The Blundering Idiots (1 Viewer)

[deception]

otherwise known as the CIA: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/w...-cia--and-should-it-be-abolished-1744983.html

The CIA is currently embroiled in two controversies that go to the heart of the problems surrounding the world's largest intelligence agency. It is accused of keeping Congress in the dark about a secret post-9/11 project, on the orders of the former vice-president Dick Cheney and probably in violation of the law. Meanwhile the Justice Department is moving towards a criminal investigation of whether CIA operatives illegally tortured captured terrorist suspects. A rule of thumb about an intelligence service might be: the less you hear about it, the better it's probably doing its job. Instead, the CIA seems to be eternally in the headlines.

But hasn't that always been the case?

Indeed. Almost from its inception in 1947, at the start of the Cold War, the agency has made news. In 1953, it staged the Operation Ajax coup that overthrew the democratically-elected government of Iran (with repercussions that continue to this day). In 1961 came the humiliating failure of the Bay of Pigs invasion in Cuba, the most spectacular of many unavailing efforts by the CIA to get rid of Fidel Castro.

After other abuses were revealed, including the agency's tangential involvement in Watergate, the agency's sins were subjected to an unprecedented public investigation by the Church Committee, under Senator Frank Church of Idaho, in the mid-1970s. But that did not prevent further scandals, notably the 1985/86 Iran-Contra affair, in which the CIA had an important role.

How come the CIA has a paramilitary side?

It has been there almost from the outset. In 1948 the agency was specifically empowered to carry out subversion and sabotage and "support of indigenous anti-communist movements in threatened countries." There have been fiascos (like the Bay of Pigs), and the illegal overthrow of democratic governments (for example Iran in 1953 and Chile in 1973). But some such operations have been hugely successful – take the clandestine support for the Afghan resistance against the Soviet occupation in the 1980s, which contributed mightily to the subsequent fall of communism in the Soviet Union.

What about intelligence-gathering?

Almost by definition you hear more of the mistakes of an intelligence agency than of its successes – the bad things that didn't happen because good prior intelligence headed them off. Even so, the CIA's failures are huge. 9/11 happened despite its best efforts. It was wrong about Saddam Hussein's non-existent WMD. It was slow to see the economic weakness, and then the disintegration of the Soviet Union. It missed India's nuclear test of 1998, which prompted a series of counter-tests by Pakistan.

How much does it all cost?

The total US intelligence budget is classified, but is reckoned to be in the region of $40bn. The CIA itself reportedly has 20,000 employees, though that figure too is classified. In fact the bulk of spending is believed to go on hi-tech agencies like the National Security Agency, which carries out global electronic surveillance and eavesdropping, and the National Reconnaissance Office, which operates reconnaissance satellites.

Does the US need the CIA?

Yes...

Every country needs an agency with "deniability" in order to carry out its dirty work

*The latest re-organisation of US intelligence must be given time to work

*For all its failings, the CIA has had its share of successes and still performs a valuable service

No...

The agency has done a great deal wrong and inflicted huge harm to America's international image

*It is too large and unwieldy, and more trouble than it's worth

*It is too easily used by presidents to circumvent the constitution, and without its independence its real value is lost

fyi- the 1973 coup in chile occurred on september, 11, 1973 to oust the democratically elected allende and insert the fascist pinochet. the death count amounted to 3000, roughly the same as the twin tower bombings. in scholarly circles, it is referred to now as the "other 9/11"