Completely Incompetent Agents

July 21, 2007 @ Michael Hampton5 Comments

The legacy of the Central Intelligence Agency is one not simply of an omnipotent spy agency which can learn anything from anyone and pull off covert operations with ease. The true legacy of the CIA, according to a new book, is its sheer incompetence.

Even today, most people think of the CIA as a well-oiled intelligence machine which can go behind enemy lines and bring back critical information or execute well-planned covert operations to influence world events. Neither is quite accurate.

VeteranNew York Times intelligence reporter Tim Weiner’s Legacy of Ashes: The History of the CIA, chronicles the CIA’s many failures, from its inauspicious start when it sent hundreds of agents behind the Iron Curtain, almost all of whom were captured or killed, to its most recent failures, such as mistakenly saying that Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction.

Legacy of Ashes: The History of the CIA

Among those fooled, at least initially, were most modern presidents of the United States. The promise of a secret intelligence organization that could not only spy on America’s enemies but also influence events abroad, by sleight of hand and at relatively low cost, was just too alluring.

When presidents finally faced the reality that the agency was bumbling, they could be bitter. Reviewing the C.I.A.’s record after his two terms in office, Dwight Eisenhower told the director, Allen Dulles, “I have suffered an eight-year defeat on this.” He would “leave a legacy of ashes” for his successor. A fan of Ian Fleming’s spy stories, John F. Kennedy was shocked to be introduced to the man described by C.I.A. higher-ups as their James Bond — the fat, alcoholic, unstable William Harvey, who ran a botched attempt to eliminate Fidel Castro by hiring the Mafia. Ronald Reagan went along with the desire of his C.I.A. director, William Casey, to bring back the mythical glory days by “unleashing” the agency — and his presidency was badly undermined by the Iran-contra affair.

In Weiner’s telling, a president trying to use the C.I.A. resembles Charlie Brown trying to kick the football. The role of Lucy is played by scheming or inept directors. Dulles is particularly egregious, a lazy, vain con artist who watches baseball games on television while half-listening to top-secret briefings (he assesses written briefings by their weight). Casey mumbles and lies and may have been almost mad from a brain tumor by the end. Even the more honorable directors, like Richard Helms, can’t resist telling presidents what they want to hear. To fit the policy needs of the Nixon White House in 1969, Helms doctored a C.I.A. estimate of Soviet nuclear forces. In a draft of the report, analysts had doubted the Soviet will or capacity to launch a nuclear strike. Helms erased this crucial passage — and for years thereafter, until the end of the cold war, the C.I.A. overstated the rate at which the Soviets were modernizing their arsenal. The C.I.A.’s bogus intelligence on Iraq in 2002-3, based on the deceits of dubious sources like the one known as Curveball, was hardly unprecedented. To justify the Johnson administration’s desire for a pro-war Congressional resolution on Vietnam in 1964, the intelligence community manufactured evidence of a Communist attack on American destroyers in the Gulf of Tonkin. — New York Times

A Pretext for War : 9/11, Iraq, and the Abuse of America's Intelligence Agencies

I can’t wait to read this.

Also worth reading on this topic is James Bamford’s A Pretext for War, which documents how during the Clinton administration an alcoholic CIA station chief bungled his assignment to spy on Al-Qaeda, capture Osama bin Laden, and prevent what we now know as the September 11, 2001, attacks. Bamford is also the author of the two definitive works on the National Security Agency, The Puzzle Palace and Body of Secrets.

1 Star2 Stars3 Stars4 Stars5 Stars (1 votes, average: 5.00 out of 5)
Loading ... Loading ...

5 Comments → “Completely Incompetent Agents”


  1. J.Lee

    Aug 02, 2007

    Interesting, but quite disappointing and sad if all this is true. I came across an article by Lt. Col Dave Grossman, “Hope on the Battlefield”. Grossman is a former army ranger who is now a military psychologist and historian. He shows how not only the CIA, but also the Army is not as effective as we think; soldiers in America and throughout history have been enormously reluctant to kill, even when their own lives are at stake. He claims that only about 10% of soldiers will fire directly on the enemy. However, he also examines ways of causing soldiers to be more effective and efficient killers. The full article can be found at:

    Reply

  2. Patrick Sears

    Aug 07, 2007

    This book merely reinforces what I’ve come to realize about the US Government, what the whole American populace needs to realize:

    For the past 30-40 years, Hollywood has, with the complicity of the government, fostered an image of the US Government and varied spy agencies as a well-oiled, ruthlessly dangerous behemoth whose bad side you REALLY don’t want to get on.

    Nothing could be further from the truth. That government and its varied agencies are so buried under bureaucratic garbage as to be nearly paralyzed by their own weight. Yes, they can still get a great deal done, but nowhere near what the glamorized image of them would claim. The US military, vaunted as the most powerful in the history of the world, is equally enamored with its own imagined power, as Iraq so clearly demonstrates. How humbling it must be for the most powerful military in the world to be done in by a few backwards men with homemade bombs.

    And so forth. That delusion must be addressed or we may make a mistake relying on those assumptions from which we can never recover..

    Reply

  3. Shari

    Sep 06, 2007

    My ex husband worked at the CIA for 30 years without a background check. Nobody ever once in 30 years ever knocked on my door to ask about our 7 year marriage, our daughter, or asked why I threw that alcoholic rageaholic out. Not once. Even the DA tried to prosecute him for child support, and the CIA covered it up. But if you or I or anybody else doesn’t measure up, what happens to us? The DA outted him on the public documents. I found out this year that he worked for the CIA the whole time we were trying to collect support. The DA backed off the support because the CIA told him to back off. The CIA screwed me out of my child support and they are still screwing me out of child support rights. Try that for the grand and glorious CIA.,

    Reply

  4. Jaye

    Oct 13, 2007

    The Company is a sick joke! Name me one great thing the Company has done? I can name 9-11, the Berlin Wall, Afghanistan, the Mig 25, MK ULTRA, Castro, Ames, Pollard, Hanson, Walker, UFOs and a thousand other screw ups! I thought the Company was cool but now I see they are true Government Employees and I would not work for them for a million dollars! What really hurts is my tax dollars pay their salary! One more reason the Company is so screwed up;
    Plus the quality of the people they have working for them i.e. Drug Dealers, Drug addicts, Pedophiles, Sex Addicts, Drunks, Psychos, Liars, Punks, Rambo wannabes, ETC. ETC. Shalom.
    Sincerely,

    Reply
  5. Feb 25, 2008

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Copyright © 2010 Homeland Stupidity.