What are the CIA's top 3 historical successes?

I’m not a CIA basher per se, since I assume most of them are patriotic guys who try hard. I just can’t really recall them doing anything positive in my lifetime. I do recall them ordering the bombing of the Chinese embassy in Belgrade during the Serbian campaign, and they took out a pharmaceutical plant in the Sudan. Both were horrible mistakes. They swung and missed on WMDs in Iraq, haven’t found bin Laden, didn’t let us know about 9-11 beforehand, and they didn’t come close to predicting the fall of the Soviet Union.

What exactly has the CIA done in its history that is positive?

Probably lots of things that will never be known to the public precisely because they were successful, and they want to be able to repeat those successes. Think about it.

Not convinced- there are leakers all over the CIA who let newspaper reporters know this or that about a politician they want to damage. You think the CIA wouldn’t leak any major successes they have had in recent years, with all the heat they’ve been getting?

What are the big three police successes?

The CIA’s main role is gathering intelligence not discrediting foreign politicians. The big successes will be things like insights into what foreign countries are planning. Those things will not get publicized in specific detail.

Depends what value of “success” you’re looking for, and whose definition of the word is most important to you.

The CIA’s assistance in overthrowing the democratically-elected governments of Iran (1953), Guatemala (1954) and Chile (1973) was, no doubt, considered a success by the people who did it.

That’s three historical successes right there.

Kicking the Soviets out of Afghanistan and overthrowing Iran’s democratically elected government in 1953 were both regarded as high points in the CIA’s history.

Neither of those statements, as phrased, are anywhere near accurate.

Also, questions of "what are the biggest successes of… " are matters of opinion, as it isn’t like the CIA/US Government/Microsoft/Harvard Business School sits around and authoritatively establishes the best things those institutions have ever done.

But there certainly are successes. Here are three more:

  1. At the Abyss - Wikipedia
  2. Detecting the Soviet missiles being placed in Cuba
  3. Exploiting Oleg Penkovsky for information (relates to the Cuban missile thing

Suppose that the CIA just figured out how the entire Al Qaeda organization operates. If they tell the public then Al Qaeda would just change their operations and the whole thing would quickly turn into a failure.

You’ll need to give a couple of cites for “leakers all over the CIA”. I do not remember the CIA leaking anything. Valerie Plame was exposed by the civilian government. CIA torture practices were exposed by Obama releasing the memos. When did people from within the CIA ever leak out a failure?

Leaking out a success would probably get them in even more trouble for exposing state secrets.

Yes they are:

The CIA itself admitted it screwed up by ordering the Belgrade bombing, the one and only sortie tasked by the CIA during the entire Serbian campaign:

The CIA’s new annual report to Congress says the accidental bombing of the Chinese embassy in Belgrade in May 1999 was “a painful wake-up call.”

  • end quote -

As for the Sudan bombing, there is no evidence that it was producing chemical weapons, which seems like a requisite for bombing the hell out of a pharmaceutical plant:

The U.S. State Department Bureau of Intelligence and Research wrote a report in 1999 questioning the attack on the factory, suggesting that the connection to bin Laden was not accurate; James Risen reported in the New York Times: “Now, the analysts renewed their doubts and told Assistant Secretary of State Phyllis Oakley that the C.I.A.'s evidence on which the attack was based was inadequate. Ms. Oakley asked them to double-check; perhaps there was some intelligence they had not yet seen. The answer came back quickly: There was no additional evidence. Ms. Oakley called a meeting of key aides and a consensus emerged: Contrary to what the Administration was saying, the case tying Al Shifa to Mr. bin Laden or to chemical weapons was weak.”[5]

The CIA didn’t “order the bombing” in Belgrade, nor did it “take out” the pharmaceutical plant.

Pinning those failures on the CIA is like saying that the reason a football team didn’t win the Super Bowl can be pinned on the quarterback: well, maybe the QB sucked, but he was only one part of the team.

More on the 1980s tech sabotage-- fascinating stuff:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4394002

Also, CORONA: CORONA (satellite) - Wikipedia

This one is probably better suited to somewhere like Great Debates. Moved.

samclem Moderator, General Questions

Well, the CIA *could *tell you what their three top successes are, but then… well, you probably know the rest

Saying that the CIA is useless because of a few botched events is like saying the police is useless because of WACO or Rodney King.

Their jobs aren’t just taking down one thing… its mainly keeping an information net up. Disruptions and other things are also part of the job.

My favorite line from futurama:
“When you do things right, people won’t be sure you’ve done anything at all”

I think their assistance in helping the Philippines fight off a Communist insurgency counts as a success.

Of course, they tried to repeat this strategy in Vietnam, but totally failed.

However a reading of the history of the CIA makes depressing reading e.g Tim Weiner’s “Legacy of Ashes” you get the strong impression besides the above “successes” (which many people regard as imperialist oppression) the CIA never

  1. predicted any major world event before it happened (information was supposed to be their main raison d’etre)
  2. Sponsored or helped many many major botched operations (Bay of Pigs/Castro assassinations, failed coups, Iran Contra etc)
  3. Wasted billions in bureaucracy, corruption and inefficiencies
  4. Had any useful non-compromised spy ever in any communist country.

and any success was often due to luck rather than skill.

Sad rather than scary

What qualifies as a “success” is highly subjective; some of the operations that came off as planned at the time had some serious repercussions in terms of both the reputation and strategic goals of the United States. If I were going to cite three programs that were successful and positive bore fruit, I would point at the Big Bird" and “Key Hole” surveillance satellite programs, the U-2 and A-12 reconnaissance aircraft programs (the latter of which spawned the USAF’s SR-71 ‘Blackbird’), and the three cornered deal that delivered weapons via Operation Cycloneto the Afghan Mujaheddin which permitted effective resistance to the Soviet Army, dragging the Soviets into a strategic and political morass. (Of course, the latter has to be qualified by recent events, although that had more to do with the abandonment of Afghanistan once it served Western purposes.)

While it is a popular claim that the CIA wouldn’t publish their successes and emphasizes failures to make them appear ineffectual as subterfuge is not supported by the evidence. In fact, always a political agency, the CIA has been often all too willing to present information on successful operations to leaktastical Congressmembers and their staffs, often later to their regret. The CIA’s humint efforts and assessment of foreign governments or parties has often been an unqualified disaster. The notoriously paranoid counterintelligence operations chief Jesus James Angleton widely shared information with Kim Philby, and in the decade following Philby’s defection and the reveal of the Cambridge Five he nearly ripped the Operations Directorate of the CIA completely apart in apparently baseless molehunts. In regard to the three major military/strategic conflicts during the Cold War (Korea, Indochina, and the Soviet Union) CIA analysis, intelligence, and interpretation was consistently wrong, misleading, or indeterminate.

This is, of course, the standard problem for all intelligence organizations, but the CIA has a particularly bad record in this regard, and their failures in understanding the situation on the ground in Iran preceding and during the fall of the Shah puts the final nail in the coffin of any reputation for competence the CIA might have; while major foreign news organizations were predicting a fall of the Shah and rise of an Islamic fundamentalist government (the BBC called this almost to the day) the CIA was continuing to insist to Carter that all was well. The same occurred with Grenada.

The CIA is the typical American bureaucracy; bloated, politically motivated, full of stomachs and short on brains. The tailored intelligence about WMDs provided to the W. Bush Administration justifying the invasion of Iraq wasn’t an anomaly, but standard business. SecDef Robert McNamara actually recommended restructuring the CIA to place the intelligence gathering aspects under the Justice and State Departments, and the analysis and interpretation back to the military services, akin to the far more effective Defense Intelligence Agency clearinghouse. Johnson wouldn’t buy into this, however, and as a result we had the pointless “Secret Wars” in Laos and Cambodia that did nothing but further degrade America’s reputation and increase support for Communist insurgency.

The movie I’ve seen that best portrays the CIA is Burn After Reading, although The Good Shepherd probably comes close.

[indent]CIA Superior: What did we learn, Palmer?
CIA Officer: I don’t know, sir.
CIA Superior: I don’t fuckin’ know either. I guess we learned not to do it again.
CIA Officer: Yes, sir.
CIA Superior: I’m fucked if I know what we did.
CIA Officer: Yes, sir, it’s, uh, hard to say
CIA Superior: Jesus Fucking Christ. [/indent]

Stranger

I am of the firm opinion that Legacy of Ashes is disinformation. True, but omitting significant detail and events. I know I ran into at least three historical points where I went ‘Waaait. They just didn’t mention something there.’ I don’t remember what they were, sadly, but I know that book left serious amounts of stuff unsaid.

I don’t find either of these statements supported by the facts.
I cannot find any reference to the CIA ordering an airstrike in Belgrade as alleged by the OP. Certainly the information used by DMA (now NGA) to produce the maps used in the mission was provided by the CIA. But I don’t see anywhere in the cite where the CIA says they had anything to do with the strike itself.

And as for the Sudanese factory bombing, the quote provided by the OP contradicts his assertion. No one, including the CIA, contends that the information used was strong, but no one except the OP contends that it was non-existent. Chemical analysis of soil samples collected near the plant revealed traces of a nerve gas precursor. It was a weak and mistaken decision to base an air strike on that one piece of information. But while the erroneous conclusion was reached by the CIA, the decision to attack the plant was made by the administration and approved by the President.