4 ms·

Couple of points you say "no other country" but Russia and China are definitely engaged in both. Quite frankly it's probably only a matter of time until India

by hpoe 5y ago

Couple of points you say "no other country" but Russia and China are definitely engaged in both. Quite frankly it's probably only a matter of time until India develops them as well. The fact of the matter is all our history, doctrine, tactics, and studying come from living in a bi-polar world. We aren't living in the 1940's or the Cold War, we are living in the early 1900's and we need to start studying that time to understand how to navigate and succeed in a multi-polar world (Russia, China, US, India?), or we will be fighting a trench war, while the enemy comes in with tanks and machine guns.

sudosysgen 5y ago
As far as I know both the MSS and the FSB are pretty solidly subordinate to the rest of their government. The US is not playing to suceed in a multipolar world. The US is playing to maintain hegemony, ie, a monopolar world. All US strategy I've seen so far, especially economic, is focused on creating two spheres of power with the US being at the helm of the dominant one.
- jolux 5y ago
  What makes you think the CIA isn’t subordinate to the rest of the government? And moreover, what does being subordinate to the government mean when that government is a dictatorship?
  - sudosysgen 5y ago
    The CIA has literally invaded another country by lying and deceiving the entire executive branch. That's clear cut evidence they aren't practically subordinate to the rest of the government. Dictatorships might not be elected, they still have structure and procedure. If the Chinese MSS obeys the Politburo and doesn't withhold information from them, then they are subordinate to the government.
    - jolux 5y ago
      > The CIA has literally invaded another country by lying and deceiving the entire executive branch. When? > Dictatorships might not be elected, they still have structure and procedure. If the Chinese MSS obeys the Politburo and doesn't withhold information from them, then they are subordinate to the government. I think you vastly overestimate the efficiency of authoritarian bureaucracies. Much has been written about this, there is a strong taboo directly against sharing information because sharing the wrong information can have lethal consequences. Authoritarian governments are marred from top to bottom by problems caused by friction in sharing information, and subsequent Balkanization.
      - sudosysgen 5y ago
        I'm talking about the Bay of Pigs invasion. You can criticize the efficiency of authoritarian governments. That doesn't have much to do with their structure. Sure, the MSS may have some issues with command, though there is no evidence for them so far, but they are still subordinate to their hierarchy. Besides, we're in 2021 now, data issues are a lot easier to audit in these situations.
        jolux 5y ago
        Bay of Pigs was before the Church committee, do you know the history of intelligence reform in the 1970s? As for authoritarian governments, and their intelligence agencies, it’s not so much about “efficiency” in a technocratic sense so much as it is that I see no reason to believe that the government is in full control of them. How would we know if they weren’t? Authoritarians project an image of total control that often papers over a reality of internal disorder and dysfunction. We know, for example, that there was at least a brief coverup of the COVID-19 pandemic in China, just recently, to say nothing of the more famous examples, like Chernobyl.
        sudosysgen 5y ago
        The temporary coverup of the pandemic was done by a local branch of the CCP. The coverup of Tchernobyl was done by the CPSU itself. The internal disorder was a matter of dealing with a bad situation more than antyhing else. You would know if the CCP wasn't in control of the MSS or if the CPSU wasn't in control of the KGB if documents were leaking, if people were being assassinated, and so on. But as far as anyone can tell the opposite happened, and the Politburo got rid of Zhou Yongkang, the removal by Deng Xiaoping of Luo Qingchang, and so on, there is a clear pattern of heads of the MSS being removed and changed by the Politburo when they step out of line or don't follow the direction of the government, and so on. This isn't unique to China, by the way. The French also keep a much tighter leach on their intelligence agencies, first by separating domestic activities from foreign activities, and then by putting them tightly in the control of the Ministry of the Interior for the first and the military for the second, affording them very little latitude. The Church committee made a lot of things public, but as far as how things were done in the CIA there weren't much big changes. There are credible reports that the Church committee even covered up the worst of it, see the reporting by Carl Bernstein. And we know that many things the Church committee supposedly addressed, such as direct involvement by the IC into domestic politics, did not actually stop.
- baybal2 5y ago
  > FSB are pretty solidly subordinate to the rest of their government. A strange statement. Putin was put in power by it. If I were Yelzin, I would've ordered firing squads for every KGB officer above a major.
  - sudosysgen 5y ago
    Putin wasn't put in power by the FSB. He was put in power by the oligarchs. Certainly during the unstable period between 1991 and 2006 more or less the FSB had considerable influence however, but that has since been resolved. Beforethen the KGB was not afforded much lattitude. The only time I can think of where the KGB attempted to go against the wishes of the government above them was in 1964, but even then they needed support from within the Politburo and still failed miserably. Yeltsin had no choice but to collaborate with the KGB if he wanted them to execute his machinations. The rogue elements from the KGB were the reason why Yeltsin was in power to begin with. Without the KGB he would never have been able to illegally arrest Gorbachev and execute a coup.
    - baybal2 5y ago
      > Without the KGB he would never have been able to illegally arrest Gorbachev and execute a coup. I read many books on events 1990-1993. Even the two soldiers who were guarding the door when Yelzin was arresting his cabinet were hand picked through a very tight network of loyalists in the most extreme secrecy. They had an order "see anybody resembling KGB? Fire at will" It's a grandiose conspiracy theory of CPSU holdouts that "KGB subverted the Union!" I will believe more that Trump Donald was a communist spy, than KGB nibbling at hand that fed, and protected it from decimation at the hands everybody wanting to return the favour.
      - sudosysgen 5y ago
        By 1991 a good portion of the CPSU had become ideologically aligned with Yeltsin. KGB officials saw the writing on the wall, and saved his ass. He knew this very well. If he directly went against the part of the KGB that supported him he would die. And yes, the KGB subverted the Soviet Union by removing Gorbachev. This is obvious to anyone that has any understanding of history. Removing Gorbachev could not have been anything less. So yes, I will persist, the only reason why Yeltsin was able to gain power is because a significant faction of the KGB supported him - though not at the very highest level - while the leadership was against Gorbachev. That is to say, thanks to the KGB.
johnknowles 5y ago
While other countries engage to some degree, I'm attempting to be hyperbolic to emphasize the sheer difference between US and them, which often (as it is now) gets downplayed and filtered out. How, in the face of being presented with a list of evils the world over, are we all (us Americans) not prostrate in shame? Why do we search for some other vestige of evil to make rational our actions? There is no rationality to the atrocities. There is no "other countries". There is US, and there is evil that must be admitted and atoned for.
- MikeUt 5y ago
  > How, in the face of being presented with a list of evils the world over, are we all (us Americans) not prostrate in shame? You're asking Americans to feel shame for the actions of an unelected agency that has subverted their democracy? And lied to them and hid those actions? Americans, as a whole, should be ashamed, not just the CIA? Do you also demand Russians feel guilty for allowing Stalin to take power?
  - johnknowles 5y ago
    Yes, we should feel deep shame. We have benefitted from this for years, with lives of convenience, at the expense and exploit of millions of our brethren worldwide. It would only be naturally American to attempt to distance ourselves, to say its "just" the CIA, not us. But it is our greed, our demand for cheaper and faster, our uncaring nature to the extractive business practices that push the CIA into action. We are complicit, every one of us, and it is only after we admit this that we can start to change. Its not about burying our heads in the sand in shame, but about understanding what we are benefitting from and having a heart for the millions pushed down to push you, as an American, up. I don't care about the Russians. That's their problem. I'm an American. This is MY problem.
    - MikeUt 5y ago
      > But it is our greed, our demand for cheaper and faster, our uncaring nature to the extractive business practices that push the CIA into action. Evocative rhetoric, that falls apart upon examination. Is it your claim that if only most Americans bought fair-trade coffee instead of the cheap stuff, the CIA would start to behave? What about Americans that voted for politicians and presidents that promised fewer wars, or to clean up the deep state? Are they absolved of this guilt? The CCP's tactic is to conflate criticism of the Party with criticism of the Chinese people and China itself, so that when the Party is attacked, the Chinese will also feel attacked, and rush to its defense. You are doing the same for the CIA.

by hpoe 5y ago

sudosysgen 5y ago

As far as I know both the MSS and the FSB are pretty solidly subordinate to the rest of their government. The US is not playing to suceed in a multipolar world. The US is playing to maintain hegemony, ie, a monopolar world. All US strategy I've seen so far, especially economic, is focused on creating two spheres of power with the US being at the helm of the dominant one.

jolux 5y ago
What makes you think the CIA isn’t subordinate to the rest of the government? And moreover, what does being subordinate to the government mean when that government is a dictatorship?
- sudosysgen 5y ago
  The CIA has literally invaded another country by lying and deceiving the entire executive branch. That's clear cut evidence they aren't practically subordinate to the rest of the government. Dictatorships might not be elected, they still have structure and procedure. If the Chinese MSS obeys the Politburo and doesn't withhold information from them, then they are subordinate to the government.
  - jolux 5y ago
    > The CIA has literally invaded another country by lying and deceiving the entire executive branch. When? > Dictatorships might not be elected, they still have structure and procedure. If the Chinese MSS obeys the Politburo and doesn't withhold information from them, then they are subordinate to the government. I think you vastly overestimate the efficiency of authoritarian bureaucracies. Much has been written about this, there is a strong taboo directly against sharing information because sharing the wrong information can have lethal consequences. Authoritarian governments are marred from top to bottom by problems caused by friction in sharing information, and subsequent Balkanization.
    - sudosysgen 5y ago
      I'm talking about the Bay of Pigs invasion. You can criticize the efficiency of authoritarian governments. That doesn't have much to do with their structure. Sure, the MSS may have some issues with command, though there is no evidence for them so far, but they are still subordinate to their hierarchy. Besides, we're in 2021 now, data issues are a lot easier to audit in these situations.
      - jolux 5y ago
        Bay of Pigs was before the Church committee, do you know the history of intelligence reform in the 1970s? As for authoritarian governments, and their intelligence agencies, it’s not so much about “efficiency” in a technocratic sense so much as it is that I see no reason to believe that the government is in full control of them. How would we know if they weren’t? Authoritarians project an image of total control that often papers over a reality of internal disorder and dysfunction. We know, for example, that there was at least a brief coverup of the COVID-19 pandemic in China, just recently, to say nothing of the more famous examples, like Chernobyl.
        sudosysgen 5y ago
        The temporary coverup of the pandemic was done by a local branch of the CCP. The coverup of Tchernobyl was done by the CPSU itself. The internal disorder was a matter of dealing with a bad situation more than antyhing else. You would know if the CCP wasn't in control of the MSS or if the CPSU wasn't in control of the KGB if documents were leaking, if people were being assassinated, and so on. But as far as anyone can tell the opposite happened, and the Politburo got rid of Zhou Yongkang, the removal by Deng Xiaoping of Luo Qingchang, and so on, there is a clear pattern of heads of the MSS being removed and changed by the Politburo when they step out of line or don't follow the direction of the government, and so on. This isn't unique to China, by the way. The French also keep a much tighter leach on their intelligence agencies, first by separating domestic activities from foreign activities, and then by putting them tightly in the control of the Ministry of the Interior for the first and the military for the second, affording them very little latitude. The Church committee made a lot of things public, but as far as how things were done in the CIA there weren't much big changes. There are credible reports that the Church committee even covered up the worst of it, see the reporting by Carl Bernstein. And we know that many things the Church committee supposedly addressed, such as direct involvement by the IC into domestic politics, did not actually stop.
baybal2 5y ago
> FSB are pretty solidly subordinate to the rest of their government. A strange statement. Putin was put in power by it. If I were Yelzin, I would've ordered firing squads for every KGB officer above a major.
- sudosysgen 5y ago
  Putin wasn't put in power by the FSB. He was put in power by the oligarchs. Certainly during the unstable period between 1991 and 2006 more or less the FSB had considerable influence however, but that has since been resolved. Beforethen the KGB was not afforded much lattitude. The only time I can think of where the KGB attempted to go against the wishes of the government above them was in 1964, but even then they needed support from within the Politburo and still failed miserably. Yeltsin had no choice but to collaborate with the KGB if he wanted them to execute his machinations. The rogue elements from the KGB were the reason why Yeltsin was in power to begin with. Without the KGB he would never have been able to illegally arrest Gorbachev and execute a coup.
  - baybal2 5y ago
    > Without the KGB he would never have been able to illegally arrest Gorbachev and execute a coup. I read many books on events 1990-1993. Even the two soldiers who were guarding the door when Yelzin was arresting his cabinet were hand picked through a very tight network of loyalists in the most extreme secrecy. They had an order "see anybody resembling KGB? Fire at will" It's a grandiose conspiracy theory of CPSU holdouts that "KGB subverted the Union!" I will believe more that Trump Donald was a communist spy, than KGB nibbling at hand that fed, and protected it from decimation at the hands everybody wanting to return the favour.
    - sudosysgen 5y ago
      By 1991 a good portion of the CPSU had become ideologically aligned with Yeltsin. KGB officials saw the writing on the wall, and saved his ass. He knew this very well. If he directly went against the part of the KGB that supported him he would die. And yes, the KGB subverted the Soviet Union by removing Gorbachev. This is obvious to anyone that has any understanding of history. Removing Gorbachev could not have been anything less. So yes, I will persist, the only reason why Yeltsin was able to gain power is because a significant faction of the KGB supported him - though not at the very highest level - while the leadership was against Gorbachev. That is to say, thanks to the KGB.

johnknowles 5y ago

While other countries engage to some degree, I'm attempting to be hyperbolic to emphasize the sheer difference between US and them, which often (as it is now) gets downplayed and filtered out. How, in the face of being presented with a list of evils the world over, are we all (us Americans) not prostrate in shame? Why do we search for some other vestige of evil to make rational our actions? There is no rationality to the atrocities. There is no "other countries". There is US, and there is evil that must be admitted and atoned for.

MikeUt 5y ago
> How, in the face of being presented with a list of evils the world over, are we all (us Americans) not prostrate in shame? You're asking Americans to feel shame for the actions of an unelected agency that has subverted their democracy? And lied to them and hid those actions? Americans, as a whole, should be ashamed, not just the CIA? Do you also demand Russians feel guilty for allowing Stalin to take power?
- johnknowles 5y ago
  Yes, we should feel deep shame. We have benefitted from this for years, with lives of convenience, at the expense and exploit of millions of our brethren worldwide. It would only be naturally American to attempt to distance ourselves, to say its "just" the CIA, not us. But it is our greed, our demand for cheaper and faster, our uncaring nature to the extractive business practices that push the CIA into action. We are complicit, every one of us, and it is only after we admit this that we can start to change. Its not about burying our heads in the sand in shame, but about understanding what we are benefitting from and having a heart for the millions pushed down to push you, as an American, up. I don't care about the Russians. That's their problem. I'm an American. This is MY problem.
  - MikeUt 5y ago
    > But it is our greed, our demand for cheaper and faster, our uncaring nature to the extractive business practices that push the CIA into action. Evocative rhetoric, that falls apart upon examination. Is it your claim that if only most Americans bought fair-trade coffee instead of the cheap stuff, the CIA would start to behave? What about Americans that voted for politicians and presidents that promised fewer wars, or to clean up the deep state? Are they absolved of this guilt? The CCP's tactic is to conflate criticism of the Party with criticism of the Chinese people and China itself, so that when the Party is attacked, the Chinese will also feel attacked, and rush to its defense. You are doing the same for the CIA.