5 ms·

The pragmatism of the present rarely considers the lofty disapproval of the future as a factor worthy of consideration in matters of espionage, state security,

The pragmatism of the present rarely considers the lofty disapproval of the future as a factor worthy of consideration in matters of espionage, state security, etc. Wrong or right using these resources was certainly in their best interest.

rektide 12y ago
In 1968, Mr. Hoover authorized the F.B.I. to wiretap a left-wing journalist who wrote critical stories about Nazis in America, internal records show. I'll refrain from adding snark about "pragmatism" here. Part of this was fighting Russians and communism, sure, good warhawk parent, but let's not forget that the politicization and polarization of the times squeezed out a whole of left-ist causes and that the government did not play in any way fair against those who might be guilty of political dissent nor those who might report positively on political non-conformists. On one hand, there's the act of not immediately burning potential useful allies for their (abominable racial) politics. On the other hand, there's the actions taken against political dissenters to protect those allies, actions that seem like one of those classic stacking the deck moves that gives notice to all good men that the Tree of Liberty might be looking a little thirsty.
- gd1 12y ago
  Yep. Agree completely. Not acceptable. It's like getting the IRS to go after your political opponents.
thesteamboat 12y ago
> Wrong or right using these resources was certainly in their best interest. Quoting from the article: But many Nazi spies proved inept or worse, declassified security reviews show. Some were deemed habitual liars, confidence men or embezzlers, and a few even turned out to be Soviet double agents, the records show.
- morley 12y ago
  I don't think the parent is levying any judgment about whether they were right or wrong. I think they are pointing out that any reasonable person working in a spy agency at the time would be doing the same thing. Or, to put it differently: regardless of your ideology in the present, if you instead happened to work for a US spy agency during the Cold War, you might have made the same decisions, because > The pragmatism of the present rarely considers the lofty disapproval of the future I don't know the parent's true intentions, but I read this less as approval of their actions and more as a mournful observation about how few choices any of us really have.
  - voidlogic 12y ago
    You understood my intent perfectly. Thank you.
  - thesteamboat 12y ago
    I think I'm interpreting the parent's intentions the same as you -- but I was hoping that quote would stand alone to challenge efficacy of those choices (rather than their morality). The rest of this comment is just my speculation/justification for why moral considerations might make for more effective policies than "pragmatic" ones. I think that (there's a reasonable chance) the security agencies did themselves (by which I mean American society) more harm by acquiring flawed assets than the cost of waiting to develop appropriate assets on their own. It's the same general problem as security theater -- a system that focuses on "doing something", rather than making a principled understanding of the costs/benefits and trying to optimize some security tradeoff. One reason principles are great is because they (are supposed to) act as commitment devices that keep you from doing some tempting, short-term thing, and keep your actions in line with your longer term goals.
- voidlogic 12y ago
  Without actually numbers this is a really hard thing to say. For example, arguably all the above is true of most intelligence assets- so we need a baseline to compare their performance with. But if one or two of these assets really payed of in a big way, it might have all been worth it. All an all I am saying the above quote from the article is a as subjective of an assessment as they come. In intelligence both quantity and quality can matter. Maybe 50 mediocre assets are valuable for gaining coverage, maybe 1/50 suburb asset is worth the risk, etc. I think we would need to hear the opinion of the men who operated these assets to know if it was worth it.
nraynaud 12y ago
yes, but there might be some interest in revisiting the past to help guide our actions in the future. Here in France the same principle prevailed: "better an ex-collaborator than a communist", with the difference that they were starving for managers (and it didn't go well for the resistants). So they didn't try an in-depth cleaning of the country which led to great disasters during the decolonization wars (tortures, mass executions, etc.) They were quicker to shave the hair of women who slept with a german soldier than to hang a prefet who sent 1500 jews in a train and became Paris' police chief.
- mercurial 12y ago
  > Here in France the same principle prevailed: "better an ex-collaborator than a communist", with the difference that they were starving for managers (and it didn't go well for the resistants). So they didn't try an in-depth cleaning of the country which led to great disasters during the decolonization wars (tortures, mass executions, etc.) How is that (French here)? Maurice Papon, the man you are talking about, was responsible for the brutal repression of the demonstration ordered by FLN, which lead to hundred of dead people. However, given the climate at the time, it's not obvious that a different man in the same position wouldn't have acted the same way. As for claiming that the French army tortured in Indochina and Algeria due to a lack of denazification, that's plain silly. Many of the soldiers who took an active role in these crimes were former resistants (like Massu and Aussaresses).
  - trhway 12y ago
    >However, given the climate at the time, it's not obvious that a different man in the same position wouldn't have acted the same way. this is why there are things defined like "war crimes" and "crimes against humanity" and Nuremberg trial which affirmed the principle that "just carrying out the orders" and "a different man in the same position would have acted in the same way" isn't a valid defense at least in case of such heinous crimes.
    - mercurial 12y ago
      Who says I'm defending him? I'm just not convinced his collaborationist past was the deciding factor.

rektide 12y ago

In 1968, Mr. Hoover authorized the F.B.I. to wiretap a left-wing journalist who wrote critical stories about Nazis in America, internal records show. I'll refrain from adding snark about "pragmatism" here. Part of this was fighting Russians and communism, sure, good warhawk parent, but let's not forget that the politicization and polarization of the times squeezed out a whole of left-ist causes and that the government did not play in any way fair against those who might be guilty of political dissent nor those who might report positively on political non-conformists. On one hand, there's the act of not immediately burning potential useful allies for their (abominable racial) politics. On the other hand, there's the actions taken against political dissenters to protect those allies, actions that seem like one of those classic stacking the deck moves that gives notice to all good men that the Tree of Liberty might be looking a little thirsty.

gd1 12y ago
Yep. Agree completely. Not acceptable. It's like getting the IRS to go after your political opponents.

thesteamboat 12y ago

> Wrong or right using these resources was certainly in their best interest. Quoting from the article: But many Nazi spies proved inept or worse, declassified security reviews show. Some were deemed habitual liars, confidence men or embezzlers, and a few even turned out to be Soviet double agents, the records show.

morley 12y ago
I don't think the parent is levying any judgment about whether they were right or wrong. I think they are pointing out that any reasonable person working in a spy agency at the time would be doing the same thing. Or, to put it differently: regardless of your ideology in the present, if you instead happened to work for a US spy agency during the Cold War, you might have made the same decisions, because > The pragmatism of the present rarely considers the lofty disapproval of the future I don't know the parent's true intentions, but I read this less as approval of their actions and more as a mournful observation about how few choices any of us really have.
- voidlogic 12y ago
  You understood my intent perfectly. Thank you.
- thesteamboat 12y ago
  I think I'm interpreting the parent's intentions the same as you -- but I was hoping that quote would stand alone to challenge efficacy of those choices (rather than their morality). The rest of this comment is just my speculation/justification for why moral considerations might make for more effective policies than "pragmatic" ones. I think that (there's a reasonable chance) the security agencies did themselves (by which I mean American society) more harm by acquiring flawed assets than the cost of waiting to develop appropriate assets on their own. It's the same general problem as security theater -- a system that focuses on "doing something", rather than making a principled understanding of the costs/benefits and trying to optimize some security tradeoff. One reason principles are great is because they (are supposed to) act as commitment devices that keep you from doing some tempting, short-term thing, and keep your actions in line with your longer term goals.
voidlogic 12y ago
Without actually numbers this is a really hard thing to say. For example, arguably all the above is true of most intelligence assets- so we need a baseline to compare their performance with. But if one or two of these assets really payed of in a big way, it might have all been worth it. All an all I am saying the above quote from the article is a as subjective of an assessment as they come. In intelligence both quantity and quality can matter. Maybe 50 mediocre assets are valuable for gaining coverage, maybe 1/50 suburb asset is worth the risk, etc. I think we would need to hear the opinion of the men who operated these assets to know if it was worth it.

nraynaud 12y ago

yes, but there might be some interest in revisiting the past to help guide our actions in the future. Here in France the same principle prevailed: "better an ex-collaborator than a communist", with the difference that they were starving for managers (and it didn't go well for the resistants). So they didn't try an in-depth cleaning of the country which led to great disasters during the decolonization wars (tortures, mass executions, etc.) They were quicker to shave the hair of women who slept with a german soldier than to hang a prefet who sent 1500 jews in a train and became Paris' police chief.

mercurial 12y ago
> Here in France the same principle prevailed: "better an ex-collaborator than a communist", with the difference that they were starving for managers (and it didn't go well for the resistants). So they didn't try an in-depth cleaning of the country which led to great disasters during the decolonization wars (tortures, mass executions, etc.) How is that (French here)? Maurice Papon, the man you are talking about, was responsible for the brutal repression of the demonstration ordered by FLN, which lead to hundred of dead people. However, given the climate at the time, it's not obvious that a different man in the same position wouldn't have acted the same way. As for claiming that the French army tortured in Indochina and Algeria due to a lack of denazification, that's plain silly. Many of the soldiers who took an active role in these crimes were former resistants (like Massu and Aussaresses).
- trhway 12y ago
  >However, given the climate at the time, it's not obvious that a different man in the same position wouldn't have acted the same way. this is why there are things defined like "war crimes" and "crimes against humanity" and Nuremberg trial which affirmed the principle that "just carrying out the orders" and "a different man in the same position would have acted in the same way" isn't a valid defense at least in case of such heinous crimes.
  - mercurial 12y ago
    Who says I'm defending him? I'm just not convinced his collaborationist past was the deciding factor.