See Afghanistan.
Getting more directly on track…
First off, the Cia was certainly involved in these; the extent of that involvement remains unknown. More to the point, Africa has been a basket case of civil wars and insurrections very nearly since the Europeans left. The Cia might have encouraged that a bit, but I highly doubt they altered it in any fundamental way. Essentialy the same wars would have been fought with or without them; I can’t particularly say its evil to support a bastard who likes you over an identical bastard who doesn’t.
Problematically, there is usually little choice. If we have a potential source about something useful to us the 3rd world, that source is probably criminal. Are they unreliable? Quite possibly, even probably. But they’re also usually the only ones we can get. In many of the nations of the world, being a good guy or a bad guy (as far as we’re concerned) is essentially a crime. How, for example, can we get intell on, say, Burma, when al the people who might symapthize with us (and vice versa) are de facto criminals according to the government?
I like the sound of that too much to argue against it. But doesn’t this in essence just shift black ops from the CIA to “black ops light” by the FBI? How would this reduce the possibility of misuse?
My problem with black ops is that nobody (including the “experts” who plan them) don’t know what will result from them! take the 1976 coup against the Makarios government in Cyprus. The (supposed) collusion of the Greek general’s regime with the CIA put a lot of innocent American citizens in danger! Several americans were MURDERED in Greece, because of the anger at the coup.
So, yes, I DON’T WANT a bunch of fools meddeling around in foreign countries…not to mention the vast harm that can result when the American people learn the truth.
Putting aside the fact that the CIA might not have actually been involved in the '74 coup (except for knowing it was going to happen and ignoring it), that’s true of most things, both in terms of foreign policy and domestic. It’s impossible to know for sure what the results of any policy will be.
:dubious: That “our son-of-a-bitch” kind of thinking led the U.S. to prop up the Trujillo regime in the Dominican Republic, Somoza in Nicaragua, Duvalier in Haiti, Marcos in the Philippines, etc., etc.
And that kind of thinking got us the Taliban, who evolved out of the Muhajedeen, who were fighting the Soviets and therefore “good guys.”
The FBI operates as a law enforcement agency, the Defense Department as a military force. Both follow laws, rules and traditions, inextricably bound up with how they conceive of their mission. The CIA follows no rules but its own warped institutional perceptions of expediency.
Furthermore – dealing with underground terrorists like al-Qaeda (as opposed to insurgents like the Ba’athists and Shi’ite militants in Iraq) is essentially a law-enforcement problem. It requires hunting them down, taking them into custody, interrogating them to find their contacts and repeating the process. FBI/police tactics are more effective – just ask the Weather Underground, the Symbionese Liberfation Army, and Timothy McVeigh. Using military tactics or black-ops tactics to deal with them is like firing a machine gun at a cloud of mosquitoes. A cloud of mosquitoes hovering between the gun and a crowd of innocent people.
The FBI is domestic, it operates under a set of laws developed by the same organization that directs them. The CIA is a foreign intelligence agency, operating in theatres where the rule of law is not controlled by the United States.
As a foreign agent, you can’t just “arrest” people in another state and haul them off to your country for trial. They have to be extradited, in which case you’d better hope the host nation feels inclined to do you a diplomatic favour or has already negotiated an extradition treaty with your administration. If not, you may have to deal with that country holding, torturing or freeing that prisoner against your wishes.
More than that, a foreign agent may not have any formal permission to conduct operations (clandestine or otherwise) in a given country. That means no legal means to engage in surveillance, arrest, detention, interrogation, assassination, etc. Countries that discover foreign agents operating secretly within their borders are usually pissed off. Can’t really put a good spin on that diplomatically.
Consider for a moment the commonly-held tenet of sovereignty: force monopoly. Sovereign governments have a monopoly on the use of force (police, military, etc). Most countries, including US allies, are not particularly interested in allowing American agents to have powers of arrest and detention that exist beyond that country’s control. This is an affront to their sovereignty, obviously.
So, how exactly does one protect American interests against threats when those threats reside in hostile countries, or countries that are uninterested in cooperating with American law enforcement officials? First of all, you can’t invade everyone who refuses to cooperate. Secondly, it is bad diplomatic form to openly flout another country’s sovereignty by conducting these operations overtly and without local government consent. It undermines the concept of sovereignty in general and introduces the potential for huge amounts of regional conflict.
That’s why you have to do these things in secret and handle them in a way that sometimes runs contrary to legal norms in the United States.
Yes. When the alternative is an identically bad person who dislikes us, I don’t particularly care. But moreover, I’m don’t care how things work out for other countries; if they were planning to suuport the Russians they had declared themselves for our enemies. Politics is a bee-atch and life ain’t fair. I don’t expect the Russians then or now care much about us.
That said, I dislike political tampering. It’s dangerous. When the stakes are high enough I’m willing to do almost anything.
(a) The CIA did not support Bin Laden himself; support for the Muhajadin was effective. I still agree with the decision to aid them, and history shows it worked. The vast majority were and are not particularly bad people, at least by their standards. Bin Laden simply proved to be more vicious and wealthier in getting results against other Muhajadin after the conflict with the Russians ended.
(b) You did not, in fact, rebut my point.
You just figured that out? In any case, you’re describing how the CIA conducts espionage. When it conducts black ops, political subversion, counterinsurgency, etc., on foreign soil (as in Iran and Chile), its agents usually are there either with the permission of the country’s government, or else with the support of a significant faction within that country. (See Frank McGehee’s account, above, of his experience ferreting out Communists in Thailand in the '60s.) It’s impossible to insert a significant number of agents on any other terms.
[QUOTE=smiling bandit]
But moreover, I’m don’t care how things work out for other countries . . .**
:dubious:
You do realize that attitude isn’t our government’s officially stated policy, don’t you?
You’re point was that it was naive for the Clinton Admin to rule out using “criminals” as CIA intelligence sources because it is practically necessary to do so. I’m not sure dissidents, as such, who might be considered “criminals” by their governments, are necessarily covered by that rule. As for more ordinary “criminals” – some local equivalent of the Mafia – really, what reliable intelligence could be obtained from them? And how could it justify helping them build up their criminal empires and prey on their compatriots? Especially considering the damage to our precious international reputation when it gets out the CIA is in cahoots with the local crime gangs.
Obviously. They’re either working with a government to advance US interests or against a government by backing another faction that does serve US interests. Either way, they’re fulfilling their mandate. The CIA won’t do something unless there are indications that the action will promote/preserve American interests. It still doesn’t change the fact that black ops are sanctioned by political levels, not bureaucratic ones. You can’t blame the CIA for toppling governments if the signoff comes from the President. That’s like blaming the US Army for going to Iraq and toppling Saddam. They’re just ops people. You also can’t blame them for not being psychic, since they’re constantly risk managing the entire world.
There are no “good guys”, there are aligned interests. Good is predictable, bad is unpredictable. If a local druglord can help the CIA catch an anti-US terrorist, why should they give a shit about what the druglord is doing during off hours? What is the priority for them? Not local policing.
That’s my point. Our political leaders should be insulated, by law and by defunding, from the tempation to misuse the CIA. Using it for anything but espionage is misusing it.
Why, because eliminating black ops is the “right thing” to do? People will adjust their tolerance for disturbing shit quite quickly when confronted with serious threats. Current public opinion suggests that intel/security agencies will not only be given more latitude, they will receive huge amounts of funding to reorganize and retain necessary expertise. That you in particular have a problem with CIA methods is irrelevant, unfortunately.
Laws can be struck down or amended, funding can be reallocated, organizations can be rebuilt. There is no permanent way to restrain black ops.
(bolding mine)
BrainGlutton, I disagree that using those agencies for anything other than gathering information is a misuse. But I think you struck the nail on the head with the portion I bolded in your quote. Your politicians should be kept accountable. Do you want to eliminate the possibility of a president ordering a black op mission based on some deluded concern or political agenda? Then one such way would be to eliminate the presidential pardon. Your nation has rules and one of the best judicial systems in the world. Why operations like Iran Contra are allowed to pass without anyone being held accountable should be unconscionable to the American public. And a president who is aware that his actions could land him behind bars will think very long and hard about granting permission for a black op without a very good justification.