forward to your future work on the Pentagon. Are there other topics that you are planning to write about or is that still to be determined? Each book obviously takes a tremendous amount of research and time so you may not have thought that far down the road yet, but am curious to know what other topics you might consider.
Bryan wrote: "I completely agree that Nixon needs a Robert Caro. I hope, in time, he will get one. "Was there any one book or author that got you hooked into history?"
Robert Caro's first book, The Power Broker, and Barbara Tuchman's The March of Folly are among them.
Great books, Tim. Caro has become one of my favorites, and Tuchman always has been a favorite.
Robert A. Caro
Barbara W. Tuchman
Alisa wrote: "Are there other topics that you are planning to write about?"Yes, I'd like to write a book about how Presidents and American political leaders responded to the civil-rights demonstrations, anti-war marches, campus uprisings, and urban riots between 1963 and 1974, from the time of Kennedy's assassination to Nixon's resignation.
And now that you've got me thinking about it, maybe I will aspire to become Nixon's Caro.
Bentley asked: Are there a couple of books on the FBI and Hoover that you have found to be more accurate than others?The Ackerman book on the young J. Edgar Hoover is first-rate. The Gentry biography is very good, although there is some hearsay in it. The Summers book is filled with gossip and innuendo; that's where the indelible image of Hoover in a dress comes from -- and his sole source was, believe it or not, a convicted perjurer. The Kessler book is pretty awful, in my opinion.
Young J. Edgar reminds me of something. I remember (from 20 years ago) reading Murray's early work on the Red Scare. I don't remember the details, but I do remember it was pretty solid. Did you run across this book in your research?(no cover)Red Scare: A Study Of National Hysteria, 1919 1920 by Robert K. Murray
Kenneth D. Ackerman
Bryan wrote: "I remember (from 20 years ago) reading Murray's early work on the Red Scare... I remember it was pretty solid."Bryan, it is a good book, but a bit dated now. You will find a lot of newly available documentation on what American communists were up to back then in Enemies.
Tim, I am enjoying reading your answers to the questions. It’s refreshing in this day and age to find someone who offers straightforward answers.Question - With your noted appreciation for overall history, do you feel that basic American history is being taught less and less at all levels in our school system?
My observation is that the curriculum within history departments at numerous prominent universities and colleges is in fact lacking in American history and is more abundant with world-wide offbeat highly specialized subjects that do not even seem to fit into the category of history.
Question - Is your book on the CIA and FBI able to capture the attention of higher education history professors to engage college students in active discussion?
Tim, I know the FBI is a domestic agency, but with borders blurring, how do they manage to work with foreign 'domestic' agencies like MI5/SOCA and assuming they do, how does an American author go about getting data on the topic of information sharing?
Also, I join everyone in thanking you for your time and thoughts.
Mark asked: "Is basic American history is being taught less and less?" Mark, I'll have to make educated guesses.
What constitutes "basic American history" to me? The American revolution, the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, the economics and politics of slavery, the Civil War, the Gilded Age, why we entered World War One, the 1929 crash and the Depression, FDR's economic recovery acts, the greatest battles of World War Two, postwar anti-communism, Vietnam, the civil-rights and antiwar movements, Watergate, the end of the cold war, and the consequences of the 9/11 attack.
I fear that most Americans under the age of 50 -- that is, the TV and Internet generations -- could not write an intelligent 500-word essay on half these subjects.
I think the habit of reading is being lost. And I know that in Washington DC, the most scathing comment on any subject is: "That's history."
The terrible consequence is a wilfully uninformed citizenry. And you can't run American democracy without informed citizens.
Mark also asked if my books on the CIA and FBI engage history professors and college students?
A less-educated guess:
I have tried to write narrative histories akin to the core samples a geologist would take from a mountain. They are chapters of America's history as a superpower.
But they are interdisciplinary, from an academic point of view, so a professor would have to be broadminded to assign them. Some academics frown on the idea that anyone without a Ph.D. should be allowed to write history.
Tim wrote: "Mark asked: "Is basic American history is being taught less and less?" Mark, I'll have to make educated guesses.
What constitutes "basic American history" to me? The American revolution, the Co..."
Tim:
I can say for a fact that one history professor at my university did assign your book for his history class on U.S. intelligence since World War II.
G asked: "I know the FBI is a domestic agency, but with borders blurring, how do they manage to work with foreign 'domestic' agencies like MI5....and how does an American author go about getting data on the topic of information sharing?"G: Since World War Two, FBI agents have worked out of American embassies abroad under the title of "Legal Attaché" or LEGAT in Bureauspeak. As the job has evolved, especially since the end of the cold war, the powers of the LEGAT have become equal to and sometimes greater than his CIA counterpart, the station chief.
The essence of the job is liaison with foreign intelligence, law-enforcement, and internal-security services. And one element of liaison is penetration: you shake the other fellow's hand with the right hand, and try to pick his pocket with the left.
With "friendlies" like MI5/MI6, you'd rather pick his brain than his pocket. But there are in fact very few friendly foreign intelligence services.
Liaison is an essential element of intelligence, much discussed in Enemies. You will find a classic story of liaison told in Chapter 40 of the book, which covers the long investigation of the bombing of Pan Am 103 over Lockerbie, Scotland.
Question: You mentioned you moved from the Philadelphia Inquirer to covering the CIA for the New York Times. How did you get interested in foreign affairs and intelligence, and what prepared you to become a foreign correspondent and a reporter covering the CIA?
Bryan asked: "How did you get interested in foreign affairs and intelligence, and what prepared you to become a foreign correspondent and a reporter covering the CIA?"Bryan, long story short:
In December 1985, President Ferdinand Marcos of the Philippines -- a bulwark of American anticommunism in Asia for 20 years -- announced to everyone's shock that he would hold a snap election. Dictators rarely call elections.
The editor of the Philadelphia Inquirer sent me to cover the contest. I was a 29-year-old investigative reporter who specialized in white-collar crime. It was supposed to be a six-week assignment. It turned into six months.
Marcos stole the election from Cory Aquino, the widow of the leader of the opposition, whom Marcos had assassinated. The people of the Philippines rose up and overthrew Marcos in four days of overwhelming street protests. As we now see, it was the first "people power" revolution of the era, foreshadowing the fall of the Berlin Wall and the end of the cold war. The Reagan administration, intimately tied to Marcos,had to let him fall. It was the biggest story in the world in 1986.
I returned with my mind expanded. I began educating myself on the mechanics of American intelligence, military power, and foreign policy.
I asked the editor of the Inquirer, Gene Roberts, to send me to Washington to look into the ways in which the Pentagon and the CIA worked together on secret military and intelligence programs financed by the "black budget," which is a compendium of classified line items buried in the DOD budget under code names and double-ledger accounts. The result was a series of stories that won the Pulitzer Prize for national reporting almost a year later.
In the intervening months, I began covering the CIA full-time, and in the fall of 1987, I took my first backpacking trip with the mujahideen in Afghanistan, resulting in an invitation to a "briefing" at CIA HQ, described above.
Five years after came a call from The New York Times. Fifteen years after that came Legacy of Ashes.
Interesting story, wow.
Great stuff, thanks; We will keep asking questions, if you keep answering them:Question: Have you pondered what the Founding Fathers would have thought about our intelligence activities during the time span of your Enemies book?
Mod
What a timeline Tim. (message 47) You have already surpassed our expectations for the author Q&A and the discussion of the book has not even begun. Great responses. Thx.
The History Book Club
Books mentioned in this topic
Legacy of Ashes: The History of the CIA (other topics)Legacy of Ashes: The History of the CIA (other topics)
The Federalist Papers (other topics)
The Federalist Papers (other topics)
1984 (other topics)
More...
Authors mentioned in this topic
Russell Baker (other topics)Tim Weiner (other topics)
Tim Weiner (other topics)
Alexander Hamilton (other topics)
Alexander Hamilton (other topics)
More...
Tim Weiner will be dropping in periodically to answer any and all of your questions regarding his book.
Please begin posting your questions for the author on this thread.
Thank you and I hope you will you enjoy this special author experience here at the History Book Club. Many of you who are joining in on this discussion have received and/or will be receiving your ARC very soon. For those of you not as fortunate, we have delayed the start date of the book discussion until June 4th so that everyone will be able to participate fully and acquire a copy of the selection.
Regards,
Bentley