

A Dagger to the CIA - DanielBMarkham
http://www.gq.com/news-politics/politics/201004/dagger-to-the-cia

======
hga
I haven't more than skimmed the first and last page, but if you want to really
understand this issue you have to go back at least to the '70s, particularly:

The Church Commission.

The purge of James Jesus Angleton, and more importantly the effective end of
the agency's counterintelligence function, which is very much a part of this
particular screwup; it's never a popular thing, no one likes being told their
informant is a double, but ignoring the possibility is lethally expensive.
(See also Aldrich Ames, who's lifestyle should have been caught by
counterintelligence as another example of a failure in this area.)

Jimmy Carter's DCI, Stansfield Turner, and e.g. how he riffed 800+ HUMINT
operators in just one purge.

~~~
DanielBMarkham
The more I learn about the history of intelligence services post WWII in
America, the more as a taxpayer it ticks me off. Not the agency trying to do
loopy things like poison Castro's underwear, but the wholesale ripping apart
of decades of work just because the politics change one way or another. Want
to fund overthrows? I don't like it, but fine, if it's done according to
process. Want to abolish funding overthrows? Fine, if it's done according to
process. But tearing down entire structures? Effectively destroying all HUMINT
in the 1970s? It's insanity. Completely crazy. The intelligence agencies never
managed to stay above politics, which is a shame.

~~~
smallblacksun
The problem is not that the intelligence agencies can't stay above politics,
but that the politicians meddle with the intelligence agencies for political
reasons. Despite what some conspiracy theorists believe, the US intelligence
agencies are run by the elected officials, not the other way around. This is
good for a lot of reasons, but does leave them subject to the whims of
politicians.

~~~
hga
Yes to what both of you are saying. But it's not quite just "politics", I
would say. Perhaps look at this as an evolution of the post-WWI principle that
"Gentlemen don't read each other's mail"?
([http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Office_of_Strategic_Services#Or...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Office_of_Strategic_Services#Origins_and_activities))

(Me, after the WSJ recommended it I just got a copy of _The Deceivers_ by
Thaddeus Holt, 1148 pages (!!!) on "Allied Military Deception in the Second
World War". _Very_ interesting.)

~~~
Luc
Thanks for the recommendation, that book sounds great. I've ordered it, at a
price of less than one pence per page!

