12 ms·
Has the CIA Done More Harm Than Good?
- laszlojamf 4y agoA bit tangential to the actual article, but this is the first time I've seen preëminence and reëlected in writing. Is that a correct spelling? Does that work for all vowels?
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- Gordonjcp 4y agoYes and no. It's not strictly speaking correct but in French a diaeresis above a vowel means it's separate from the preceding one. Think about the car maker Citroën, "Sit-roh-en" rather than "Sit-rohn". So if you squint a bit it describes the noise the word makes accurately but it's not how you'd write it in English.
- hugh-avherald 4y agoI think the only English words where it is widely used are Noël and naïve (which obviously come from French).
- laszlojamf 4y agohttps://www.grammarly.com/blog/diaeresis/ https://www.grammarly.com/blog/diaeresis/ Could have googled that first I guess...
- carabiner 4y agoThey've discussed this: https://www.newyorker.com/culture/culture-desk/the-curse-of-the-diaeresis https://www.newyorker.com/culture/culture-desk/the-curse-of-...
- tho2ui34234 4y agoThat you even need to ask the question is shocking.
- marginalia_nu 4y agoDunno, I'm always wary when something appears too self-evident to investigate. That's usually when there is a lot more nuance than I'm aware of.
- dr_dshiv 4y agoJust read about their involvement in Guatemala. So sad! So many democratic governments toppled for stupid, selfish, shortsighted reasons.
- refurb 4y agoMeh.. the CIA loves to toot its own horn. Look at the Bay of Pigs failure. The CIA is not some omnipotent power that topples stable countries via a few quite words while enjoying cigars and brandy. The CIA doesn’t topple regimens itself, it backs locals who do. Not that different than what the US is doing in Ukraine right now. Not “toppling” this time, rather “backing” and last I checked lots of Americans seem to approve of our meddling. My take is you either shit or get off the pot. The US decides to either “meddle” in other countries or not. If you decide to “meddle”, well, you also need to accept that things can go sideways and the locals and the US end up in a worse situation than if they avoided getting involved in the first place. Unless you have a crystal ball, nobody can tell what the outcome of meddling will be.
- rendall 4y ago> Not that different than what the US is doing in the Ukraine right now. No. I know that we Americans are bone-weary of war. I know that there is a sector of industry and enabling politicians who will always be keen for more war. I know that Russia has been a scapegoat for American political failures. No. This war is different. It is a genocidal, expansionist invasion from the last old-school, colonialist empire in Europe, and it has the potential to end our current era of unprecedented peace and prosperity. Russia must be defeated not appeased, and Russian mafia leaders must be brought to trial for breaking international law. Anything other than that outcome will lead to instability for generations.
- refurb 4y agoNo. This war is different. It is a genocidal, expansionist invasion from the last old-school, colonialist empire in Europe, and it has the potential to end our current era of peace. I have no doubt that very similar arguments were made for every single involvement of the US in other countries politics. "If we don't stop [insert country] from doing [insert action] then we're not only risking the security of the US, but also regional and global stability." Rinse and repeat. And hey, it might be a worthy cause for the US to get involved. Or we may fuck it up entirely and make the situation far worse than if we had just stayed out.
- KingOfCoders 4y agoHahaha. Just read "WHITEOUT" (not my spelling).
- boomboomsubban 4y agoIt's strange to see what is in essence a handful of book reviews turned into an article with such a contentious title. Little of the article is actually about whether the CIA does more harm than good, and they don't even try to draw a conclusion on the matter. Wow, Rhodri Jeffreys-Jones' hot takes sound insane. Rice was a warmonger because her ancestors were slaves?
- LatteLazy 4y agoIf you read the wikipedia page (1), there are 37 sub sections under history. Almost every one is a total failure, both from an international and a purely US-interests view. Some of the biggest threats to US interests today (Iran, Pakistan, North Korea) and biggest embarrassments (Cuba) are the direct result of the CIA bungling. Few other institutions could survive even 1 such farce. One has to wonder, if the CIA continues because no one has noticed such incompetence. Or if there is some more sinister reason... 1: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Central_Intelligence_Agency https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Central_Intelligence_Agency
- rougka 4y agoThis only looks at failures as it is very hard to attribute success in such cases. For example you list North Korea as a failure, but American involvement there is the only reason why South Korea exists and we don’t have one giant North Korea. The fact of the matter is that the Cold War was won, and the CIA was a major part of it. You could analyze every coup that was started in Latin America as a mistake, but you can’t really say what was the alternative
- sofixa 4y ago> but American involvement there is the only reason why South Korea exists and we don’t have one giant North Korea. True, but nobody knows how a unified communist Korea would have turned out. Without a direct threat at their border and an easy bad gut to point the finger at, they might have progressively opened up à la Vietnam (the closest comparison we have).
- rougka 4y agoCould be, although Vietnam was fundamentally different than North Korea. Even if you compare Korea to Vietnam, it is highly unlikely the economic situation had been similar to South Korea. Anyway this is all alternate history, just as the discussions in GP. How could we say something is a failure when we have no real way of understanding its effects
- 4y ago
- js8 4y agoReminds me of recent Snowden's blogpost: https://edwardsnowden.substack.com/p/americas-open-wound https://edwardsnowden.substack.com/p/americas-open-wound
- SCUSKU 4y agoI listened to Jordan Peterson's interview with Stella Morris (married to Julian Assange) today, and that in combination with everything Snowden has talked about has really got me feeling pretty uneasy about the state of the US gov't. I guess it has been easy to turn a blind eye because it doesn't affect me, or at least it hasn't yet.
- highwaylights 4y agoI mean, it’s a Jordan Peterson interview. I’m not saying I know a lot about this - I don’t - but JP is a master of speaking confidently and authoritatively about subjects he knows nothing about.
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- mrtweetyhack 4y ago
- skrebbel 4y agoImpressive breakage of Betteridge’s law of headlines. In the world stage it’s obvious to me that the US is the Least Evil Empire, so they have my backing. But damn what a close call it’s been huh? The list of ruthless dictators the CIA has helped gain power is so long I can’t even keep track. Anything the keep the commies out, and it simply wasn’t worth it. If the US had taken their role as steward of the “Pax America” a bit more seriously, the global south would’ve today been as angry about Putin’s war as the West is. It makes perfect sense for a free speech free market democracy to be the leader of the free world but the US did a shit job at it.
- kybernetikos 4y ago> You can depend upon the Americans to do the right thing. But only after they have exhausted every other possibility. > -Attributed to Winston Churchill (but probably not authentic)
- Schroedingersat 4y ago> In the world stage it’s obvious to me that the US is the Least Evil Empire, so they have my backing. I think this is probably true, but maybe not obvious, and especially not obious if you live in South or Central America, the middle east or some parts of Asia. It's probably very obvious if you live in parts of Africa or other parts of Asia though. China does some horrific shit, but they never nuked anyone just for fun. And the list of countries they have organized genocides in, installed brutal dictators to, or simply carpet bombed into oblivion for no reason is a lot shorter.
- sofixa 4y ago> China does some horrific shit, but they never nuked anyone just for fun To be fair the nuking wasn't for fun, it was to save hundreds of thousands of lives of their own soldiers (and the local civilians as an afterthought). China is currently at the late 19th early 20th century US stage, with infrastructure investments to further their business interests. Then they start taking over stuff because loans can't be paid off, start asking for preferential treatment, etc. We'll see how it goes, but yes, China today is a much less evil choice for a foreign benefactor, with some massive caveats though.
- btat1-2 4y agoBecause I am not American, I can answer "yes" without reading the text.
- btat1-2 4y agoBecause I'm not a native English speaker, it's too hard to understand what they say.
- stephen_g 4y agoYes, basically exactly what I came here to say.
- yieldcrv 4y agoI’m an American and very familiar with the intelligence community and this articles is mindblowing just in the first five paragraphs It is basically about 18 US intelligence agencies While maybe 3 of them, the CIA being one, get any attention
- mcculley 4y agoYeah, the article does not make clear what it means by “good”. What is good for the U.S. is not necessarily good for global humanity or the promotion of liberal democracy.
- fit2rule 4y ago
- ALittleLight 4y agoThe titular question is too ambitious. I think a more modest question would be "Has the CIA ever done anything that was, on net, good?"
- seandoe 4y agoWould we even know?
- ALittleLight 4y agoIt would be odd if the CIA was good at concealing their successes when they are so poor at concealing their failures.
- oittaa 4y agoYes.
- silisili 4y ago> Former President Truman, whose Administration established the C.I.A. in 1947, said in 1963 that by then he saw “something about the way the C.I.A. has been functioning that is casting a shadow over our historic positions, and I feel that we need to correct it.” > And President Kennedy, as the enormity of the Bay of Pigs disaster came home to him, said to one of the highest officials of his Administration that he “wanted to splinter the C.I.A. in a thousand pieces and scatter it to the winds.”
- gremlinsinc 4y agoI'm not a conspiracy theorist but the idea he was assassinated by the CIA isn't out of the realm of believability. They had the ability to do it and probably get away with it, and they had motive: self preservation.
- atdrummond 4y agoI think it’s as likely as him being killed right before he reigned in the Federal Reserve with Executive Order 11110. That is, not very likely. It sounds attractive on paper but neither theory has anything more that extremely tenuous circumstantial evidence to support the claim.
- recursivedoubts 4y agoJust before Kennedy was killed he fired a man named Allen Dulles, then head of the CIA. Dulles, as would make sense given that he was just fired by the man, was then put in charge of the investigation of who killed Kennedy. There's an airport named after Dulles in DC. Which is funny: he never came up when I was taught history in school.
- frumper 4y agoIt's named after a different Dulles.
- 4y ago
- Zardoz84 4y agoYes
- abudabi123 4y agoOne of the former directors of the CIA, Leon Penetta, made the observation the higher up the tree you go the more nuts fall on your head. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leon_Panetta https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leon_Panetta
- octopoc 4y agoWhat does that mean? Also wouldn't fewer nuts fall on your head the higher you go, because as you ascend the nuts go from being above you to being below you?
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- kome 4y agoAbsolutely yes. 3 letter agencies need more democratic accountability and control. CIA is not the only one. But NSA as well, and probably others.
- imgabe 4y agoImpossible to say without knowing about things that are probably still classified. The failures become public, the successes would just kind of quietly dissolve into the background and maybe nobody would even know the CIA was involved. Success could also be something that didn’t happen that nobody even knew was something that might have happened.
- hestefisk 4y agoYes
- deltasevennine 4y ago
- ng55QPSK 4y agoAt home we use a phrase from an interview with a EU politician that was done BEFORE the ukraine war and asked about the US/CIA warnings of an upcomming war and he said "Always remember, the CIA was the agency that told US presidents for years the vietnam war would be over next week" ...
- pjc50 4y agoThe irony here is that in this case they were right, and the Ukraine war is turning into a "Vietnam-like" defeat for Russia. Given another six months they might recapture all the territory lost since 2014.
- asdfk-12 4y ago
- rini17 4y agoThe "occupied by ethnic Russians" point is moot by now as Russia thoroughly alienated them or turned their cities to ruins. Yesterday they even had to impose martial law there. If narrative is unbelievable, can you just follow the actions? Russian actions are these of genocide, and genocides aren't stopped by compromises.
- pjc50 4y agohttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2022_Ukrainian_eastern_counteroffensive https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2022_Ukrainian_eastern_counter... ; "On 12 September, President Zelenskyy said that Ukrainian forces have retaken a total of 6,000 km2 from Russia, in both the south and the east." Now, past performance is not a guarantee of future events, and the Dnipro river is a barrier in both directions, but the counteroffensive has been extremely effective. > escalation Escalation to what? With what forces? The problem with the "escalation" narrative and the "ethnic Russians" argument is that they could easily be extended to, say, declaring that Estonia is part of Russia and nuclear weapons will be used to "defend" it.
- sofixa 4y ago
- jongjong 4y agoI wouldn't have a problem with the CIA if they were focused solely on protecting the safety of Americans and not also working for their financial interests via engaging in overseas sabotage operations (E.g. we all remember false reports about Iraq having weapons of mass destruction and most people today believe it was all about oil).
- wrp 4y agoThe article makes no mention of the two most influential exposés by CIA insiders, Philip Agee's Inside the Company: CIA Diary (1975) and Frank Snepp's Decent Interval (1978). Either book would give a better illustration of conditions inside the CIA than any book the article mentions. Those two accounts made a deep impression on my cohorts and contributed to our feeling that the CIA was exceptionally incompetent among the various US intelligence operations.
- jmpz 4y agohttps://archive.ph/M0GMk https://archive.ph/M0GMk
- imapeopleperson 4y agoCIA should rebrand as META
- ThinkBeat 4y agoThat depends on a clearer definition of good. For the US politically and power wise. For the CIA itself politically and power wise. For "human rights" For "being the good guy in the end" The vast majority of whatever the CIA does, is done in secret (duh) and regular people won't know about it. (Or at least not until decades later if its declassified) We would have to know all the things they do to be able to evaluate the sum total. From what little I know I would say "No they do more harm than good" But that is based on my biased scale expecting that "do good" means making the world a better place for people. A probably better measure would be if it helps the state maintain power, influence and intelligence services prudent to maintain the US as the sole superpower. From that perspective they may do better.
- dirtyid 4y agoRegardless of which way the ledger tallies, there's enough skeletons no longer in the closet to warrant a cleanup + rebranding for optics. Launder that reputation.
- drewcoo 4y agoFor whom? Who does the CIA serve? Surely toppling foreign governments that aren't US-friendly or even just making them unstable means opportunity for American companies. For that matter, what they've done for arms sales could be enough to justify their existence. And then there's all the profit to be made cleaning things up and rebuilding. No. The CIA has not done more harm to its masters than good.
- mikewarot 4y agoI bet Ted Kaczynski[1] would agree with this premise. Had he not fallen into the CIA project MK-Ultra, and the care of Henry A. Murray, his life and that of his victims likely wouldn't have been ruined. [1] https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2000/06/harvard-and-the-making-of-the-unabomber/378239/ https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2000/06/harvard...