I have always had a love/hate realtionship with our intelligence agencies. I’ve always been fascinated with the lore of the CIA and the spying industry, while simultaneously being disgusted at many of the things they have done in their storied history. I have a ton of respect for Larry Johnson and Pat Lang, but I don’t agree with them when they argue that the excesses of our intelligence agencies were always the fault of our civilian leadership. But one thing I do agree with is that we have a need for our intelligence agencies. I especially agree that we have a need for analysis.
The analysis of the intelligence community is that the war in Iraq is making us less safe. It’s not clear what their analysis is about what it might mean if we leave Iraq to descend into an even worse civil war. It’s also not clear what they think our prospects are for minimizing the dangers if we stay. All that is crystal clear is that invading Iraq was a mistake that has made us less safe.
Historically, the CIA has been a reactionary force that used its influence, not to democratize, but to smack down anyone that interferes with U.S. or British business interests. But they do not seem to be on board, any longer, with the neo-conservatives plan for global domination.
Several active and retired intelligence officials, who were not authorized to speak on behalf of the intelligence community, expressed resentment at the administration’s decision to have Negroponte issue the first official reaction to the weekend reports. They said he should not have become involved in what quickly became a political battle.
The politicization of intelligence matters has reached a point where the intelligence community can no longer go along. Their assessment is that current policy is making matters worse. They are no longer willing to pussyfoot around the issue and they don’t seem to care whether Porter Goss or Michael Hayden is in command.
Pentagon generals are also speaking up. These are not groups that are traditionally sympathetic to Democrats, but they have had their fill.
I contend that the Iraqi conflict, as well as the prevailing Middle East tensions, will be lessened in equal proportion to the success we achieve in providing for a Palestinian state. Given that the NIE assessment posits that, “If democratic reform efforts in Muslim majority nations progress over the next five years, political participation probably would drive a wedge between intransigent extremists and groups willing to use the political process to achieve their local objectives”, then it would be reasonable to conclude that any progress with the Palestinian issue will greatly enhance the speculative potentiality of the NIE report. Absent the Palestinian effort, I’m of the opinion that the NIE timeframe is overly optimistic and dependent upon a relatively static progression without the prevalence of unforeseen events and escalations…which seems unlikely at best.
Frankly, I doubt that the existing Republican approach or the alternative of withdrawal supported by a number Democrats will serve to alleviate the existing conditions and bring relative stability to the troubled region. Neither approach has the wherewithal to alter the prevailing sentiment. Conversely, a voluntary effort that would demonstrate our ability to discern the profound importance of a successful Palestinian state would, in my opinion, yield exponential goodwill. Given the current conditions, such an effort has little risk.
Read more here:
http://www.thoughttheater.com
your analysis matches mine precisely.
I hope Dem candidates nationwide are reading this sentence. As Bushites go into full spin mode on the intelligence report, this is really all that needs to be said, over and over and over again. We are past the point where anybody can come up with a fix for the problem that Bushite incompetence and psychopathy have created. The best we can do is get the perps out of power and take a whole new look at how we deal with the rest of the world, including Israel.
The history of US “intelligence” is largely one of subverting US and international law while coming up with very little accomplishment. I, too, am drawn to the romance of it all, but that’s pretty much fiction. Fiction that did the job of intimidating our elected leaders into allowing an unaccountable secret empire to pursue its secret ends. Having secret, untouchable agencies means you never know who they’re really working for.
One positive thing is that, within their own culture, the spooks seem to be fiercely dedicated to doing good work as they see it. Like all of us who have worked for large enterprises, they are currently suffering the fate of those employed by fools. I think they can’t take it anymore, and that’s what the present rebellion is about.
taken by intelligence issues, what do you think of this presentation by Ralph Schoenman?
I haven’t seen it – but Ralph Schoenman is pretty awful on his history. He blames JFK for Lumumba’s death, even thought JFK wasn’t sworn into office yet when Lumumba was killed! Pass.
Yes, I couldn’t agree more.
I could have written a lot on the reasons why the intelligence services have become so pre-eminent in the United States, but I will not since it would have turned into a time-consuming diary and not a short comment. The root cause of it can be found in the aftermath of WW2.
In my opinion, the reason for US intelligence involvement in international affairs, throughout modern history, is more a product of a wanted policy than being the result of a rogue intelligence service. The Mossadeq affair in Iran is one example, Truman did not want an involvement, but the new Eisenhower administration was convinced by the British of the imminent danger of a communist takeover. Operation Chaos was originally initiated by President Lyndon Johnson out of concern of foreign, see communist, involvement in the anti-Vietnam war movement. Of course people can argue with plausibility that the tenacity of the intelligence services exacerbated this policy, but the responsibility for these affairs and the decision to take action lay in the end on the shoulders of the policy makers alone.
I think the story is more about how the CIA has been used, since inception, to guarantee access to certain resources on the planet – oil, copper, nickel, gold, rubber, etc. The real story of the CIA owes as much to Wall Street as DC.
Yes, in some instances that might be, economic resources is certainly a part of the equation, but the approval of such actions still has to be given by the politicians even if they are doing it in collusion with the financial elite.