Subcultural engagement for the 21st Century...
Barbelith is a new kind of community (find out more)...
You can login or register.

Underground > Switchboard >

CIA: end is nigh?

08:07 / 23.05.06

I was wanting to pick your collective brains. Opinions on this articles would be appreciated if you are interested.

My main worry is that the CIA was at least a civilian organisation at root. Besides there nefarious dealings (of which there are many) they did stop USA's involvement in Vietnam and also hold back the hawks in the military that wanted to nuke the Soviet Union.
Now we have 80% of the intelligence budget going to the Pentagon (see link) and therefore we are to see a more hawkish stance and even less staying of the USA's hand?

Alternet: How Bush Destroyed the CIA

20:09 / 23.05.06

So, let me check if I got this right: We have reached a point where we actually miss the time when it was the CIA that were fucking us up? How ominous.

07:26 / 24.05.06

It's a case of better the devil you know I suppose.

Would you prefer a civilian leader or a military one?

That is the comparison I am making.

20:03 / 24.05.06

Would you prefer a civilian leader or a military one?

Well, I'd prefer no leader at all, specially if we're talking about an organization meant to spy on people for the maintainance of the status quo (of a nation that's not even my own, on top of everything). If such organization is inevitable, I'd prefer always the least competent leader. But I'm just being snarky, I guess.

21:59 / 24.05.06

Taken from the above link

The moment that the destruction of the Central Intelligence Agency began can be pinpointed to a time, a place and even a memo. On Aug. 6, 2001, CIA director George Tenet presented to President Bush his presidential daily briefing, a startling document titled "Bin Laden Determined to Strike in U.S." PDF Bush did nothing, asked for no further briefings on the issue, and returned to cutting brush at his Crawford, Texas, compound.

In Bush's denial of responsibility after the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, the search for scapegoats inevitably focused on the lapse in intelligence and therefore on the CIA, though it was the FBI whose egregious incompetence permitted the plotters to escape apprehension. Bush's intent to invade Iraq set up the battle royal that followed.

"The administration used intelligence not to inform decision-making, but to justify a decision already made," Paul Pillar, then the chief Middle East analyst for the CIA,

The mistakes made by the Bush administration pre 9/11 and the misuse of intelligence leading up to the Iraq invasion will be remembered in history as a lesson in how not to use millitary intelligence.

The CIA will last a lot longer than the current US President; America will always need and rely on agencies like the CIA, just as all other major countries do.
Bush will come to the end of his 2nd term soon, and when the new president comes into power they will replace the director and overhaul the CIA.

Military Intelligence is to intelligence what military music is to music.

Tuna Ghost: Pratt knot hero

00:17 / 25.05.06

Military Intelligence is to intelligence what military music is to music.

I'm not sure what you're trying to say here, but I have a feeling I'm not going to like it. There are a lot of talented musicians in the armed forces and some good military bands. Marches are fun pieces to play, too. Please elaborate?

STOATIE LIEKS CHOCOLATE MILK

15:31 / 25.05.06

Military music rocks. Those fucking snare rolls, man. They're ace.

17:51 / 26.05.06

Thankyou enrieb for an actual opinion, 'tis like getting blood out of a stone sometimes...

I agree that countries will have intelligence agencies and I hope that the CIA has some mileage left.

Megatron: Even anarchy will involve leadership and some competant leadership would be more beneficial by definition. Just because someone is giving orders and people are following them doesn't mean they are an effective leader.

And military music sucks - big time.

19:16 / 26.05.06

Even anarchy will involve leadership and some competant leadership would be more beneficial by definition

I'm not sure I agree. If there is a leadersip in anarchy, it is, at most, a moral leadership by example, which is as far as possible from the kind of leadership the CIA represents.

Plus, anarchy, aside, a competent leadership is indeed best... for the people in the group that's being lead and/or protected thereby. To others, aka enemies and/or innocent bystanders, it would not be beneficial. As a Latin American, I tend to associate CIA with supporting of military dictatorships and/or cocaine traffic, including tutoring on interrogation techniques (which is an euphemism for "torture"), all that "to fight the commies" (and now the "terrorists"), so you'll have to forgive my cynical skepticism.

In fact, I'm counting on the usual incompetence of the military on inteligence gathering to totally screw with those muthafuckas. But that's a personal thing, of course.

21:10 / 26.05.06

Can I just start by apologising to all the military music fans on barbelith. I took the quote from Groucho and changed it to apply to military intelligence.

Military music
"Military justice is to justice as military music is to music."
Attributed to Groucho Marx, George Clemenceau, and others

I would also like to apologize to ngsq12 for taking the thread off topic with that quote. It would be a shame to see this thread go off on a tangent over such a remark and If you are really offended by it I will try to get it edited out, just pm me. If anybody would like to discus the pros and cons of military music I could put together a thread in the Radio and Music fora, also just pm me and I will get to work on it.

Hopefully back on topic,

One of the problems we now face over the misuse of CIA intelligence in the run up to the war in Iraq is that Bush and Blair cried wolf and used some of the military intelligence to support their claims whilst disregarding other intelligence that did not support the course of action they were set upon.

I am aware that the above point has been made often before, but their cry of wolf has had the effect of then making it very difficult for us to believe them in the future when a new threat is identified. Can we trust the intelligence? Can we trust our leaders to read the intelligence critically?

Now we are being told there is a new threat from Iran, Even if there were evidence that this new threat was a credible one, would we believe it? And where does this leave the future security of our countries?

Tuna Ghost: Pratt knot hero

21:18 / 26.05.06

And military music sucks - big time.

I can't believe I'm actually wishing Flyboy would show up with a scathing, sarcastic and borderline hurful comment regarding lazy, general and uninformed opinions on music.

Enrieb's simile, at first glance, seems to me to be a comment I hear frequently (I admit that I could be reading it wrong). Too much organization can only hinder intelligence gathering and analysis, which is evident in the CIA's failure to prevent 9/11 or come up with accurate data on Iraq, and too much organization is bad for music, which is evident in military music.

As for the first part, I've heard several people say that the CIA tried to warn the administration but was mostly ignored, and also did come up with accurate information regarding Iraq of which only bits and pieces were used to bolster a preplanned strategy. Isn't that mentioned in the article linked to in the first post?

Obviously, too much organization is, by definition, too much to be useful, but I seriously doubt that nqsq12 or enrieb have any idea how much organization is too much. The comment sounded glib. The bad kind of glib.

And, nqsq12, I'd be much more inclined to take your opinions on military music seriously if you'd take the time to elaborate. Why not start a thread in the music forum? Unless, of course, it really was just a poorly thought out and generally useless comment, in which case we can forget that it ever happened and go on with business as usual.

Tuna Ghost: Pratt knot hero

21:21 / 26.05.06

cross-posted there. heheh. Knowing as I do now that the quote was from one of the Marx brothers, I would have responded differently (or probably not at all, actually).

Sorry, enrieb!

15:18 / 27.05.06

Post off topic if you like. I just like to get the ball rolling.

As for my statement on anarchy and leadership, I can see your point Megatron. However, anarchy means no government, not no leadership. Never-the-less, within the framework of today's hierachical organisations, I would still prefer good leadership to bad. The CIA can do as much damage when they "fuck things up" as when they complete a prior objective, it depends on what side you are on. Luckily I was fortunate to be incarnate within a more prosperous country, that is the luck of the draw I suppose.