I just finished a book about the final months of WWII in French Indochina, when Roosevelt was wondering what to do. The OSS (per-CIA intelligence agency) send an army captain (Archimedes Patti) to Hanoi to analyze the situation, and report back to the president. From what I read, Patti was hopelessly compromised in this situation-he was given no authority, and he was being opposed by three other groups-the French 9who wanted to atke over once the Japanese left), the Vietnam Independence Organization (represented by Ho Chi Minh), the Chinese Nationalists,etc.
Reading further, the OSS was set up by a Wall Street lawyer (William Donovan) who had been a WWI army officer. While a skilled lawyer, he knew next to nothing about spying-and he enlisted the help of the (British MI-6). This meant that the CIA was infiltrated from the start by British Intelligence, who fed them stuff the British Government wanted them to hear.
The confusion over what was the US role in Indochina led to the Vietnam War.
In addition, the CIA’s incompetence went further…in the 1950’s, it participated in a coup against the Arbentz Government. In Cuba, its bugling resulted in the failed “Bay of Pigs” operation-nothing went right. It also allowed Haitian dictator Papa Doc Duvalier to run a regime of terror and murder, under the guise of anti-communism.
So, was the CIA compromised from the start? Its underpinnings appeared to be amateurish and politically directed. Or am I wrong?
Based on what I’ve read, the one and only success of the CIA in the last 50 years is to convince the American people they have had any success at all. Of course, the research arm of the CIA gathers and creates tons of useful information, I’m talking about the operations side. We throw a whole lot of money at drunken ex-pats and hope something useful comes of it while the leaders back home make up stories out of whole cloth, hide any of their failings behind “national security” and claim credit for anything good that happens in the world whether they had anything to do with it or not. We spend a lot of money for boozy vacations abroad for our secret agents with little or nothing to show for it.
That said, after WWII we found ourselves in the position of being THE world power. We had a lot of experienced people overseas with which to create a professional, world wide intelligence service. It was a great opportunity to do something useful, squandered IMO.
The history of the CIA seems to be one of missed opportunities and blunders from not anticipating the collapse of the Soviet Union to arming Muslim fanatics who would morph into the Taliban. I think it is clear that they cause more harm than do good. They always manage to fall back on the lie that “we can’t tell you about our successes,” but I think they believe that one themselves.
What I don’t understand is that in the modern world of the internet and cheap flights, why does the CIA still depend on basically credentialed buffoons to tell it whats going on in a foreign nation?
One plausible answer I have seen is political infighting.
One could argue that the CIA has had a great number of successes for certain definitions of success. Our arming of muslim fanatics helped bring about the downfall of the Soviet Union. Our support for loathsome regimes in Latin America kept the Communists out, which was the objective of the CIA in the first place. Is the cure worse than the disease? Probably.
If the claim is that all our case officers are a bunch of ineffective drunks, I would like to see a cite.
I think you guys are confusing the CIA’s activities with the United States Cold War priorities.
For instance, eliminating Patrice Lumumba or reinstalling the Shah were CIA successes. That this wasn’t in the United States’ long term interests is hardly their jurisdiction.
But yeah, grude is probably on point, political infighting severely limits their effectiveness.