Spies Who Came In Cold
It?s covert ops weekend at the Washington Post and the Los Angeles Times. The Post has a story (the first in a two-parter) on how the C.I.A. tried to capture Osama bin Laden during the Clinton years, though the effort was blocked by uncertainty, a lack of reliable information and policy disagreements.
On the front lines in Pakistan and Central Asia, working-level CIA officers felt they had a rare, urgent sense of the menace bin Laden posed before Sept. 11. Yet a number of controversial proposals to attack bin Laden were turned down by superiors at Langley or the White House, who feared the plans were poorly developed, wouldn?t work or would embroil the United States in Afghanistan?s then-obscure civil war. At other times, plans to track or attack bin Laden were delayed or watered down after stalemated debates inside Clinton?s national security cabinet.
The Times examines the C.I.A.?s efforts in Iraq, and emphasizes the agency is facing great difficulty, to the extent that it replaced its Baghdad bureau chief last December. The story also reports: ?The CIA?s Baghdad station has become the largest in agency history [perhaps over 500 people], eclipsing the size of its post in Saigon at the height of the Vietnam War, a U.S. official said. But sources said the agency has struggled to fill a number of key overseas posts.?
The pessimism was felt by one former station chief in the Middle East: ?They claim that they?ve rebuilt the [clandestine service] and it?s firing on all cylinders. Is it? I would say not. Not if you don't have trained manpower.?
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
I think the problem with the C.I.A. is that it is the
CENTRAL Intelligence Agency. The C.I.A was created at the end of the 1940's near the peak of the mania for big bureaucracy. It's just another huge hierarchal centrally managed organization prone to all the faults inherent in such an organization like group think, institutional inertia and proactive ass covering.
We need de-Centralized Intelligence Agencies, multiple and somewhat competing organizations that can analyze information more quickly and with fresher eyes.
We need de-Centralized Intelligence Agencies, multiple and somewhat competing organizations that can analyze information more quickly and with fresher eyes.
We have and have had those agencies. That's why CIA was created. It's actually small compared to others.
Well, whether the CIA has the power to even pursue covert operations is still debated; its charter does not specifically allow for such, for example, and early CIA attorneys argued that the CIA had no such power.
D Anghelone is right; and Shannon Love is acting like the uninformed once again.
Anyway, ask Andrew, he knows all about trade craft and that other CIA spook stuff. 🙂
MI5 plans recruitment drive for Arabic speakers:
http://www.iht.com/articles/130699.html
Don't feel bad America; you are not the only one with spook problems. 🙂
Anyway, ask Andrew, he knows all about trade craft and that other CIA spook stuff.
Good. He can explain the role of DIA and its constituents. 🙂