The History Book Club discussion
This topic is about
Enemies
AMERICAN DEMOCRACY - GOVERNMENT
>
Q&A with Tim
Great quote from William Pitt. We will be sure to keep this tug-of-war theme in mind as we read the book.I think about Madison & Jefferson's reaction to the Alien and Sedition Acts of 1798, perceived threats started right from our country's beginning.
Here, to get us started thinking, is the epigraph for Enemies -- from the Federalist Papers. The year: 1787."Safety from external danger is the most powerful director of national conduct. Even the ardent love of liberty will, after a time, give way to its dictates. The violent destruction of life and property incident to war, the continual effort and alarm attendant on a state of continual danger, will compel nations the most attached to liberty to resort for repose and security to institutions which have a tendency to destroy their civil and political rights. To be more safe, they at length become willing to run the risk of being less free."
-- Alexander Hamilton
It is a great start for this book. I encourage others who will start this book to chime in, as well.I find it a little ironic coming from Hamilton, who became a symbol of a more powerful executive branch. However, I think it just shows you that he indeed appreciated limits; he did go through a revolution for it.
As you say, it is a trade-off. How much are we willing to risk for less freedom to feel safe? George Orwell certainly talked about this in 1984. Maybe people are willing to put up with searches before you get on a jet plane, but what we will read about goes deeper.
I'm just throwing out some fragmentary thoughts, here. Tim and others, do you think there is a strong nature for us human beings to feel safe and more willing to give up something? Sometimes if it does not directly affect them, maybe people are willing to go along?
George Orwell
message 55:
by
Bentley, Group Founder, Leader, Chief
(last edited May 18, 2012 01:52PM)
(new)
-
rated it 4 stars
Mod
by
Alexander Hamilton
I believe in peace through a strong military and see the need for protective agencies especially in this day and age. Still America must continue to be the land of freedom so the paradox between security and liberty highlighted in “Enemies” is so real. I would like for the overall size of government to be drastically reduced as I view our economic conditions and looming debt as a very serious national security threat that could also compromise our overall freedom. I wish the outlook for the next American generation was brighter.
message 57:
by
Bentley, Group Founder, Leader, Chief
(last edited May 18, 2012 01:52PM)
(new)
-
rated it 4 stars
Mod
But Madison who probably knew him best said in 1831: "That he possessed intellectual powers of the first order, and the moral qualities of integrity and honor in a captivating degree, has been awarded him by a suffrage now universal. If his theory of government deviated from the republican standard he had the candour to avow it, and the greater merit of co-operating faithfully in maturing and supporting a system which was not his choice." So he wasn't all about the power; I am not so sure we can say the same thing about Hoover and the FBI or even some of our presidents. I am looking forward to discussing the book on June 4th. What a conversation this should be; considering it has been quite lively already.
Bryan, I just watched on Netflix - a Masterpiece Theater Contemporary production about a near future Britain which had become a surveillance state. Interesting and a tad scary. It was called The Last Enemy.
by
Alexander Hamilton
This is Tim Weiner signing off for the weekend. But first I would like to send a message to our group: If you like this book, please spread the word. Writers and publishers are in parlous straits these days.... So support your local bookstore!
And give ENEMIES to someone you love.
message 59:
by
Bentley, Group Founder, Leader, Chief
(last edited May 18, 2012 03:07PM)
(new)
-
rated it 4 stars
Mod
We even have a thread on our favorite bookstores around the world.
And you have already stirred up interest for our discussion. We really won't be kicking off until June 4th; but it feels like we are having a great pre-chat which is tremendous fun.
Thank you for your time so far.
Thanks Tim, until next time.
Tim, thank you for taking these questions. I'm going into this book with a hypothesis that as technology of any sort expands, law enforcement will attempt to utilize this new technology to expand their authority. Therefore as the United States becomes more technological advanced, it also experiences greater levels of FBI authority. I was hoping to hear your thoughts on this subject prior to starting the book.
Thank you again for your time and participation.
Tim, thank you very much for your time and very engaging and thorough replies. Wow! I look forward to reading your book.
Rodney, you are dead right. Technology drives policy. Look at nuclear weapons as exhibit A, and electronic-eavesdropping powers as exhibit B. More on this in days to come. best tw
Tim, if you don't mind me asking, where do you fall on the continuum between freedom and security? Are things like the Patriot Act and the TSA justifiable in light of recent history or do they constitute an overreach of the government's authority?
Q: Where do you fall on the continuum between freedom and security? A: This is the subject of ENEMIES: how to strike that balance in the context of our Constitution and the threats to our national security. The question arises in every chapter of the book. And we are going to discuss the answers on a case-by-case basis. I don't have a one-size-fits-all solution -- or an ideology to impose.
Hello,Tim, I'd also like to thank you for joining and answering questions prior to the kick-off date. I've read the first three chapters and I'm already learning so much and finding it hard to put down. I find the questions and answers discussed in this thread to be just as enlightening.
Sadly I'd have to agree with the earlier statement made that you "think the habit of reading is being lost" which would greatly impact (especially younger generations') understanding and knowledge of history. I imagine they would be pleasantly surprised to find that indeed there are books--such as yours--that contradict the notion of dry, historical reading material.
Since I haven't gotten far into the book yet, I'd like to avoid asking question(s) that may be answered as I further my reading. However I have a rather general one for the time being:
Question:
Compared to other similar international under-cover agencies, is the FBI one of the most powerful of them all? How does it compare to others?
Natacha asked how the powers of the FBI compare to the security services of other nations. This is one of the top ten FAQs -- and the hardest to answer. The US, the UK, Russia, China, and other countries shape the roles and missions of their security services to meet their national requirements.
China's Politburo, focused on capital growth and state control (or "Market Leninism"), charges its services with economic espionage, cyberspace dominance, and surveillance of its own people. The Russian services (headed by Putin, a former KGB colonel) want to overee and control the economic power of the business elites and mafias that dominate the "privatized" segments of the former Soviet state.
And, of course, everybody wants spy on everybody else.
So comparing the FBI with Israel's Shin Bet and Mossad, or the UK's MI5 and MI6, is apples and oranges.
We in the United States are unique in this sense: we want to run secret intelligence services in an open democracy, and under the rule of law. This is the standard by which the FBI must be judged.
I'll let readers get deeper into the book before we start making those judgments.
Tim wrote: "Here, to get us started thinking, is the epigraph for Enemies -- from the Federalist Papers. The year: 1787."Safety from external danger is the most powerful director of national conduct. Even th..."
And did Hamilton answer his own thought on this matter? Is it the checks and balances?
Bryan, I don't think there was an easy answer to the fundamental question Hamilton posed. Nor did Madison or Jefferson. That's why we have a Bill of Rights, and that's why we continue to struggle over how to enforce them. It's a never-ending battle.Just yesterday, the Supreme Court agreed to consider whether plaintiffs represented by the ACLU have the right to challenge the constitutionality of the National Security Agency's power to conduct dragnet surveillance of Americans’ international e-mails and phone calls. The intelligence gathered by NSA goes straight to the FBI.
We may not love Big Brother. But we know he is part of the family now. The question is how we live with him.
Indeed, Tim, thank you. I remember the Founding Fathers debated extensively about whether we needed a Bill of Rights or not during the ratification and first Congressional elections. I think your work in the Department of Defense will be a good book-end to your series due to their increased activities in intelligence gathering there.
One thing comes to mind is the bureaucracy, its mind-set, and the duplication of intelligence gathering.
Also, you see turf wars. I recall just one example the New York Times in 2005 talking about how the FBI wanted to control activities abroad of foreign agents they recruited here, rather than give them up to the CIA.
In your opinion, how does the bureaucracy affect any kind of reform if we try to scale back Big Brother?
Bryan, there is no one "bureaucracy" among America's 16 intelligence services. The FBI has one. The CIA has one. Each of the uniformed services has one. Each has a mind of its own, not to mention tribal customs and traditions. Each struggles for money and power and primacy. The point of creating the National Intelligence Director in 2005 -- like the point of creating the Secretary of Defense in 1947 -- was to unify the warring tribes. As we have seen, it takes decades to achieve a modicum of unity.
One force of counter-reformation has been the current Congress. Intelligence oversight is woefully inadequate. And the House Armed Services and Appropriations Committees are spending tens of billions of dollars on weapons systems and classified intelligence programs that the Pentagon does not want or need -- force-feeding DOD like a Strasbourg goose.
Since the SecDef controls close to 90 percent of the classified budget for US intelligence, somewhere north of $80 billion a year, this does not create efficiency or harmony for our secret services.
Interesting, Tim, a real oversight problem. I imagine in a bureaucracy, if you are given the money you don't want or need, you take it anyway, because the next fiscal year, you fear you will get less.
The results are not pretty. You get a nuclear bomber like the B-2, which costs $2 billion a copy. That's billion with a "b." You get $10 billion spy satellites deluging intelligence analysts with raw data, which is like trying to get a drink of water from a fire hose. Throwing money at a problem -- like the FBI's three-decade, multibillion-dollar struggle to build an efficient information technology system -- is usually not a smart move. Building intelligence and IT systems that are both efficient (information flows freely) and secure (information is compartmented) has been a stumper.
All this lies ahead. Let's get reading!
Tim, you are certainly very astute. I too thank you and Random House for this wonderful opportunity. As a member of the Goodreads History Club I’m also enjoying getting to know the group members a bit more. They are certainly asking great questions and I’m encouraged by their passion for history, especially from some of the younger members.In general footnotes seem to be placed in the back of most books. Several months ago some members noted their preference for footnotes to be positioned close to the material referenced. It is my belief that it is the publisher, not the author, who decides the ultimate location in the book.
Mark, it's my preference. Enemies has more than 60 pages of endnotes, some of which are small chapters unto themselves. Legacy of Ashes had close to 200 pages. They would interrupt the flow of the book if placed at the foot of the page, I think.
Thanks. No matter where they are located the "small chapters" provide a wealth of interesting information.
Mod
Question: How has your view of the U.S. government changed over time, especially since writing your books?
Did you have any input into the Audio version? I'm listening and am very much enjoying the narrator. Have you had a chance to listen to it? That said, I may get a Kindle version because I miss the notes (!) and pictures (maps, graphics, etc.) if there are any and I really want to see those.
Bryan asked: "How has your view of the U.S. government changed over time, especially since writing your books?"Bryan, I'm only qualified to give my views on the changes in the institutions I've studied closely over the past 25 years: the Pentagon, the FBI, and the CIA.
One thing I've learned is that it matters who's in charge. It matters immensely.
I think that we as a nation are very lucky that Bob Gates took over as Secretary of Defense from Don Rumsfeld as Secretary of Defense in 2006 and stayed on under Obama. We are equally lucky that Bob Mueller took over from Louis Freeh as FBI director -- on September 4, 2001, God help him -- and stayed on under Obama. And (as readers of Legacy of Ashes know), we have had several disastrous chiefs at the CIA; I think we will probably be grateful that General Petraeus is running the Agency under Obama.
One thing these three men have in common is that they are not ideologues. Ideology -- that is, hewing to fixed ideas, facts be damned -- is the enemy of good intelligence. If you get the intelligence wrong, you can't make good decisions.
And the consequences are great. People die, and we squander their blood and our treasure.
Becky, regarding the audiobook of Enemies, the narrator is the same man who read Legacy of Ashes, Stefan Rudnicki. He's tremendous. His voice is transfixing.That said, I'm all for words in print. Those endnotes are important!
Tim wrote: "One thing I've learned is that it matters who's in charge. It matters immensely..."Interesting, thank you.
In respect of reform, do you think from your experience do leaders make an impact on the bureaucracy they lead? I say this from the president's chair, it seems more and more difficult to change things as the Executive has grown so much in the past 50 years.
Tim wrote: "Becky, regarding the audiobook of Enemies, the narrator is the same man who read Legacy of Ashes, Stefan Rudnicki. He's tremendous. His voice is transfixing.That said, I'm all for words in print...."
Oh yes, listened to Legacy of Ashes just forgot it was the same narrator! That was a loong listen but I thoroughly enjoyed the whole thing. I listen as though to a professor giving a lecture - it takes focus. I remember wishing I had the notes though. This time I'll get a print version, too. Thanks.
by
Tim Weiner
Bryan, I again confine my answer to the national-security establishment: The FBI, the Pentagon, and the 16 American intelligence services.No matter whether they are military or civilian agencies, they all are governed by a military ethos: a top-down chain of command. These are not "flat" organizations but strict hierarchies. That is how they distribute power and money.
This is why it matters immensely who leads them.
And it matters whether we have a president who can lead their leaders -- and who understands the rule of law. Some do. Some don't.
As you will see in Enemies, many of the best leaders and the best agents at the FBI over the years, including the present director, Bob Mueller, have something in common: they were Marines. The Marines have a loyalty up and loyalty down ethos. If you're a lieutenant (as Mueller was in Vietnam) and you send your men up the hill, you go up the damn hill too.
"Bureaucracy" is a very bad word in American political culture. But most institutions are no better or worse than the people who serve them. Government service has been tarnished for many years, going back to at least President Reagan, who kept saying that government was a terrible thing, even as he made it bigger and more powerful and more costly throughout the 1980's.
I would also note for the record that my dictionary defines "bureaucrat" as someone who aggregates and concentrates administrative power.
By this standard, J. Edgar Hoover was the most brilliant bureaucrat of the American century.
Thanks, Tim, yes, there has been a lot of talk about reforming the intelligence agencies ever since 9/11, so your experience and thoughts are helpful.
Much talk, but also some action. The great post-9/11 reformation -- the creation of the office of Director of National Intelligence, the destruction of the office of Director of Central Intelligence, and the CIA's loss of centrality in the American intelligence system -- is now almost seven years old. I don't think we have yet seen its full effect, nor will we for years to come.
This reminds me of a story -- and I'm pretty sure it's a true story.
A French journalist interviewed Ho Chi Mihn at the height of the Vietnam War. His parting question to Ho (who had lived and worked in Paris in his youth) was: "What do you think of the French Revolution?"
And Ho said: "It's too early to tell."
Tim, you've already touched on this a bit in answers to previous questions, especially when you mentioned "warrantless wiretapping, bugging, and black-bag jobs -- that were a hallmark in Hoover's heyday (and under President George W. Bush)".One thing I've been wondering about is the various presidents' relationships with the FBI. Most of George Bush's presidency was post- 9/11 and I suppose that's how these types of procedures were justified and rationalized. On the flip side, does any president stand out as one who kept a tighter rein on the FBI? Was the president's motivation based on power-play politics or was it more ideological (belief in individual liberties, etc.)?
Bentley, as an aside, I'll be on a trip and completely unplugged during the first week's discussion. I'll PM my comments/thoughts on the first 4 chapters to you before I leave in hopes that you'll post them to the first discussion on my behalf.
Kay, as you will see in Enemies, the relationship of each President to every FBI director was unique.The relationship between FDR and Hoover was the most effective for the conduct of political warfare. It went on for 12 uninterrupted years. FDR gave Hooover free license to conduct warrantless surveillance despite a Supreme Court decision outlawing wiretapping. Hoover helped run a secret military tribunal that put six Nazi spies to death in a matter of weeks. So they got things done, and FDR seems to have genuinely liked Hoover -- or rather the secret intelligence Hoover could provide to him.
Things went downhill from there, as far as relationships betwen Presidents and FBI directors go. But they are looking up over the past four years. There is hope.
Tim wrote: "Kay, as you will see in Enemies, the relationship of each President to every FBI director was unique.The relationship between FDR and Hoover was the most effective for the conduct of political warfare..."
Thank you. I've started reading and am so looking forward to getting deeper into this unique relationship that exists between the president and the head of the FBI as well as each president's overall view of the agency as a whole. After sampling parts of several chapters book and then diving in to begin reading cover-to-cover, I know this is going to be a fascinating book to read.
I feel I should admit some biases coming into the discussion, though. (1) My first impression of the FBI came from the TV Show called "The FBI" starring Efrem Zimbalist, Jr. that was on TV from the mid 60's to the mid 70's. As an impressionable young person, I know my thinking was influenced by that show and the real case studies that were used for the story lines. I read recently that J. Edgar Hoover approved of the show, so I realize now that the agency was shown in an unrealistically favorable light. But growing up, those FBI agents were my heroes. (2) As a much older person now, I've become a Libertarian. As such, I would like to see a much smaller government. My bias would be favorable towards reduction in any government agency's size and power until it was doing just the stuff that it really needed to do.
In short - I may tend to admire individual FBI agents, but on the flip side I tend to only tolerate the agency itself as a necessary evil. I'm biased towards thinking it should simply not be the huge bureaucracy that it has become.
Question: Has your view of human nature changed over the course of your work? The work you study is not pretty (intelligence and its operations) and I was just curious how things have changed over time.
Bryan, a short and aphoristic answer to a very big question. Regarding America's projection of power, and the work of the leaders, armies, spies and diplomats of the United States in our seven decades as a superpower, I see elements of folly woven throughout. This is simply human nature. We are a young nation, but we regard ourselves as exceptional, above the forces of history. We are not.
I have learned that one should never suspect conspiracy in acts that can plausibly be attributed to stupidity. Stupidity is a more powerful force in the course of human events. Conspiracy is very difficult. It means, literally, to breathe together. It requires a high degree of secrecy. As Ben Franklin said: "Three can keep a secret if two are dead."
Intelligence is prone to failure because it is a human endeavor. It requires you to know your enemy -- to understand what another person is thinking -- and that is hard work.
Much more to say on this topic once we start the book!
On a personal note, I will be offline until Tuesday. I will be presenting ENEMIES at the Northshire Bookstore in Manchester, Vermont, tonight at 7 pm and at the Next Stage Arts Center in Putney, Vermont, at 7:30 pm Saturday. Anyone in and around the area is most welcome.
Mod
And we understand that you have many other commitments. Only nine days until the discussion starts even though the discussion on this thread and your responses have been terrific. Many thanks for your involvement thus far.
I agree, Bentley. Tim, I enjoyed your comment about stupidity and conspiracy. Well said.
Question: Do you consider yourself a "glass half-full" or "glass-half empty" person, and how does this outlook affect your writing?
Bryan, in life I am very much a "glass half-full" person. At work this simply translates into a measure of confidence that I will research and write my books to the best of my ability.Close readers of Legacy of Ashes and Enemies will see that both books, after a litany of sorrows suffered and hardships endured, end on a strong note of hope for the future. Those uplifting conclusions are based on the knowledge that we as a nation will learn from our mistakes, and that leaders of good character can use their power wisely. I continue to live with that hope.
Tim wrote: "Bryan, in life I am very much a "glass half-full" person. At work this simply translates into a measure of confidence that I will research and write my books to the best of my ability.Close reade..."
Thank you, Tim; it is a great message to leave readers, especially in rather partisan times.
A procedural inquiry for Bentley and/or Bryan. How many readers are participating? Should we have a protocol for discussion starting June 4, a set time for questions and answers each day? And should we hew to one question per question? The goal is avoiding six-part questions and broadsides. When I present a book at a reading or a lecture, my habit is to say: "Please state your question in the form of a question, and end it with a question mark."
message 98:
by
Bentley, Group Founder, Leader, Chief
(last edited May 30, 2012 01:45PM)
(new)
-
rated it 4 stars
Mod
My suggestion is for you to pop in when you have time and just answer what you have time for and pick up where you left off. Sally came in periodically and just answered questions where she left off. That seemed to work. That way you can determine how much you have time for during that session when you pop in. And sometimes there could be 10 questions waiting for you or 2; hard to tell.
I haven't noticed any multi part questions aside from a bunch that I had added.
The moderators use the format that I set up:
Question: And the question is?
There really has not been an issue yet that I can see.
Also, Tim as an aside - you mentioned broadsides. We do not allow flame baiting or a lack of respect to be shown on our threads; so we really have not had that issue very much at all. However, if there is any question that you do not feel comfortable answering, by all means do not answer it. You can always PM me if you feel uncomfortable with the style of the questions coming from any particular member. But like I said, we have not had that issue here.
Right you are, Bentley. We take flame baiting and disrespect very seriously here. We all will monitor this closely. Sally's approach seemed to have worked. It is hard to tell at this point how many questions you will face when you sign on. We can fine tune things as we go along.
Thank you, gentlemen.
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...
Bryan, you may have noticed that the book begins with a quotation from Alexander Hamilton on the tug-of-war between national security and civil liberties -- the overarching theme of Enemies.
George Washington and Benjamin Franklin knew a good deal about secret intelligence and its uses in both military strategy and foreign diplomacy.
But I think that most of the Framers would have been appalled by the warrantless searches and seizures -- including warrantless wiretapping, bugging, and black-bag jobs -- that were a hallmark in Hoover's heyday (and under President George W. Bush).
The version of the Fourth Amendment introduced by James Madison is clear: "The rights to be secured in their persons, their houses, their papers, and their other property, from all unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated by warrants issued without probable cause...." The changes as adopted were essentially syntactical.
The Fourth Amendment grew directly from the experience of the British execution of "general warrants" in prerevolutionary America. These were not reasonable searches and seizures, but breaking and entering.
It was a principle of British law that every man's home was his castle.
But could a man defend his castle against a king? Or a President? Or a special agent of the FBI, acting in the President's name, but without a judge's warrant?
The question arises again and again throughout Enemies. It's in the DNA of the book.
I still like the way William Pitt put it before the British Parliament in 1763: "The poorest man may in his cottage bid defiance to all the force of the crown. It may be frail--its roof may shake--the wind may blow through it--the storm may enter, the rain may enter--but the King of England cannot enter--all his force dares not cross the threshold of the ruined tenement."