The Unz Review • An Alternative Media Selection$
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 BlogviewW. Patrick Lang Archive
“Bureaucrats Versus Artists…”
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information


Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • B
Show CommentNext New CommentNext New ReplyRead More
ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Thanks, LOL, or Troll with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used three times during any eight hour period.
Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments
List of Bookmarks

“Were we right or were we wrong?” This was Director of Central Intelligence (DCI) George Tenet’s central question in his 2004 talk to the faculty and students of his alma mater, Georgetown University. What he was talking about, of course, was the critical political issue of whether or not the Intelligence Community (IC) of which he was the titular head “got it right” in telling the American people and their government that Iraq was a clear danger to the United States, as opposed to being a threat to regional states, and if that danger was substantial enough to serve as a justifiable basis for war, invasion and occupation. In Tenet’s address there was much of self-protection and an implicit warning that neither he nor the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) would accept to be “scapegoated” in a search for the roots of misadventure in Iraq. His words establish a claim to blamelessness for the CIA and the larger Intelligence Community in the decisions leading up to the Iraq campaign and a related claim to have done as well as could fairly have been expected. In other words, he wished to be thought innocent in this matter. Is that reasonable? Is it fair to expect American citizens and officials to believe that the Intelligence Community did its work well in helping the government of the United States to make sound decisions about Iraq? This is an important question, because if they did not, then why were their judgments so flawed in spite of the incredible amounts of taxpayer money lavished on the agencies of the IC? Why should so much money have been lavished on these agencies if they could do no better?

In spite of the importance of this question, impatience with the performance of the intelligence people ought to be somewhat dependent on the outcome of a national debate as to what should be expected of the process labeled “intelligence.” Reporters sometimes ask rhetorically if decisions should really be made on the basis of intelligence. At first hearing questions like this seem to be both naïve and nonsensical since it is obvious that information is the stuff that decisions must be founded on. Nevertheless, decipherment of these statements leads to an understanding that those who say things like this think that “intelligence” is a form of thinking both esoteric and obscure, a dark art, separate and distinct from the normal way of knowing things and subject to acceptance or rejection by special rules of perception. In other words, they think that it is something like astrology, to be judged by its own “rules.”

In fact, “Intelligence” is simply another word for “information” and in ages gone by the term was used in that way by authorities like Clausewitz or Jomini. There is nothing mystical or mysterious about the process by which information or “intelligence” is collected, collated, analyzed and disseminated. “Intelligence” is scholarship conducted in the service of the state. The great bulk of the information used as data in this scholarship comes out of the huge archival files of the major agencies supplemented by daily “feedings” of; diplomatic chit-chat, aerial and satellite reconnaissance, intercepts of communications and hopefully the products of espionage (clandestine HUMINT). Like any labor of scholarship involving the study of human beings by human beings, the work is nearly always conducted with incomplete and ambiguous information as a basis for the analysis.

This natural phenomenon is aggravated by the desire of the studied group to hide something, usually, that which is under study. When George Tenet said before his Georgetown audience that “We never get things altogether right in the Intelligence business, nor altogether wrong,” he was correct but his statement was irrelevant to a discussion of the utility of the intelligence process since the quality of the analytic product depends on many variables, among them; good information and the quality of the minds brought to bear on the imperfect information. It is both trite and a truism that “intelligence is an art and not a science.” What this means is that human beings may succeed or they may fail in making judgments based on less than complete data and that the skill, intelligence and experience of those involved is the most important factor in determining the outcome. To say that “Intelligence” is a flawed process is simply meaningless in a discussion of the effectiveness of the state in making decisions. If the “Intelligence Community” as it now exists were abolished, some other group would have to assume the burden of performing the same functions for the benefit of the state. What would they be called? Perhaps it might be, “The Agency for Special Planning?”

The issue of the effectiveness and efficiency of the existing Intelligence Community is a separate but linked question from that of knowing whether or not the elected or appointed officials of the Bush Administration may have intruded themselves inappropriately into the deliberations of the Intelligence Community in a way that led to distortions in the estimates of Iraq’s significance that were presented to the president and the Congress. It is widely believed now that this occurred but that is not the subject of this essay.

The question under examination here is simple. Premise: “The Intelligence Community produced poor quality intelligence on Iraq.” Therefore, one asks – Are there imbedded structural defects in the present United States Intelligence Community that contributed either directly or indirectly to the production of estimates that were unsound and which failed the nation? And, moreover, are there characteristics in the present intelligence community of the United States which now prevent and will prevent it from “reforming” itself? It is clear that the inability of the Intelligence Community to forecast or estimate Iraq’s true condition was a major failure. Why did this happen, and how can the defects in the “community” be repaired? What “limits” are there in the psychology and structure of the government that may prevent “repair” of the system?


The author’s conclusion after a working lifetime of studying the flaws in the system from within the community and from the evidence of continuing contacts with old colleagues and new friends in the intelligence agencies is that there are a multitude of problems in the intelligence forces of the United states and that most of them have grown up over a very long time, are now “built into” the system and are unlikely to be resolved without outside intervention by the Congress of the United States. It is impossible to consider them all but a few of the most important are so intractable as to be worth discussing here:

-Leadership. There is a natural tendency in the general public to believe that the upper levels of the Intelligence Community are filled with learned, avuncular and sensitive people somehow reminiscent of “George Smiley,” the wonderful British spy and spymaster whose presence fills the earlier novels of John Le Carre. The character, “Smiley” is wise, sadly pessimistic, a profound student of mankind and devoted to his “people.” He has a deeply empathic nature, is widely read, speaks several languages and is so dedicated to his craft and its ethic that he fears nothing and will take any risk either to protect his own “people” or to “launch” operations that, if they fail may destroy him. What a marvelous conception this man is!

There are people like that in the leadership of US Intelligence. There are a few, but there once were many more and they are fewer all the time. In fact, the “system” works in such a way that people like “Smiley” are feared and distrusted by the bureaucratic politicians who really run the intelligence agencies. What are really to be found in the upper echelons of the “community” are either people who early in their government service became specialized in the generalized management of organizations (often after early substantive analytic work) or others who were “staff ” of some kind, (budgetary planners, lawyers. liaison staff, etc.) The Directors of the various agencies are naturally attracted to such people because they are focused on the administrative functions of the agencies and the protection of their ultimate superior, the Director. This makes them a kind of ”insurance policy “ for the directors of the agencies.

The old veterans of the intelligence trade often make a distinction between “real intelligence officers” and “managers.” “Real intelligence officers” are those who are known to be qualified and capable of the difficult work of analysis and field collection of information and who are known to have the moral character required to stand up to the pressure that is present in every political administration to make the “reality” presented by the “Intelligence Community” conform to the “ reality” envisioned by the policy of the administration in power. The “managers” are essentially courtiers grouped about the throne of whichever baron of the Intelligence Community they may serve. The “managers” functions center on liaison with the other barons, lobbying the Congress for money and “protection” of the boss (the Director of their agency). Such people as the “managers” are easily recognized by the directors of the agencies as very valuable to their career survival in the stylized “dance” conducted around Washington by the various parts of the United States Government but they are not well suited to leading “real intelligence officers” to feats of brilliant analysis or imaginative collection operations because they are always in a “defensive crouch” fearing that the “real intelligence officers” will cause trouble for them or “the boss” through disagreement with the “picture” desired by the administration of the day or in Human Intelligence (HUMINT) operations (espionage) gone bad which result in publicity that could be damaging to the “managers’” careers. Incredibly, these are the people who tend to be promoted to “line” command “at the top” in the collection, and analytic functions of the agencies over the heads of the “real intelligence officers.”

This pattern of rule by the “managerial” class is now so well established in the intelligence agencies that it is simply expected that senior jobs which control large parts of the agencies in the analytic and HUMINT collection fields will be held by “managers” as opposed to “real intelligence officers.” This tendency is so firmly rooted now that the author has often heard very senior “real intelligence officers” described as “just an analyst,” or “just an operator” in the context of a selection board picking someone for a high level leadership job in the very field in which the “real intelligence officer” is an authority respected throughout the government.

This tendency is perpetuated and reinforced by a process of “mirror-imaging” in personnel selections in which the ever-growing number of “managers” who are in senior leadership position simply select others like them in the next generation for the top jobs. This results in a leadership cadre in the Intelligence Community which is more and more hostile to the risks demanded as the price of real success in collection and analysis and more and more favorable to the self indulgence of a focus on the “turf battles and budget wars” endemic to Washington and at the same time less and less driven by the desire to do good intelligence work. The personnel management disaster described above is ultimately the responsibility of the directors of the agencies that make up the Intelligence Community. If they wanted to have a different focus in their agencies, there would be a different focus. There have been many fine and devoted heads of the various American intelligence agencies, but all too often the directors themselves are members of the “managerial class” within the Intelligence Community or simply politically selected party functionaries. All too often directors see themselves as “travelers” on a journey to yet further heights within the government and therefore not “decisively committed” to the work of their people. For many directors, the “managerial class” within their agencies is a natural ally in controlling the “wilder impulses” of the “real intelligence officers” in the organization.


-Risk Aversion. One of the most trite and tedious of the many things said in the national media and in the U.S. Congress about the failures of the Intelligence Community in Iraq and with regard to so many issues is that “HUMINT (espionage in this context) must be improved!” Repetition of this thought has become obligatory in any “serious” discussion of security issues but in fact, no one has done much to improve US espionage capabilities. This would be amusing in its inanity if the underlying phenomenon were not so serious. In fact, the media and the Congress are largely responsible for creating the operating environment in which the wreck of once formidable American espionage capabilities became inevitable. In the aftermath of the Vietnam War, the public and its representatives convinced themselves that the intelligence services were somehow the enemies of the American people. The FBI COINTELPRO program aimed at Director Hoover’s personal list of enemies and the Nixon Administration’s meditations (the Houston Plan) on the possibility of effectively combining all U.S. counterintelligence groups into one force contributed to that idea. The Houston Plan was never approved or implemented but the concept itself was enough to “trigger” demand for congressional investigations into the “misdeeds” of U.S. counterintelligence groups.

Rather inevitably the “witch hunt” spread to include U.S. clandestine intelligence. The “Church Committee” in the US Senate resulted. Up until that time it was generally believed in the population of the United States that the intelligence services were filled with honorable people trying to protect the country, but the spirit of that age disagreed and a barrage of “literature” and films spread the idea that career intelligence officers were amoral opportunists animated by a kind of nihilistic sadism. “The Three Days of the Condor,” “The Bourne Identity,” and similar rubbish which portrayed a universe unfamiliar to anyone who had ever worked in intelligence filled people’s heads with the idea that the clandestine services were to be tolerated but only just barely tolerated and that they must be closely watched and restricted. American espionage capabilities began to decline from that time and the process has not yet been reversed.

A mass of regulations were enacted in those and following years which tied the hands of the clandestine services so effectively that they have never recovered. Several categories of people were placed “off limits” as possibilities for recruitment as foreign agents (for example, reporters, professors, employees of American companies) without regard for the fact that these very people have inherent access to people and information often needed to carry out effective intelligence work. The rationale seemed to be that some kinds of people needed to be “protected” from the “dirty” business of espionage. The same kind of “thinking” has caused the clandestine services to rely far too much on “liaison” relationships with foreign intelligence services as a substitute for conducting American run espionage against difficult targets. The reason? Disclosure of foreign operations does not entail the career risk for the “managers” that the failure of an American operation would bring.

The creation of this kind of operating environment served as a powerful “enabling” mechanism for the not so gradual assumption of power in the intelligence agencies by the “managerial class.” In an atmosphere dominated by fear of violation of legislated restrictions on behavior and the use of clandestine funds, it was only natural that the directors of the agencies would look to those who had little interest in driving forward the limits of accomplishment and every interest in “limiting the damage” and “preventing surprises” for themselves and “the boss.” This has resulted in a degree of control over operations by lawyers and financial officers that is suffocating to the ability of skilled operatives to mount the kind of potentially rewarding but risky operations that would be needed, for example, to penetrate “Al-Qa’ida.” Clandestine operations are inherently dangerous. It follows that if they are evaluated by people who “know the cost of everything but the value of nothing,” they will inevitably be disapproved before execution if the risks are considerable. Those in Congress who wrote the rules used as excuses to disapprove these operations will then “bleat” pitifully about the need for “better HUMINT” the next time a disaster occurs.

Analysis by Committee. Much the same phenomena exist on the analytic “side” of the intelligence business. Brilliant people from the best schools “sign up” for a career in intelligence work from a sense of patriotism, intellectual curiosity, and a desire to “make a difference” in the world. What typically happens to them after that is that they are “eaten alive” by bureaucracies utterly controlled by the “managerial” mentality. Young analysts are called on to write papers that demand a fresh look, hard work and an undying devotion to the truth. The draft papers they write are not their property and these papers should not be subject to the vanities of “pride of authorship” so common in other works of scholarship, but neither should they be treated with a lack of respect for the views of the analysts and the creativity that the authors bring to the task. Too often, the “editing by committee” system that prevails results in papers that are not only irrelevant to the security needs of the nation but are actually misleading because of their lack of intellectual honesty.

In the “managerial” world, nothing matters so much as “staying in step” with the consensus in the various agencies of the intelligence world as well as making sure that analysis does not deny the political leadership of the country an intellectual “platform” from which they can proclaim their vision of the future. The “mere” belief of the analysts counts for little in the judgment of the “managers” when weighed against the career destroying effect of disapproval or disfavor from on high.

As a result analysis is “ironed out” in a “layer cake” system of committees at ever-higher layers of bureaucracy. These committees are made up of supervisors at the appropriate layer and they “take care” to insure that the interests of the various parties within an agency are protected in the text that goes forward to the next higher layer and that untoward results are avoided. When this process is ended, what is typically produced is a stereotypical example of the “lowest common denominator,” not something on which the country should “hang its hat” in making decisions affecting the national fate, and certainly. Such papers are inevitably reflective of the kind of “group think” that grows up in any highly integrated and hierarchical bureaucracy that controls the career long expectations of its inhabitants. In other words, an individual analyst has no chance whatever of having his or her views expressed at the national level unless a large and self-serving group of careerists approve them and find them not to be threatening to their collective view of what serves the group’s perceived best interest in terms of its relations with the rest of the intelligence community and the sitting government.


The rule of the “managerial class” in the intelligence community ensures the permanence of this “system.” The ruling group will reproduce itself through “mirror imaging” ad infinitum and will be maintained in position through the perceived self-interest of the kind of people who typically become directors of the major intelligence agencies. This is not to say that there have not been brave, courageous and creative directors of the major intelligence agencies. The author has had the honor of serving under several. It was a pleasure and they know who they are, but the sad truth, known to all who have served for extended periods in intelligence is that most directors are part of the problem. The truth is that intelligence is an art best practiced by gifted eccentrics, people widely and deeply educated, favored by nature and training with intuition beyond the average and who care more for the truth than anything else. Such people consistently will follow their “nose” and their instincts on a trail of information like bloodhounds until they arrive at a truth that matters to the people of the United States. In the espionage field of endeavor, the function of managers is to be “enablers,” to make workable the environment in which gifted case officers can break through the manifold barriers that will enable the penetration of groups that threaten the lives of our people. What must be avoided is the selection of managers who instinctively feel that their function is to “hold back” the operators and analysts in order to preserve “peace” within the bureaucracy.

Domination of the Intelligence Function by the Executive Branch: All the intelligence agencies are parts of the Executive Branch. The CIA is a separate organization within the Executive Branch and directly subordinated to the president. The Defense Intelligence Agency is part of the Defense Department as is the National Security Agency. The State Department Bureau of Intelligence and Research (INR) is obviously part of that department. All these groups are deeply imbedded within these “ministries” of government in a constitutional system which ensures that the authority of the political party that controls the white House will control the intelligence agencies as well. This means that the temptation that will always be presented to politicians to attempt to shape” both information collection and the analysis of that information to their taste is likely to be overwhelming.

In most American administrations, the most senior authorities (generally elected) are wise enough to know that without sound and objective judgments from the intelligence agencies, the information upon which they base decisions is worthless. The reason one creates separate information gathering and analysis systems under the rubric of “intelligence” is that there is an inherent “conflict of interest” in any system that allows policy decision makers to be the same people who judge what the reality is upon which such decisions are based. Decision makers can always choose to decide policy questions based on their own view of the world, but it is intuitively obvious that this is not the best way to insure good decisions. For this reasons the most senior authorities generally restrain their subordinates on the policy side of government and prevent excessive interference with the process of judging information.

The danger is that the wisdom of that attitude is not universally appreciated and in some government past, present or future, policy officials may choose to drive the intelligence people supporting their deliberations towards judgments unsupported by convincing and dependable evidence. If one doubts the seriousness of the possible consequences of such a “cattle drive” one need only consider such historical examples of misadventure as the US strategic obsession with the likelihood of a Japanese first strike on the Philippines in 1941. This led the US Government to focus attention of its analytic force in that direction so firmly that Japanese preparations for an attack in Hawaii were completely missed. Another example would be the obsession with the “inevitability” of victory that influenced intelligence to “miss” completely enemy preparations for the Tet Offensive of 1968 in spite of the mass of information available that indicated something really “big” on the way. In both cases the results of policy or strategic thinking having been allowed to “intrude” on analysis were simply catastrophic. Strong leadership by “real intelligence officers” can help to prevent such disasters. The “dissent” taken by the State Department in the October 2002 NIE on Iraq may well have been an example of the survival of such leadership.

How can this be prevented? This problem exists across the world in every country where serious foreign policy and military issues must be considered and decisions on policy and strategy made on the basis of a systematic consideration of available data. In every country there is the problem of trying to insure that the judgments of the information or intelligence people are untainted by external pressures. There have been various methods and structures adopted to deal with this danger to the national security. In some places external “think tanks” are used to “test” the result of internal analysis. In others countries, reliance is placed on the competitive analysis of two or more intelligence agencies, often one military and the other civilian.

In Israel, within the Directorate of Military Intelligence there exists something called the “Devil’s Advocate” a name borrowed from the process of canonization within the Catholic Church in which a cleric is appointed to oppose the sainthood of one who has been presented for consideration for that honor. In the Israeli “Devil’s Advocate” section, the officers so employed have the job of opposing the analysis accepted by the government and of preventing the acceptance of institutional “group think” as the basis for decisions. For the senior Israeli officers who serve in the “Devil’s Advocate” section it is understood that opposition to the judgments of the rest of the intelligence community will have a career price and that the officers who do this work should look forward to a fruitful life in retirement from the army soon after their service in this job. Nevertheless, they perform a vital; perhaps “priceless” is not too strong a word, service for their country. None of these devices seem altogether suitable for the United States as a “safeguard” against overwhelming pressure to bring their analysis into conformity with policy. The sheer scale of the institutions involved in American life dictate modification of the methods used in smaller governments. Some approach that combines the better features of these institutional “fixes” would probably be appropriate.

Can the “Intelligence Community” change itself to eliminate the problems discussed above?

It cannot.

The United States “Intelligence Community” is a “mature bureaucracy,” a group of institutions that have reached a stable equilibrium in their internal politics and in their relationships with the other parts of the government. The leaders of these intelligence agencies are bureaucrats and politicians identical in character and mentality to those of all the other departments and agencies of the U.S. government. Typically, they are focused on group and individual survival and advancement, not on the quality of the informational product so desperately needed by their country. For the majority of these senior leaders, the most important work related event in their lives is the annual justification of the agency budget to the Congress rather than the opportunity to lead “their people” to new heights of achievement in the “art” of intelligence. There are few “virtuoso performers” among the senior leaders (military or civilian) of the “artists” who must be relied on to protect the United States in the unending intelligence wars that never end around the world.

If the Congress really wants better intelligence so as to avoid future disasters, it will have to “grasp the nettle” itself and dictate re-organization and a new beginning which seeks to protect the artists from the bureaucrats. If this does not happen, then superficial changes may occur but nothing of significance will be produced from within “the community,” and we will all just wait for “the next time.”

Hide 71 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
  1. Heros says:

    I guess Lang is talking about what he refers to as the “Borg”. His biggest problem is that he is one of them, as this long disinformation article shows.

    How can you even pretend there were “intelligence failures” after these guys murdered the Kennedy’s and pulled off the 9/11 new Pearl Harbor.

    As usual, Lang is just laying a smoke screen for his war criminal Masonic brothers.

  2. Of course Iran is a danger to the USA.
    In 1953 there was the CIA coup, that ended democratic Iran, and brought the USA puppet shah in power.
    In 1979 Muslim clerics had the audacity to send the puppet away, and put themselves in power.
    Since then they, with success, resisted the USA yoke.
    Right now Assad is a danger to the USA, he’s still alive, and, with help of Russia, and some help of Erdogan, in power.
    Both regimes undermine USA prestige in the world.

    • Replies: @byrresheim
    , @Wizard of Oz
  3. Randal says:

    Fascinating stuff, thanks. One of the best articles I’ve read on Unz, in fact, and that’s saying quite a lot because there’s been a lot of great stuff here over the past few years.

  4. anonymous[340] • Disclaimer says:

    Mr. Lang hasn’t appreciated my pending questions about his first two columns here at Unz Review, but I have a couple more, one substantive, the other editorial.

    1. What does Mr. Lang specifically advocate, if anything?

    He urges Congress to revamp a bureaucracy. But he says that when Congress addressed that bureaucracy in the mid-1970s as part of the post-Vietnam “‘witch hunt’” it “tied the hands of the clandestine services so effectively that they have never recovered.” (He seems to see himself as one of those so bound. But that’s not made clear in the context of anything between 1968 (Tet) and the circa 2002 warmongering against Iraq.)

    So if a Congressman during a hearing were to ask Mr. Lang how his work had been hampered before he retired, and for his specific recommendations going forward, what would he say?

    2. What’s “up” with the needless quotation marks?

  5. Sceptical says:

    This is an interesting critique of the current state of the intelligence community. The author’s contention that the system has devolved into a bureaucratic muddle under the thrall of the executive branch seems accurate but:

    The disregard for the Church Committee and pining for the days of the gifted operator being free from pesky managerial control seems misplaced. I know most Americans have a limited sense of history and memory but, for example, look at the blowback from the Mossadegh coup, the bad intelligence we received from Gehlen about the Soviets, MK ULTRA, Robert Parry’s revelation that members of the intelligence community interfered with Carter’s attempt to negotiate the release of the hostages held by the mullahs. There are many more such examples. I am not so sure that the “good ol days” were that great. Also, is it even true that the Executive branch is in control(does the tail wag the dog)?

    • Replies: @RobinG
  6. Anonymous [AKA "divadab"] says:

    Interesting analysis – apparently reflecting imperial institutions bureaucratized to the point of calcification, like an alzheimers brain. I wonder if by extension the senior ranks of the military in general have become inhabited by risk-averse careerists? Can this explain at least partly its lack of success in warmaking since Vietnam?

  7. Anonymous [AKA "xxxyyyzzzttt"] says:

    Lang is what we draft soldiers use to call “Lifers”; people who define their life by their love of guns and bombs etc. Reading him daily over the years brings to mind Kissinger’s denigration of military men’s intelligence or Hitler’s comment that Generals don’t understand economics. Not intelligence in the sense of IQ ( I have learned a lot from him; smarter than me no doubt). Rather intelligence in the sense of not being able to see reality through the lens of their love of shoot ‘em up bang bang.
    For example, he really would have us believe that there is something wrong with “Intelligence”. They make mistakes. Not the reality that they provide the rational for the wars he is so proud to have been a part of. He is proud of his killing deeds in Vietnam, which was largely the result of what: failed intelligence in the Gulf of Tonkin? He is proud of the role he played in the killing Kaddafi’s baby daughter. Was this the result of failed intelligence about terrorism? Come on Pat your are like the Robert Duval character in Apocalypse Now who “loved the smell of Napalm in the morning.” Intelligence has not failed the likes of you. It provides the rational for you to do what is you live to do – killing. You spent your adult life killing or being responsible for killing people whose only crime was to be sitting on oil.
    When you were doing your killing in Vietnaum, draftees like me were saying “hell no I won’t go”. There was a saying at the time: “What if someone gave a war and no one showed up”. If people like you would stop showing up we would not have troops stationed in 125 countries in the world today. Guys like you show up because you love the shit and you could care less about the accuracy of Intelligence. Intelligence is the opium of the people. It gives them a reason to pay people like you to act out your childhood fantasies about war.

  8. @Heros

    @ heros-
    thank you, saved me a bunch of snarking at the author…
    as for the article itself, I rarely don’t finish articles and comment on them, but the sophistry is so wide and deep, it was impossible to finish…
    the author -as does the korporate/lapdog media- makes a number of presumptions which are not supported by current reality (which is -in fact- the reason for their role as gatekeepers)… firstly, AS IF we had a system which makes decisions based on facts, the greatest good for the greatest number, and -you know- reality…
    we do not…
    what we have imposed upon us, is a PURPOSEFULLY corrupted and broken system which is used by the 1% to enforce their will… all the ‘fact finding’, ‘research’, etc, etc, etc, is so much window dressing and bullshit to justify doing what they want to do and has NOTHING to do with what eggheads, pontificators, pundits, academics, etc have researched, experimented on, or theorized…
    repeat: it is ALL bullshit to make the insane decisions FOR the 1% seem like the only choice we have…

    • Replies: @LeaNder
  9. Kemerd says:

    Oh Americans! One thing about brits that I like is tbat they never hesitated talking about their empire or imperial interests. But all americans seem to have have blinkers (set by their imperial hubris or genuine belief that their country stands for the good) even supposedly intellectuals cannot escape it. Taleb calls them intellectual yet idiot, l suppose Lang is one of them.

  10. Anonymous[196] • Disclaimer says:

    The intelligence community, while apparently giving useful tactical-level information sometimes, is now, from what I seen, just a propaganda tool. Look at the Skripal farce. The IC of the “five eyes” confirmed Russia was behind trying to kill the Skripals by smearing his door handle with nerve agent (so ludicrous it’s like something out of A Fish Called Wanda). Or Russian collusion and the Steele dossier and golden showers. Or Clapper as head of the NGA in 2003 claiming they had satellite photographic proof Saddam was moving WMD’s. Or Assad’s “chemical attacks on his own people”. What’s worse is that the IC hucksters (not IC, per se, just those pitching the wares) no longer even bother putting on an elaborate dog and pony show, show & tell, and holding vials of inert anthrax at the U.N. Pretty soon we won’t even need the IC middleman, though I’m sure the six-figure contractors, who now make up the bulk of the IC, will still be collecting the big bucks for “protecting America”.

    What is truth?,” asked an exasperated Pontus Pilate after being badgered by a certain (((group))) to take action and put a certain innocent God-man to death. Somethings never change.

  11. utu says:

    Totally false article.

    Mr. Lang created a false dichotomy which basically is reduced to No True Scotsman fallacy written from the position of the true Scotsman. There are no true Scotsmen.

    Things are much simpler. It all comes down to integrity which is a question of morality. Mr. George Slam Dunk Tenet produced what he was asked to produce. There was a war to be had and he had to do his job and show that he was a team player and he did it. This was not an issue of bad intelligence or that somebody made a mistake. If anybody had integrity there in CIA he would refuse and be ready to resign. I haven’t heard of anybody resigning or being fired prior to war in 2003. The additional dimension was a fear of physical threat. Mr. George Slam Dunk Tenet had attacks of anxiety fearing that he or his family would be hit while driving around Washington DC on business or with his family. Was it because there was something wrong with Mr. Tenet psychologically or was the idea planted in his mind by somebody who had enough credibility to make Mr. Tenet believe it? If the latter it shows that in Washington DC thing are done not differently than in some third wold capitol.

  12. Anonymous [AKA "G Standfast"] says: • Website

    From the TV adaptation of Smiley’s People, spoken by George Smiley as portrayed by Alec Guinness (49:30):

    In my time, Peter Guillam, I’ve seen Whitehall shirts go up and come down again. I’ve listened to all the excellent arguments for doing nothing and reaped the consequent frightful harvest. I’ve watched people hop up and down and call it progress. I’ve seen good men go to the wall and the idiots get promoted with dazzling regularity. All I’m left with is me. And the thirty odds years of Cold War without the option.

  13. @Heros

    Oh, SUCH nonsense. What hope is there of a sensible attempt to alter the disastrous course Western foreign policy is taking if anyone can read a stunning piece of analysis like that and come up with such a reply?

    • Replies: @Anon
    , @hyperbola
  14. Anon[198] • Disclaimer says:
    @English Outsider

    The author has a valid point regarding “groupthink” in the intelligence services but his descriptions of the alternatives don’t seem to hold much water. It’s not like even it its glory days American HUMINT was anywhere near up to, say, Soviet standards.

    • Replies: @Svigor
  15. LeaNder says:
    @art guerrilla

    as for the article itself, I rarely don’t finish articles and comment on them, but the sophistry is so wide and deep, it was impossible to finish…

    But nevertheless you feel entitled to judge an author whose article you haven’t even read? At what point did you decide it was sophistry pure and simple?

    • Replies: @art guerrilla
    , @LeaNder
  16. Blah blah blah. Then more blah blah. Why would anyo0ne read this shit. The CIA is an abomination. It should be destroyed. Glad I could help.

  17. The purpose of the Iraq war was to reunite Iran and Iraq as a bulwark against Israel. The goal was achieved. The resurgent Iran we are seeing today is the fruit of the Iraq war.

    Watch what is happening rather than what the talking heads are saying. And keep your friends close and enemies closer.

    If you listen closely you can hear the knashing of teeth in Israel that big brother stopped re-arranging the chess pieces in the M.E. after he installed a Iran allied shia (Nouri Al-Maliki) as leader of Iraq.

    Mission Accomplished!

    • Replies: @Svigor
  18. utu says:

    His biggest problem is that he is one of them, as this long disinformation article shows.


  19. hyperbola says:

    The elephant in the outhouse is again kept hidden by Lang. This alone is enough to disqualify anything he says.

    Israeli Spies in the US

    …. Intelligence Pact
    It seems that, as Blitzer contends, Washington and Tel Aviv made a deliberate effort in the mid-1950s to put an end to these covert operations against one another. Most observers assign responsibility for this to top CIA official James Angleton….. Sharing information on Arab countries may have been one example of this. Another may have been assistance in getting nuclear weapons for Israel. According to Seymour Hersh, “sources close to” Angleton told former New York Times reporter Tad Szulc that the CIA helped the Israelis obtain technical nuclear information in the late 1950s. “This fits in with something I had been told by a high-level CIA official,” Seymour Hersh added in 1978, “that Angleton, then in charge of CIA liaison with Israeli intelligence, gave the Israelis similar technical information in the mid-1960s.” [19] During this period, enriched uranium was vanishing from an American atomic energy company with close ties to the Israeli government. [20] …..
    A similar pattern of cooperation between US and Israeli intelligence agencies exists in the area of military procurement. “Israelis were caught in the Pentagon with unauthorized documents,” one US official told former Congressman Paul Findley, “sometimes scooping up the contents of ‘inboxes’ on desk tops.” This official recalled that a number of Israelis were very quietly asked to leave the US as a result of such activities; no formal charges were ever filed against them. Several US officials told Findley that the Israelis would submit orders for military items they were not supposed to have or even to know about — using top-secret code numbers and sometimes precise specifications. Presumably they obtained the information from friendly executive branch contacts, but no official efforts were undertaken to discover the sources of the leaks. [22]…..

  20. @LeaNder

    1. it appears you are guilty of the ‘sin’ you accuse me of: my post SAID why I thought it was sophistry (as well as in agreement with heros analysis)… in short, because IT DENIES OBVIOUS REALITY…
    the author prattles on AS IF ‘intelligence’/information that is gleaned by spooks or WHOEVER, actually matters in what decisions our 1% superiors make on our 99% behalf (but NOT for our 99% benefit)…
    2. don’t be such an authoritarian tool: FORGET about what the 1% SAY is what guides their decisions, etc, LOOK AT WHO BENEFITS, you scared, shorn, sheeple… again, in short, as they EXPLICITLY STATED in the bulldozing run up to the eye-rack-eee war part 1, they ‘fixed the intelligence’ around the ALREADY MADE DECISION TO ATTACK for the greedy reasons of Empire, NOT because sad damn who’s sane was our hitler-of-the-month ™…
    it is difficult to take such propaganda victims as yourself seriously; you are stuck on the superficial layer of what Empire presents as ‘reality’, and don’t see (or even GUESS) that there is a man behind the curtain pulling the levers to bedazzle you…
    bread and circuses, kampers, bread and circuses…
    hee hee hee
    ho ho ho
    ha ha ha
    ak ak ak

    • Replies: @LeaNder
  21. hyperbola says:
    @English Outsider

    Pity the English. They have been slaves of a racist-supremacist, foreign sect ever since Cromwell let the sect back in the country. Time for Americans to again free themselves from the “city of london” sect.

    The goy and the golem: James Angleton and the rise of Israel

    ….. “Angleton was was a leading architect of America’s strategic relationship with Israel that endures and dominates the region to this day,” Jefferson Morley writes in The Ghost: The Secret Life of CIA Spymaster James Jesus Angleton. More than any other man, the longtime chief of U.S. counterintelligence made possible Israel’s shift “from an embattled settler state into a strategic ally of the world’s greatest superpower.”

    Angleton did so chiefly by burying any effort in the U.S. intelligence establishment to question Israel’s acquisition of nuclear weapons in the 1960s. “Angleton’s loyalty to Israel betrayed U.S. policy on an epic scale,” Morley writes. “Instead of supporting U.S. nuclear security policy, he ignored it.”…..

    • Replies: @Anon
  22. schrub says: • Website

    My first contact with CIA was while visiting the remote Mojave Airport in California in the early 1980s during a motorcycle trip to Death Valley. While there I noticed numerous Boeing 707 airline sized planes parked off a faraway field in the distance. There must have been at least twenty five or thirty of these airline size planes just sitting in isolation from the rest of the planes at the airport.

    At first, I thought the planes were merely being mothballed (stored) there until I saw one of them start to move. Curious, I remember asking one of the workers at the airport about who owned the large planes and was told that no one really knew but it was referred to as the “spook airline” because the planes and their use were shrouded in absolute secrecy. Nobody knew who piloted the planeseither because their pilots arrived at the airport either in smaller executive size planes or in vans that went without stopping directly up to the planes after entering the airport property.

    it was only later that I discovered these planes belonged to Air America, the “the CIA airline” and were apparently used to ferry large numbers of mostly mercenary soldiers to areas the CIA was interested in at the time. I also learned that the Mojave Airport was only one of several other similar such bases of Air America operation. A friend described laughingly described Air America as the “Coup Airline” because of the CIA’s propensity for the overthrowing of unfriendly governments.

    About this same time, I also started reading more and more articles about the fact that our elected representatives, even at the highest levels, didn’t actually fully know what the CIA was up to because of the CIA’s so-called, ultra secret “black budgets” which allowed it to operate without any sort of control from our elected representatives below the Presidental level who claimed they didn’t want to know about these “black” activities out of fear of getting blamed once the activities arising out of them became known.

    I also started reading about rumors that parts of the CIA had become essentially self-funding using illicit activities like drug running and arms sales to avoid any sort of even marginal budget control by even the President of the US. The CIA’s own airline would, of course, provide the ideal transportation vehicle to facilitate such activities.

    Essentially this meant that a significant part of the CIA had been allowed to essentially go rogue without any sort of real supervision whatsoever. Unfortunately, The Mossad, would have been more than happy to step in and provide this oversight using friendly Zionists already embedded within the agency.

    There are those who now claim that parts of the CIA are hotbeds of Israeli controlled spying activities operating specifically within its unsupervised “black budgets”.

    State department leader Dean Acheson warned this would happen in the mid-1940’s when plans started being made to turn the wartime OSS into the CIA. I have always thought his opinion might have been formed by his secret wartime access to the Venona Transcripts which extensively detailed how intelligence agencies in both the US and the UK had become hotbeds of Communist spying activities. (Sort of like the Israelis and the CIA today. )

    Read about Acheson’s very prescient criticism here

    The CIA cannot be fixed. It is too far gone. It should be abolished.

    • Replies: @Them Guys
    , @Svigor
  23. I would earnestly recommend that you go to the Colonel’s site, SST, and read, from the beginning long ago, his articles analysing the defects of Western foreign policy and what leads to those defects. You will find there the most powerful and informed thinking on this subject that there is.

    I myself don’t really belong here because I’m a tooth and nail Deplorable as well as a foreigner. But so what? We both know that what our respective elites are doing is wrong. We both know that there has to be some other way. If we don’t seek out balanced and considered analysis then we might as well run off and join those many dissidents for whom dissidence is merely a hobby, or those many others for whom it merely offers occasion for dispute.

    • Replies: @Heros
  24. Them Guys says:

    So, these inner problem’s within every major intel agency can be basically summed up in just four word’s…..Beware the jews within.

    Now back to my soon to be finished one page book that will sum up everything false we were told or taught regarding WWII in all it’s many areas…..”The Complete Untold Truth about, WWII” .

    “Them Germans was Correct!”…The End.

    Best one page book length expose’ one can obtain in the vast search for real fact based Truth, of which international jewry so hate’s for one to learn of eh.

    • Troll: Wizard of Oz
  25. bjondo says:

    Get rid of the intelligence agencies.
    If Jewsa needs info about a region, country, even itself, ask Russia, China. Answers will be intelligent, diplomatic, accurate, and relevant.

    Billions saved can go to help, real help not bombs, countries destroyed for Israel and impoverished by Goldman Sachs, Monsanto, ilk.

  26. LeaNder says:

    I asked at what precise part of his piece you smelt sophistry. Maybe I have lost my ability in reading comprehension of your language. Could well be? Apparent from being more generally not too fond of sloganeering.

    a number of presumptions which are not supported by current reality

    Those would be specifically?

  27. Them Guys says:

    Just look at how during the reign of Chabad Rabbi Dov Zakiem appointed as Head of Pentagon $$$ controls etc……What began as a mention to tv reporters a day prior to 9/11 event’s of somehow pentagon cannot account for a Missing $2.3-TRILLION!!!…Has as of last date I read any new revelations of that missing cash, morphed into almost $9.5-TRILLION missing!!! And that last amount was like several month’s ago.

    What a Cohencidence eh?……And just think what new and worse swindle scams Israel and it’s mossad wonderkins can come up with to do next with so large an amount of Black Budget ready cash available?

    Yes Yes I know that several hasbara clown’s and tribal member’s will say no such stolen cash ever goes to 100% innocent Israel and it’s equally innocent jewry aka “The World’s Biggest and Only Victim’s that ever matter”.

    But daily now another 10,000 folks in America awaken to fact that research proves beyond all doubt that virtually Every evil and bad and immoral and unethical type issue or event since 3,500 yr’s ago has More jewdeo fingerprint’s all over it than any other cause…period.

    And once red pilled and awakened to such real truth’s….None are able to return to their former asleep position even if they wished to…No amount of jewish hasbara propagandas will ever be able to undo real truth once that cats been let out of the bag so to speak.

    Mossad/Israel state moto:..”By Deception(lies!) You Shall Cause War’s”….Indeed they do eh.

  28. The author is right as far as he goes but he ignores the CIA/Wall Street complex that was established by Allen Dulles – that complex is at the very core of the US Deep State.
    That complex is held together from the top; notice that only the very connected are put in charge of the CIA and connected means very tied into Wall Street.
    The CIA, in spite of their low period in the 1970’s, has been very effective in controlling the US media.
    Note how the Brennan secret team created a trap that the democrats walked right into.
    And note how they have the FBI taking the fall while the CIA continues to operate in the shadows.
    I like the author; he brings some sanity but he is still a creature of US supremacism.
    He doesn’t like me; he has blocked me from commenting at his site.
    But I still hope he speaks out as far as he goes.

    • Replies: @johnT
  29. It is helpful to learn the point of view of the knightly orders, which, as in the middle ages, constitute a parasitic class indoctrinated to see nothing but the stylized ethical set pieces proper to their order.

    Here are a few things Lang cannot acknowledge without jeopardizing his identity:

    Impunity. Doesn’t show up in the list of CIA flaws, but it’s staring him in the face, right there in black and white: the Central Intelligence Agency Act, the Rogers/Huston get-out-of-jail-free card, the Intelligence Identities Protection Act, the operational files exemption, the political questions doctrine, and lots of secret law and regulations. Under municipal law (strictly speaking, it doesn’t meet minimal legal standards, it’s administrative red tape,) CIA can get away with anything. So they are institutionally criminal. This is a sore point, frantically repressed. Even vague recollections of old movies are enough to trigger the traditional posturing of honor-based chivalric cultures.

    Operations. Beltway courtiers are constrained to discuss CIA’s intelligence function in isolation from its overwhelmingly dominant, and inherently criminal, clandestine operations function. In reality, all analysts are paid to do is complain about NCS crime. Then when their next criminal racket gets caught, NCS trots out some analysts to say, ‘We at CIA warned about this.’ CIA operations includes gun-running, drug-dealing, human trafficking and pedophile blackmail, murder, torture, coercive interference, and aggression by armed bands and irregulars. Intelligence is not CIA’s business.

    Rule of law. Lang, in the context of the USG going to war, writes, “If the “Intelligence Community” as it now exists were abolished, some other group would have to assume the burden of performing the same functions.” Right. That other group would be the duly constituted authority under US supreme law, the UN Security Council, which the intelligence community devoted most of their efforts to subverting with foreign corrupt practices and fabricated war propaganda. It’s not like CIA got stuck with this job, they usurped it.

    • Replies: @anon
  30. Heros says:
    @English Outsider

    Having had my comments deleted and been blocked several times on SST, I can tell anyone who would listen to not listen to your advice and waste hours poring over that myopic blog. Myopic, because anytime someone writes an interesting comment that contradicts any of Lang’s masonic beliefs, Lang gets nasty. Even TwistedGenius has had to dance around a snarling Lang because he crossed some secret line.

    Sure, Lang was right about a lot of things from 2003-2007. But he was also often wrong and no one ever dared to call him on it.

    Once again, I will point out Lang’s complete failure to deviate from the narrative on things like all these gun-grabbing “mass shootings”. As I recall Lang was even very wishy washy about the second amendment, offering to sell his guns in a government gun grab. So he lies to us about about what his masonic brethren are up to on this front.

    But of course the biggest void in his analysis is the JQ. He attends barmitzfa’s, purim, and who knows what other kind of cabal rituals. He cannot deal with the JQ because he is borg, and he knows what kind of punishment would await him. And angry jews crying for blood revenge aren’t any where near as bad as when the masonic brotherhood turns on you.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
  31. RobinG says:

    (does the tail wag the dog)?

    Good question. Where does Trump get his ludicrous talking points on Iran and Syria?

    • Replies: @anonymous
  32. @Heros

    Agree but I think it is much more than a smoke Screen and preparation for war.
    The 527 paid slave drivers and their bureaucrats and military (called the USA) has become a permanent false flag operation. The 9/11 advisory explained:
    1. slave drivers have been ordered to spy on slaves,
    2. slave drivers have been ordered to silence all slave protests and objections,
    3. slave drivers have been ordered to study the slaves like rats in cage,
    4. slave drivers have been ordered to deprive the slaves until production is sufficient to satisfy the Pharaohs.
    5. slave drivers have been ordered to keep the USA dark, slaves are not allowed to know or learn anything
    they don’t pay for.
    6. Slaves are expected to listen to Pharaoh produced, media distributed propaganda at least 12 hours per day.

    Americans now live in fear of the Bastards from the Dark Side Kingdom of Lies.

    The problem is how to save America from the USA. The USA is milking our cattle, selling our eggs, fencing us in with costly schooling and licenses to be eligible to get work, spying on our thoughts, destroying our earning platforms, price and ticket gating our access to information, bottling and selling to us, our once free water and air, and generally putting Americans at risk to attack from the global outside and famine blight from the inside.

    • Replies: @Heros
  33. @Anonymous

    “You spent your adult life killing or being responsible for killing people whose only crime was to be sitting on oil.”

    And not only, but also people whose only crime was to be communists or think that communism was a better and fairer system for humanity to develop and live in peace and progress. For Pat Lang, simply, communists have no right to live in the surface of this Earth….

    Of course, inequality ( and denying others their right to sovereignity, land, education, bread, or, simply, peace, is the higuest form of inequality ) is one of the most important causes of wars, be them through causing revolutions, be them through coups d´etat to overthrown legitimate governments which are intending to apply more equality for their people, as it will be soon the case of Venezuela…

    This is how they do it… they did in the past, and how they follow doing all the way to this very day…Then, men like Pat Lang come here once retired ( ???) to moralize us and they feel in their right trying to justify themselves by saying that they just “were following orders”….Well, just what they are doing those who replaced you, I guess…..

    • Replies: @Svigor
  34. Anonymous[438] • Disclaimer says:

    He attends barmitzfa’s, purim, and who knows what other kind of cabal rituals.

    What did they serve on the buffet, trolls?

    • Replies: @Heros
  35. @Anonymous

    Welcome to With an insightful comment like that you’ll have a regular following in no time.

  36. anonymous[294] • Disclaimer says:

    Richard Goldberg
    Michael Ledeen
    The Wurmsers

    Sheldon Adleson gave $30 million to Ryan as head of TOP VIA Norm Coleman head of Republican Jewish Coalition.

    No doubt the figure was coincidental, not symbolic. NOT at all symbolic.

  37. This is not CIA, this is a product of DIA, I guess by its author, where Pat Lang belongs, and sound equaly dirty, immoral, against any human decence and international law….

    Plan to overthrow the Venezuelan Dictatorship – “Masterstroke”
    by Kurt W. Tidd

  38. Heros says:

    Matza bread with walnut sauce.

    • Replies: @anonymous
  39. Svigor says:
    @Fatima Manoubia

    “You spent your adult life killing or being responsible for killing people whose only crime was to be sitting on oil.”

    And not only, but also people whose only crime was to be communists or think that communism was a better and fairer system for humanity to develop and live in peace and progress. For Pat Lang, simply, communists have no right to live in the surface of this Earth….

    Leftists like to act as if this is some great sin, but it flows naturally from leftist hegemony and leftists’ refusal to allow the existence of people whose only crime is non-Jewish ethnonationalism, or thinking that ethnonationalism is a better and fairer system for non-Jews to develop to live in peace and progress.

    In other words, in the leftist mind, the ship has already sailed on your argument; for them it’s all about the who-whom.

    is one of the most important causes of wars, be them through causing revolutions, be them through coups d´etat to overthrown legitimate governments which are intending to apply more equality for their people, as it will be soon the case of Venezuela…

    The Venezuelan people, were they less backward, would have known better than to put themselves on the road to Hell via socialism. It would be hard for socialism’s record to be any clearer. It’s the moral duty of any human being of conscience to at least make available sales of arms and ammunition to people in Venezuela (and indeed, anywhere) with the modicum of historical awareness needed to see socialism and communism as the deadly diseases they are.

    • Replies: @Fatima Manoubia
  40. Svigor says:

    The author has a valid point regarding “groupthink” in the intelligence services but his descriptions of the alternatives don’t seem to hold much water. It’s not like even it its glory days American HUMINT was anywhere near up to, say, Soviet standards.

    That is as it should be. It’s something to brag about. Soviet spy agencies were directly in charge of the nation in a way American agencies never have been. The liars, murderers, and thieves were running the asylum. The Soviet best and brightest wanted in on the action.

    When the West was sending its best and brightest to school to be scientists, entrepreneurs, engineers, doctors, etc., the Soviets were sending theirs to learn how to slit throats and suck cocks to steal the things created by the Western elites.

    The West specialized in doing the hard work of creating things. The Soviets specialized in the sleazy work of stealing everything the West created, a task made much easier when your other specialization is turning every place you run into a jail.

    • Replies: @Fatima Manoubia
  41. Heros says:

    This “USA” was created through the ratification of the Constitution, with all its masonic undertones. This “USA” is really just the Yankees, who learned about war and victory from their frenzy of rape, murder and looting conducted against civilians throughout the South. The Yankees learned how the victor writes the history and punishes the vanquished, and then they unleashed the same tactics and generals on the Indian nations. Then on the Spanish. Always the same masonic Yankees and their Rothschild controllers. Then on Germany after a series of false flag incidents. Twice.

    And now all the turmoil surrounding Eretz Israel with full support from every resource available in the JewSA. Every action the US takes in the middle east is blatantly in the interest of Israel and against the interest of the American people.

    So Yankees like Lang try to obfuscate by describing and analyzing how what the USA does is against her own interests, yet consistently ignore how everything the Yankees do is in the interest of Israel, and how these USA actions can be described and predicted when looked at in this light. These Yankees are traitors to the American people just as much as the Neocons.

    As I have written on Unz before, Lang is just one on a long, long line of Yankee war criminals.

    • Replies: @LeaNder
  42. Svigor says:
    @Linda Green

    I suppose that’s possible, but it seems more likely that all the neokahns backed Iraq Attack II owing to their loyalty to Israel, not athwart it. And that they simply lost Iraq to Iran (to the extent that has happened), subsequently.

  43. Svigor says:

    I also started reading about rumors that parts of the CIA had become essentially self-funding using illicit activities like drug running and arms sales to avoid any sort of even marginal budget control by even the President of the US. The CIA’s own airline would, of course, provide the ideal transportation vehicle to facilitate such activities.

    I’ve read that Frodo dropped the ring into the lava in the bowels of Orodruin, sealing Sauron’s fate for all time. Or maybe it was Smeagol who did the deed. In any event, the ring dropping into the lava underneath Mt. Doom was the key, take-home point.

  44. @Svigor

    You just tell the story the contrary to what it really is and, definitely, was.
    A custom very tipical of the US and UK.
    It was the Soviets who were sending its best and brightest to school to be scientists, entrepreneurs, engineers, doctors, who then were stolen by the US after turning the USSR into a nightmare of drugs, alcohol, prostitution and widespread poverty induced by stealing everything of value which had been created in the USSR through hard study and work of the Russian people.
    In fact, it is the eternal money creating machine the US owns which allows it to steal every brain worth out there in the world. Of course, previously, the nation of origin of such brains must be subdued to astronomical unpayable debt by exporting US own banking and real-state crisis ( as that of 2008 ), so as to create conditions impossible to live or progress, as it has been the case of many European countries, especially those located in the south…….
    Venezuela is just another more scandalous variant of this…..

    • Replies: @Svigor
  45. LeaNder says:

    Then on Germany after a series of false flag incidents. Twice.

    “I could not possibly eat as much as I would like to throw up”.

    German artist watching the Nazis marching through the Brandenburg Gate, celebrating their victory in 1933.

    You seriously feel that they would have needed whatever you want to call it, masonic Yankees, for their false flags? Weren’t able to do that on their own?

    What odd collective of confused and crazy nitwits around here, thankfully with some exception.. And strictly I used nitwit to describe myself. Thus it cannot be an insult. 😉

    • Replies: @Zumbuddi
    , @Heros
  46. @Svigor

    I get an idea of what you mean by the euphemistic construct “non-Jewish ethno-nationalism”, but especially I do it when you try to equate being leftist with being jewish, which is not everything and the same, but, of course, you need to associate the two concepts so as to get another opportunity to spread your sick hatred for both, jews and communists/socialists.
    You are obviously a provocator with no fact to offer to support your false claims trying to derail the topic by provoking me into an off-topic discussion so as to getting me banned. I know these tactics long ago in the “alt-media”.

    I wanted only to add that point about Pat Lang, especially if it serves him of something in case he is genuinely open at his retirement age to reconsider his role in what US killing machine currently is and has been, but I am not interested in a wider discussion about the left in this article, and especially not with you, thus do not tire….

    • Replies: @Svigor
  47. Pournelle’s Iron Law of Bureaucracy states that in any bureaucratic organization there will be two kinds of people:

    First, there will be those who are devoted to the goals of the organization. Examples are dedicated classroom teachers in an educational bureaucracy, many of the engineers and launch technicians and scientists at NASA, even some agricultural scientists and advisors in the former Soviet Union collective farming administration.

    Secondly, there will be those dedicated to the organization itself. Examples are many of the administrators in the education system, many professors of education, many teachers union officials, much of the NASA headquarters staff, etc.

    The Iron Law states that in every case the second group will gain and keep control of the organization. It will write the rules, and control promotions within the organization.

  48. Zumbuddi says:

    So — Did Lang ban you or did the SST gang insist he keep you arou d for co.ic relief?

    And how in the name of Wotan do you expect anyone to take you seriously when you call yourself — you insist on identifying as — nitwit? You have lost all self-respect.
    That is to say, you have “internalized the demands of your oppressor.”

    Some at this Forum refuse to let the bastards win.

    Germany, RISE!

    Free Ursula Haeverbeck!

    • Replies: @LeaNder
  49. Svigor says:
    @Fatima Manoubia

    It was the Soviets who were sending its best and brightest to school to be scientists, entrepreneurs, engineers, doctors, who then were stolen by the US after turning the USSR into a nightmare of drugs, alcohol, prostitution and widespread poverty induced by stealing everything of value which had been created in the USSR through hard study and work of the Russian people.
    In fact, it is the eternal money creating machine the US owns which allows it to steal every brain worth out there in the world. Of course, previously, the nation of origin of such brains must be subdued to astronomical unpayable debt by exporting US own banking and real-state crisis ( as that of 2008 ), so as to create conditions impossible to live or progress, as it has been the case of many European countries, especially those located in the south…….
    Venezuela is just another more scandalous variant of this…..

    LoL, funny shit. You should go on tour with that routine.

    We didn’t steal Soviet talent, we SEDUCED them away from their abusers with, wait for it…drum roll, please…open societies and non-centrally-planned economies! Shocking, I know; people like freedom.

    Loved the bit where we forced the Russkies to swill down epic quantities of vodka, though.

    What rock do they keep finding these ignoramuses under? Communism and socialism produce failure, the end.

  50. Svigor says:
    @Fatima Manoubia

    Leftists let Jews get away with ethnonationalism, largely because Jews are the financial and brain trust of leftism.

    They enforce a ban on Europeans.

    It’s not that complicated.

  51. A very good disinformation piece seemingly written by an Israeli Agent. The first item that must be considered with any “unit” of information is the Source. Where did it come from and who benefits from the information? Second who is weighting or placing importance on the information. Third which agency has the info and how did they get it? Was the info obtained under torture? How many layers are there in the information? In other words, how many people were involved in getting the information from the source and what weighted value does each one of these layers have in credibility.

    For example, when info is obtained under torture this is usually what happens:1) the initial info obtained is usually true and it’s a very small amount 2) the second amount usually has some very slight element of truth etc. and after that it’s nonsense but the agencies have been suckered. This is the way these fighters are trained to respond.

    Remember how Ahmed Abdel Hadi Chalabi suckered the Neocons and Cheney! His lying and false information led to the Iraq invasion. This was sold to the public and is one of the greatest intelligence failures ever. The French believed that Chalabi was an Iranian agent. How could so many people in the so called “Intelligence Community” have been wrong?

    The CIA has two pro Israeli factions and the FBI one according to people who should know. Just follow the info they put out and who it benefits. Remember Mueller was head of the FBI investigation of the Anthrax attacks. The investigation was totally botched by the FBI. Which country or state benefited from these attacks? Take a guess! Once the real scientists got in on analyzing the work of the FBI the investigation was closed and the files sealed by Obama.

    I could go on for days on how poorly this article is but I believe you should get the few points I’ve made. And finally remember Snowden and his so called NSA filearama. Snowden worked for the CIA before he went to the NSA. The CIA had their budget cut and NSA had their budget expanded. Do you really think Snowden got all that info on the NSA by himself?

    These agencies are nothing more Military Industrial-Intelligence Police States unto themselves. They do not serve the country. Just look at what’s going on now with the leaks and false info. Israeli intelligence and the Mossad have infiltrated just about every intelligence agency of so called democracies in the world and it doesn’t take a genus to realize how they color the so called info for Israel.

  52. A good, albeit a verbose overview. Some errors though:

    “This led the US Government to focus attention of its analytic force in that direction so firmly that Japanese preparations for an attack in Hawaii were completely missed.”

    That is false, yet good people today remained fooled. That Pearl Harbor was a target was known when the Japanese fleet sailed to attack over a week prior. Yet alerting our fleet woulds spoil the attack and stop the war.

    Another example, this one unforgivable: “The question under examination here is simple. Premise: “The Intelligence Community produced poor quality intelligence on Iraq.” ” The USA had perfect intelligence that Iraq had no WMDs! This was not even secret. For those confused or suffering from memory loss, here is a refresher from something I wrote long ago:

    “Invading Iraq had nothing to do with “Weapons of Mass Destruction” (WMDs). One of President Bush’s more outrageous lies is that he did not deceive the American people to justify the invasion of Iraq. “We were fooled by bad intelligence” is the excuse accepted by most Americans. They cannot recall that in 2003, as U.S. forces prepared to invade Iraq, President Bush demanded that Saddam Hussein permit UN inspectors “free and unfettered access” to search Iraq for WMDs. Saddam Hussein surprised everyone by agreeing, and UN inspectors were allowed to roam Iraq at will and check all the locations that Colin Powell had recently told the UN Assembly were actively producing illegal weapons.

    After several weeks, the dozens of UN inspector teams had found nothing, and the dirty, rusty conditions of the suspect sites showed nothing had been made there for years. The Bush administration insisted they had other proof that WMDs were in Iraq. Chief UN inspector Hans Blix publicly stated that if they would send him a clue, he would have UN teams inspect the next day. Iraq even proposed that U.S. military officers join the UN inspectors. As a result, President Bush had perfect intelligence that Iraq had no WMDs. The US military had complete freedom to fly anywhere in Iraq to observe activity. UN inspectors were on the ground to check any suspect site, and were permitted to stay in Iraq as long as they liked to pursue new leads.

    This confirmed what General Hussein Kamel, Iraq’s weapons chief who defected from the regime in 1995, told UN inspectors and the CIA, that Iraq had destroyed its entire stockpile of chemical and biological weapons and banned missiles.[9] ”

    Yet even today, people write about “poor” intelligence about Iraq’s WMDs and pretend mistakes were made. This war wasn’t about WMDs, this was about destroying Iraq!

    • Agree: byrresheim
  53. RobinG says:

    This belabored complaint sorely tested my ADHD, but I pressed through, really hoping that the critics were overly harsh. Sorry, they’re pretty much right. Lang says,

    It is clear that the inability of the Intelligence Community to forecast or estimate Iraq’s true condition was a major failure.

    But that is not clear. Not at all. And in the preceding paragraph Lang admits as much: “It is widely believed now that… …elected or appointed officials of the Bush Administration may have intruded themselves inappropriately…in a way that led to distortions…”

    In 2011, Paul Pillar spoke to a small group about his book, “Intelligence and U.S. Foreign Policy.” Sitting across the table from him, it was apparent that his anger was visceral. He was spitting mad that the Bush administration had ignored the CIA assessment that Iraq [did NOT have] WMD.

    Every attentive reader of “Intelligence and U.S. Foreign Policy,” Paul R. Pillar’s long-needed examination of just what the Central Intelligence Agency got right or wrong before the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, and the invasion of Iraq in 2003, will find one observation or another that seems more disquieting than the rest. I haven’t quite decided which of two deserves pride of place on my own list: The fact that the Bush administration never formally debated whether it was “a good idea” to invade Iraq? Or that Pillar, who ran the National Intelligence Council’s shop for the Middle East during both events, cannot tell us “the true reasons the Bush administration invaded”?

    Despite the bureaucratic lowest common denominator that Lang despairs, the CIA did manage to produce good intelligence which, tragically, was summarily overruled. Whether this happened at the CIA Director level, or in the Oval Office makes little difference. Both are political appointees.

    While the self-serving bureaucracy accusation applies, this was tediously described while the main problem was downplayed and prior bad policy defended. Not to mention extolling risky missions. How risky would it have been to prevent 911 right here in the US? The gatekeeper label seems to fit.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
  54. @Carlton Meyer

    Some questions:

    As to Pearl Harbour, what do you recommend as the best researched and footnoted source for concluding that the Pearl Harbour attack could have been effectively anticipated if FDR didn’t want it to drag the US into war? Is the happy fact that the carriers were not in harbour definitively connected to the knowledge at some high, and what, level that Pearl Harbour was to be attacked?”

    I never believed that Iraq had WMDs but used to say that Saddam Hussein wanted his neighbours and probably some of his generals to believe that it did so HE could hardly complain if he was thought to have a WMD program. Do you see any merit in that view?

  55. anon[436] • Disclaimer says:
    @Hot Nuns of Castle Anthrax

    Are you drunk or just dyslexic – and assertive? What the hell is NCS? Are you just in fact quite unfamiliar with the National Security Agency (NSA) but willing to make up and bandy about factoids?

  56. Heros says:

    Here is a good debunking of the Gleiwitz incident:

    “Why the story was invented in the first place

    After studying some of the documents, Jackson [Chief Prosecutor for the United States Robert Jackson at Nuremberg] knew well and emphasized that the German declaration of war on the United States was perfectly legal. Therefore, he pointed out, it had to be shown before the court that the war in Europe was, from the beginning, a German aggression contrary to international law (making it a Crime Against Peace). Thus, the invasion of Poland had to be shown to be an aggressive move with no justification, and no blame on Poland.

    Identical to Holocaust survivor stories that had to be partially dreamed up by Nuremberg prosecutors (even to the “fatal injections” by Nazi doctors), this story doesn’t hold together and doesn’t sound like the kind of plan intelligent Germans would come up with. As pointed out above, it was totally unnecessary. It was only of value to the Nuremberg prosecutors who needed some believable German aggression against Poland for their “Crimes against Peace” charge.

    But the Nuremberg prosecutors were accusing the SD of carrying out a crime against peace by staging so-called border incidents before the outbreak of the [German-Polish] war to give Hitler an excuse for starting the war. However, as the defense for the SD showed, nothing of the sort was carried out by the pertinent departments (Amt. III and VI).”

  57. Anon[436] • Disclaimer says:

    Why spoil your modest ability to provide readers with a good link and quote (accuracy assured by your learning to Copy and Paste) by something as idiotic as your first paragraph which wouldn’t pass an intelligent 10 year old’s ability to check it?

    • Replies: @hyperbola
  58. Anonymous[436] • Disclaimer says:
    @Carlton Meyer

    I never believed anything about the WMDs except that Saddam Hussein wanted Iraq’s neighbours and some of his less reliable generals to believe in them. Comment?

    As to Pearl Harbour what do you recommend as the best researched and footnoted sources for the view that FDR could have had Hawaii properly defended on 7th December 1941 because of prior intelligence? And can you say whether there was a top level decision to keep the carriers out of the Harbor based on foreknowledge? Source?

  59. @jilles dykstra

    Please look into the “puppet’s” role in OPEC and some of his public utterings in the ten years before his downfall. The western left is so easily manipulated or at least exploited in its emotions, and as they used to be the only opposition, our worldview is often tainted by said leftist’s emotions which sadly are not often enough checked against the facts as they transpire over time.

    Now, of course, the left plays loyal opposition to our illoyal governments.

    The Shah’s history is slightly more complicated and a lot more insidious than your abbreviated version.

  60. @Carlton Meyer

    Specificall this was not about bad intelligence, but untrue propaganda at it’s boldest.

  61. LeaNder says:

    Don’t worry about my self-respect. Why should it bother you?

    Ask Pat, if that is why he never banned me. Keeping me around for comic relief? Maybe? I cannot read his mind. …

  62. Anonymous [AKA "Oh barf"] says:

    Of course the analysts produced good intelligence. CIA analysts always criticize what the SIS wants to do. When the grand plans fails – fails at everything but topping up the CIA slush funds – then SIS trots out some girl scouts like RobinG to say, ‘We warned you!” Then CIA blames somebody else. CIA blamed Vietnam on the Pentagon with their tongue-in-cheek Pentagon Papers. Now CIA is using analysts to blame their lucrative Syria debacle on the Jews. The Jew Papers ought to drop any day now. Fletcher Prouty explained this trick back in the Seventies. Are you going to fall for it again?

  63. @anon

    You’re quite assertive yourself, for somebody who never heard of the National Clandestine Service. I’m guessing every factoid in that comment is stuff you never heard of, Huh? Nice job rebutting it with your dumb tantrum. Please tell us more about the TBI/PTSD-crazed mall cop security perspective on CIA impunity!

    • Replies: @anon
  64. anonymous[438] • Disclaimer says:

    Most of us a alergic to nuts.

  65. hyperbola says:

    Take some time off and start to educate yourself. You might start by remembering that our war for independence was primarily against the abuse by the East India Company and the jewish bankers of the City of London.

    The Balfour Declaration Was NOT Written by Arthur Balfour
    The Zionist Negotiating Committee Included Rothschild, Weizmann, Sokolow and Samuel

    Jewish banishment and the City of London

    The Jewish Opium Trade and Britain

    Controller Houses Of The East India Company: EIC Series Part IV

  66. anon[436] • Disclaimer says:
    @Hot nuns of Castle Anthrax

    I think you are relying on memory of old spy thrillers. You should take an interest in the CIA’s Directorate of Operations if you want to sound knowledgeable.

  67. LeaNder says:
    @art guerrilla

    Oh, by the way. I noticed I didn’t respond to you along the way, BUT unforgivably to myself. Technically that is. Not content wise

    Absolutely with you concerning the “Hitler of the month” or authoritariansm, much less able to deal with how my own selective obsessions may filter down on other subjective singularities, like you, out there more or less forced to live through the same times as me:
    singularity as single sources of wisdom or monades

  68. @anon

    And I think you are still talking out your ass.

    You are also still carping erroneously at details while running from the question of CIA’s institutionalized impunity. Why? Are you cleared for collateral of any sort? If not, why are you running your digital mouth?

  69. johnT says:

    Pat Lang strictly monitored his blog, protecting it like a bull dog over a bone.

    Seems as since he switched to Disqus things have loosened up.

    I give up commenting there, got slapped down too many times. But I’m no shoot ’em up bang bang Army dude either. Just a lowly squid electrician that got there only to avoid the draft…..

  70. remo says: • Website

    FalseFlag 911 is the question.

    Nothing else.

    This toxic Tenant,

    his only reward is to make us – all of us –

    suffer him and his neoconazionist criminal enterprise.

  71. @jilles dykstra

    “Assad is a danger to the USA”….. How so – apart from the supporters the USA has forced upon him?

Current Commenter

Leave a Reply - Comments on articles more than two weeks old will be judged much more strictly on quality and tone

 Remember My InformationWhy?
 Email Replies to my Comment
Submitted comments have been licensed to The Unz Review and may be republished elsewhere at the sole discretion of the latter
Commenting Disabled While in Translation Mode
Subscribe to This Comment Thread via RSS Subscribe to All W. Patrick Lang Comments via RSS
The Surprising Elements of Talmudic Judaism
How America was neoconned into World War IV
Analyzing the History of a Controversial Movement