Source: Vanity Fair
James A Warren, Daily Beast: The CIA Predicted Disaster in Vietnam. Why Did No One Listen?
President Trump is famous for ignoring the advice and expertise of advisers who tell him something he doesn’t want to hear. But he is not the first president to spurn good counsel.
No American president—no chief executive of a Western democratic country—has displayed so much open disdain for the professional intelligence services of his own government as Donald J. Trump. He’s repeatedly disparaged authoritative CIA analyses that concluded Russia meddled with the 2016 election. He ignores his own intelligence officials’ assessments of the dangers of global warming. Just last month, when Director of National Intelligence Dan Coats told Congress that North Korea shows no signs of dismantling its nukes, and that the Iran nuclear deal was working just fine, Trump struck back, just as he always does when reality intrudes on his dream world. “The intelligence people seem to be extremely passive when it comes to the dangers of Iran,” he tweeted. “They are wrong... Perhaps the intelligence people should go back to school.”
Read more ....
WNU Editor: I recall seeing years ago a documentary on Russian TV that Soviet intelligence told the Kremlin that their occupation of Afghanistan was going to end up as a disaster, but the leadership chose to ignore them. I think in both cases we had a situation where the leadership of both nations were focused on the "big picture" .... falling dominoes from Washington, and having a critical ally for Moscow in this part of Asia. And while both governments expected a bloody conflict, they calculated that the consequences of not becoming involved would be worse. Both Washington and Moscow were wrong. They miscalculated on the resolve of the people they were fighting, and they certainly miscalculated public support for these wars.
6 comments:
Well, if your intel services/advisers are many times wrong, it makes it hard to listen when they are right. In fact, perhaps next time just flip a coin, save the billions in expense. Chances are if you apply logic and your own experiences, you might be just as right
Did the CIA advise against Bush's Afghan strategy once the Taliban had been driven into Pakistan?
Did the CIA advise against George Bush II invasion of Iraq?
Dis the CIA advise against the Mission Accomplished mantra of George Bush II?
Did the CIA advise against approving China ascension to the WTO?
Unfortunately the CIA is frequently wrong with their predictions, as are most people.
Thinking for yourself usually is the best course and I think Trump became Trump because he thought for himself.
When you create an organization whose primary function is the subversion of legal governments elsewhere, and the destruction of ways of life, and lives of course, at some point you will realize you can't trust the monster you created. If you have no morality yourself you tend to trust nobody but go with whoever is willing to pay you off. In short, the monster you created is actually you.
All the evidence and advice from any or all sources is of no good finally if the chief executive decides on a course of action that ignores the information given him. That is sometimes what has taken place and thus dismissing intel is dumb.
This is a hard question because the experts can often be wrong just as they are right. One can cherry pick lots of examples either way when the experts were right or wrong. The CIA got the size of the Soviet economy and stability wrong before it collapsed; it got the Iranian Revolution wrong; it got both the Bay of Pigs wrong and doubted the Soviets would place nukes in Cuba; more recently it failed to see how Islamic radicals would exploit the Arab Spring; and it didn't know about the success of the Indian nuclear program.
So it's perfectly acceptable to second guess intelligence analysis. In some cases it would be the right thing to do. Unless you have some way that can distinguish in advance when the analysis is right or wrong, it always come down to a judgment call. Unfortunately, it seems hindsight is the only way of determining these things.
Chris
For sure Chris. People defending their own homeland can sometimes fight off invasion even against apparently insurmountable odds. If nothing else, the very warlike Afghan people have shown that throughout history they are capable of doing just that. Now when an invader only wants war, not victory, it becomes just a matter of time.
I think from America's perspective the answer is simple. The objective is not to win a war but to extend it as long as possible requiring the production of more and more military equipment for the benefit of the WIC. Americans foolish enough to sign up are as usual expendable resources. The decision does not involve winning but if that does comes up it seems winning is somewhat minimized.
Post a Comment