Poor Man Survival
Self Reliance tools
for independent minded people…
ISSN 2161-5543
A Digest of Urban Survival Resources
In
terms of serving the American people, yes, the CIA has always been incompetent.
In terms of lying, drug-running, spreading
fake news and a florid variety of other forms of malfeasance, well,
they’ve been pretty “on fleek” over the years.
Which, of course, means that when the CIA claims that Russia
“hacked” the U.S. election, your B.S.-detector should fly off the charts.
(To be clear, not in support of Trump. But in support of the
truth.)
The (mostly fake) outrage over this Russian “scandal,” though,
even if it were true, is comical. The information (which was leaked)
showed American people truth. It didn’t propagandize. It merely lifted
the veil and shined a few spotlights on the cockroaches.
And if it is, indeed, true that Fake News and Russia are
responsible for the downfall of the Hilldabeest, what, pray tell, does the
government plan to do about either of those things in terms of prevention?
“It is laughable,” one wise commenter, known only as Mark S.,
writes on Mises.org, “to believe that government could or would do anything to
investigate, prosecute or deal with Russian hackers and scammers or keep us
safe from (or simply prosecute) cybercriminals. They are ten steps behind guys
in India working in a boiler room call center in a strip mall. They cannot stop
scammers from the third-world impersonating IRS agents, spreading ransomware
and all sorts of malware. The Chinese hacked into and stole 20+ million top
secret personnel files and not only did the intelligence community fail to
protect such records, the government which claims to protect us did nada la
squada.
“Likewise, state actors were believed to have stolen 500 million
Yahoo accounts, but when the news cycle moved on to something else, everyone
forgot to ask folks in the intelligence community like the CIA ‘So what did you
do about that?’ Then, there's guys like Edward Snowden who manage to steal NSA
records without much difficulty.”
The
CIA Has Always Been Incompetent
Ryan McMaken
One of the nicer side effects of the 2016 election has been the
trashing of the reputations of US intelligence agencies, specifically the FBI
and the CIA. During the election, of course, it became apparent that there was
some sort of tug-of-war within the FBI which led James Comey to first declare
that no "reasonable" prosecutor would ever go after Hillary Clinton.
Then, as election day approached, Comey came back and, contrary
to the usual protocol, waged a PR war against Clinton, implying that this time, new
evidence suggests she is, in fact a crook. Naturally, the Democratic party has
declared the FBI to be corrupt and has
even accused FBI director James Comey of covering up Russian crimes.
In the wake of the election, the CIA has now decided that the
Russians were influencing the election and an attempt to cast doubt on the
validity of the election itself. In response, Donald Trump simply
dismissed the CIA as incompetent, declaring "These are the same
people that said Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction." It is
entirely possible that the Russians attempt to influence American elections.
Unfortunately, the CIA is not exactly a reliable source from which to draw any
conclusions.
Today, the FBI and the CIA remain at war, with the FBI slamming
the CIA's "fuzzy" and "ambiguous" remarks about the
elections.
Indeed, the whole CIA story remains primarily based on nameless
sources and leaked comments, with no evidence provided. Even
the Washington Post
admits
the CIA functions on a model of "drawing inferences" and isn't overly
concerned with presenting actual facts.
The lesson to be learned from all of this is that the CIA and
the FBI are nothing more than typical government agencies that spend much of
their time fighting little battles on Capitol Hill and are motivated primarily
with protecting their own agendas, their own budgets, and their own
empire-building. As with the FBI, the CIA behaves exactly as Public Choice
theory tells us a self-interested collection of government bureaucrats would
behave.
For far too long has the intelligence community received a free
pass from astoundingly naive advocates for "free markets" who claim
for be for limited government one minute, and then sit back and blithely defend
everything the CIA does the next minute because "they keep us safe."
While obviously motivated by his own self interest, Donald Trump
has nevertheless been right to not regard the CIA as a sacred cow, especially
since his attacks on the CIA's questionable record are based in reality.
Iraq
and the Bay of Pigs
Trump's mockery of the CIA for its position on Iraqi weapons is
at least partially true. In the lead-up to the Iraq war, the CIA did indeed
emphasize Iraqi capability for non-nuclear weapons of mass destruction. In
careful CYA
language, however, the CIA did refrain from concluding that the Iraqi
state had nuclear capability. That claim was a complete fabrication by
the Bush administration. Nevertheless, the CIA
invented many fictions of its own, including the much-touted "mobile biological labs"
in which Saddam Hussein was busy cooking up bio-weapons.
What the report perhaps told us more than anything was how
useless the CIA is in time of urgently needed intelligence. A RAND report on
the CIA intelligence at the time concluded that "Human intelligence was
scarce and unreliable."
But in the big scheme of enormous glaring CIA failures, the WMD
report isn't even the worst on the list, although it is arguably worse than the
CIA's planned Bay of Pigs Invasion in which the CIA decided that a small force
of Cuban exiles would invade Cuba and lead an uprising of locals. It was the
1960s version of "we'll
be greeted as liberators."
The
CIA's Failure to Understand the Soviet Union
The worst CIA failure would have the CIA's utter inability to
comprehend the internal economic situation in the Soviet Union as the Soviet
economy went into steep decline.
Right until the very end, the CIA insisted that the Soviet Union
was an economic powerhouse that was poised to overpower the United States.1
Even by the 1980s, it was clear that the CIA was too incompetent
to provide respectable analysis on the situation inside the Soviet Union. Among
the Agency's harshest critics was New York Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan. In
a lengthy analysis, Marc
Trachtenberg writes:
Indeed, Moynihan
felt, the CIA had done such a poor job in this area that he thought the Agency
should be abolished. The CIA, in his view, had utterly failed to see how
serious the USSR’s economic problems were, and he made that point over and over
again. “For 40 years,” he wrote in 1990, “we have hugely overestimated both the
size of the Soviet economy and its rate of growth. This in turn has
persistently distorted our estimates of the Soviet threat—notably, in the 1980s
when we turned ourselves into a debtor nation to pay for the arms to counter
the threat of a nation whose home front, unbeknownst to us, was collapsing.”
Moynihan boasted
later that year that he had been able to see as early as 1979 that “Soviet
economic growth was coming to a halt,” and that “the society as well as the
economy was sick.” “But our intelligence community,” he said, “just couldn't
believe this. They kept reporting that the economy was soaring!” In the public
discussion, and to a certain extent even in the scholarly literature, such
claims were treated as established fact.
“As the Bay of Pigs
was to intelligence operations,” the columnist William Safire wrote in the New
York Times in 1990, “the extended misreading of the Soviet economic debacle is
to intelligence evaluation.” According to a 1992 article in the Wall Street
Journal, the CIA’s track record “on the really big developments” was
“hit-or-miss at best,” with “the downward spiral of the Soviet economy”
counting as one of the “more spectacular misses.”
In 1994 a Newsweek
columnist noted in passing that the CIA story was “one of repeated intelligence
failures,” culminating in the “monumental miscalculation of the size of the
Soviet economy, which the CIA judged to be three times as big as it really
was.” And in 1995 the Washington Postcolumnist Mary McGrory asked rhetorically
whether any government department had “goofed up more than the Central
Intelligence Agency?” “Their most egregious and expensive blunder about the
Soviet economy we are still paying for.”
The importance of this failure for the CIA cannot be overstated.
After all, during the Cold War, the primary purpose for the CIA's
existence was to collect intelligence on the Soviet Union and analyze the
situation in that country. Thus, the agency's abject failure in its primary
mission was indeed a good reason for Moynihan to call for the Agency's
abolition.2
Later, the CIA's defenders attempted to make excuses for the
agency by claiming that no Western economists had figured out that the Soviet
economy was slowing down. In other words, they claimed, the CIA was just like
everyone else.
In fact, numerous economists — not counting the pro-Soviet Keynesian
Paul Samuelson — had observed the Soviet decline:
Was it true, as many
observers have claimed, that the academic economists had failed to see what was
going on with the Soviet economy, that the CIA analysts had presented much too
rosy a picture, and that the Soviet leadership itself did not really understand
what was going on? If true, that conclusion would have a major bearing on how
we should interpret the period. But is it in fact correct?
In a word the answer
is no. There is, for example, no basis for the claim that western economists
had failed to “‘diagnose observable tendencies,’ such as the continued decline
of economic growth rates.” Experts in this area had little trouble recognizing
that the Soviet growth rate was falling. It was widely understood by the
mid-1960s that the Soviet economy was growing less rapidly than in the past. As
the CIA’s leading expert on the Soviet economy, Rush Greenslade, pointed out in
1966, “the slowdown of economic growth in the U.S.S.R. is now a well-known
story,” and Abram Bergson, Professor of Economics at Harvard and the most
prominent scholar working in this area, referred to it in a 1966 roundtable as
a “very familiar fact.”
That general point,
moreover, was commonly noted in the press at the time. Even a casual reader of
the New York Times, for example -- someone who merely glanced at the headlines
-- could scarcely fail to note that the Soviet growth rate had declined.
Subsequent calculations simply underscored the basic point here.
In other words, a casual reader of American newspapers probably
had a better sense of the Soviet economy than the CIA.
But, then as now, the CIA lived in its own little elite bubble
where it credulously imbibed foreign propaganda and repeated it as fact. In
other cases, as in the case of both Iraq and the Bay of Pigs, the CIA
credulously accepted the testimony of Iraqi and Cuban exiles and repeated that
as fact.
As Trachtenberg recognizes, the debate over just how
wrong the CIA was continues to be debated among academics today. There is no
denying however, that at the core of the CIA's assumptions were the fact that
the CIA, just like the Ivy League elite from
which CIA agents are drawn, believed that Soviet-style socialism was probably working
pretty well, and it was perfectly plausible to believe that the Soviet Economy
could indeed overtake that of the US.
Put another way, the CIA is infected by all the same political
and ideological biases and errors harbored by the political elites in general.
This should shock no one who takes a realistic view of Washington politics,
although it will no doubt continue to surprise — and by denied by —those who
fancy themselves as the "adults in the room" who advocate endlessly
for ever more spending for military and intelligence agencies.
After all, the CIA's enormous failure on the Soviet Union did
not come without serious effects. As Moynihan pointed out, the US "turned
[itself] into a debtor nation" to fight an allegedly implacable foe that
was actually collapsing.
How nice for the CIA, though, that its fifth-rate intelligence
made it easier for the CIA to claim that more funding was needed for the CIA's
budgets.
Nowadays, the Russians are yet again the CIA's looming threat.
But does the Agency have any actual evidence to present? "Just trust
us" seems to be all the CIA can muster.
Yours for another revolution,
Bruce ‘the Poor Man’
Post Script…
Contributors and subscribers enable the Poor Man Survivor to post 150+ free essays & free reports that I provide annually. It is for this reason they are Heroes and Heroines of New Media. Without your financial support, the free content would disappear for the simple reason that I cannot keep body and soul together on my meager book sales & ecommerce alone. You can make a donation at top of this page via PayPal.
And a Merry Christmas to All!
Additional
Resources-Free!
The Anatomy of a Breakdown
The Prepper’s Blueprint: The Step-By-Step Guide To Help You Through Any Disaster
Contact! A Tactical Manual for Post Collapse Survival
Classic books by Ralph Borsodi…FREE!
THE CITY
AN EXPERIMENT
IN CREATIVE LIVING
ON THE LAND
A Different Kind
of Financial Security
How can you make yourself more financially secure? Here are 3 practical ways you won't hear from many financial planners.
How can you make yourself more financially secure? Here are 3 practical ways you won't hear from many financial planners.
Arm Up System-Defense Without Regulation
PM’s Guide to Home Defense
It is a crazy world out there with plenty of violence and everyone knows you that under most circumstances, police usually arrive after the fact. Your rights to defend yourself are often under attack, even for non-lethal self-defense tools…Includes book and 3 bonus CD ROMS
http://www.bonanza.com/listings/Guide-to-Home-Defense-Arm-Up-System-Defense-W-out-Regulation-Bonuses/370808566
PM’s Guide to Home Defense
It is a crazy world out there with plenty of violence and everyone knows you that under most circumstances, police usually arrive after the fact. Your rights to defend yourself are often under attack, even for non-lethal self-defense tools…Includes book and 3 bonus CD ROMS
http://www.bonanza.com/listings/Guide-to-Home-Defense-Arm-Up-System-Defense-W-out-Regulation-Bonuses/370808566
Support our efforts by shopping my storefront…
A Smoking Frog Feature, Shallow Planet Production
2 comments:
A wee bit out of my league but as always I learned something new...and a happy holiday to you my friend!
I have no doubt under Obama's 'leadership' our intelligence service have suffered a large degree of problems-he's proven to be incompetent and all my colleagues can't wait for him to be out of office. [by the way, your newsletter is top notch]
Post a Comment