Indeed. Nothing is as it seems anymore.
Jesus Christ: You can’t impeach Him and He ain’t going to resign.
Posted on 09/07/2014 1:44:55 PM PDT by Rashputin
Does the CIA Believe Obama?
Intelligence pros are far more skeptical of government claims than their bosses let on.
By Philip Giraldi • September 5, 2014
That the United States’ intention to confront Russia over Ukraine, a place where it has no real interests, borders on the incomprehensible has been clearly demonstrated by both Scott McConnell and Daniel Larison. University of Chicago Professor John Mearsheimer has also described in some detail how the dangerous confrontation is largely the fault of Washington and its European allies, most notably because of the thoughtless expansion of NATO that genuinely threatened Russia. Former Polish President Lech Walesa, whose county would be the front line in any armed conflict, has warned that arming Ukraine might reignite the cold war and possibly even lead to a nuclear exchange.
Particularly at times when security-based policies appear to make no sense, as a former intelligence officer I am often asked how the people who work for the State Department, CIA, and DIA feel about such developments. It is a difficult question to answer as there is no such thing as a monolithic viewpoint in any of the organizations in question. On one hand, dealing with crises in international relations in one form or another is the raison d’etre of the various bureaucracies, so many are attracted by the challenge. But on the other hand, the highly educated and experienced cadres that do the yeomen’s work in each organization are not immune to concerns about where the United States is heading in its pursuit of “terrorists” and “rogue states” worldwide.
A basic understanding of how big bureaucracies operate is essential. Very few individuals in any large government bureaucracy are actually involved in what one might describe as policy issues. This is why insiders refer to places like the “seventh floor” at CIA and State or the E-Ring at the Pentagon, because that is where the movers and shakers have their offices. They are the public faces of their organizations and everyone else is little more than supporting cast. Indeed, many of those on the top executive level have little in common with the other employees at all, as they are themselves political appointees, designated to provide largely uncritical support for the policies being promoted by the White House even when the institutions they head are dubious.
That means that the Chuck Hagels, John Kerrys, and John Brennans of this world probably are only dimly aware of what is occurring on the lower floors of their own buildings. Confronting Russia appears to be popular in both Congress and the media, so it is a no-brainer to crank it up with midterm elections looming, particularly as it also averts attention from the failure of policy on the Israel-Palestine problem. Bombing ISIS is a similarly appealing substitute for having a real policy that will bring real results, and even though it hasn’t worked in Afghanistan, the White House and its accompanying chorus of cabinet secretaries and intelligence directors can feel comfortable singing from the same sheet of music and promising that everything will turn out well someday. It might actually be that the cabinet truly believes in what it is peddling, but that is a thought too frightening to contemplate.
But not everyone agrees with their bosses. Indeed, I know of no former or current intelligence official who believes that the expansion of NATO into Eastern Europe was a good idea, that toppling Bashar al-Assad would bring anything but chaos, or that bombing ISIS will actually accomplish anything. Given the current national security environment, I think I can state with some certainty that a solid majority of lower and mid-level employees would regard the administration responses to the ongoing series of crises, including both Ukraine and ISIS, as poorly conceived and executed. In the case of Ukraine the judgment would be somewhat stronger than that, bordering on perceptions that what we are experiencing is an abuse of the intelligence process to serve a political agenda, that the Cold War-style tension is both unnecessary and contrived. Many regard the dubious intelligence that has been produced to implicate Moscow in Crimean developments as both cherry picked and unreliable.
Within the intelligence community memories of Iraq and the prefabricated judgments made regarding Syria’s alleged use of sarin gas last year are still fresh among both analysts and information collectors, requiring the political leadership to make its case unambiguously. Intelligence work makes one naturally cynical but the rank and file are now becoming generally suspicious of and even hostile to what is going on.
I have some confidence in my assessment suggesting general unease among intelligence professionals because, as a former spook, I have inevitably fallen in with a crowd of ex-intel and military types who in turn have networks among their former colleagues, some of whom are still employed in the intelligence and national security bureaucracies. We exchange information and viewpoints on a regular basis. One thing we all understand instinctively is that nothing being asserted by any government is ever quite as it seems, and intelligence can be a dodgy business depending on who is pushing the buttons to make a palatable product come out at the other end.
And the mindset of former officers is today quite different than it was in 2003, when 9/11 was still more-or-less fresh, Afghanistan had not yet started to crater, and most people working at CIA and DIA were willing to give the Bush administration the benefit of the doubt, even if there was widespread concern that the intelligence being produced to attack Saddam Hussein was a bit on the thin side. But having watched Iraq, Afghanistan, and Libya crash and burn while being scapegoated numerous times by both Republicans and Democrats in the White House, many intelligence professionals are no longer willing to play follow the leader.
To be sure there are many in the national security community who continue to believe that destroying terrorism justifies massive global devastation, and that the Russians will be marching into Finland if they are not stopped at Sevastopol. But those numbers are surely diminishing as people examine the results of 13 years of trying to make Manichean solutions work in an increasingly complex world.
So the short answer to whether those engaged at the working level in national security actually believe what their bosses are saying is, “Probably not.”
Philip Giraldi, a former CIA officer, is executive director of the Council for the National Interest.
Our current Narcissist in Chief without a doubt believes the sole purpose of the CIA is to generate fakes and frauds on command, not to provide him with facts.
I would have liked the title better if it was “Does the CIA RELIEVE Obama?” After all, no one believes him.
Probably not, but they are tied to the expectations of their job descriptions; to protect the President, irregardless to Buffoonery or even Treachery.I would guess each CIA agent is watching the other agents to see who will be the first to ‘go rogue’, in spite of this being on most their minds. By necessity, they are self policing.
Who wrote this article? Putin?
The American “Conservative” citing with approval an America hating leftist like Mearsheimer. Disgusting.
The only ones who believe Obama are the fake blonde on Morning joe and the rest of the MSNBC staff.
Oh, the others who have kin working in the Admin.
No one believes that guy anymore.
This is hardly new. The basic flaw in the way governments work is that, the CIA has many fine, patriotic officers who employ many brave, heroic agents. But all that work gets passed up the ladder until it hits political hacks who will twist it to their needs.
Like so many other bureaucracies, the CIA does more harm than good. Been that way for many years.
Just some context on the viewpoints of Philip Giraldi, the author of this article.
Philip Giraldi was a foreign policy advisor for the Ron Paul 2008 campaign.
Philip Giraldi is also the Executive Director of the organization Council for the National Interest (CNI), which lobbies for "Middle-East policies that serve the American national interest" (their words).
Some choice excerpts of these policies:
...In 2003 CNI called for the Senate to reject Daniel Pipes as a trustee of the United States Institute of Peace, charging he had “gone out of his way to say insulting things to Arabs, Palestinians, Muslim Americans, Black Muslims, Muslims and Islam...”[11]
...In 2012 director Philip Giraldi wrote a column called "Why I Dislike Israel" which criticized the U.S.-Israel relationship and alleged that Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu was "meddling" in the 2012 U.S. presidential race.[8]...
...In 2004 CNI proposed the "Israel Accountability and Security Act of 2004."
It called upon Israel to dismantle all existing settlements outside of the 1967 border, to halt construction of the so-called “Separation Wall,” to end home demolitions in the West Bank and Gaza, and to dismantle its nuclear weapons program and join a Middle East non-proliferation treaty, and to engage in "serious and unconditional" negotiations with the Palestinians, Syria and Lebanon.
Noncompliance would result in US-imposed diplomatic, military and economic sanctions...
In 2000, Pete McCloskey (co-founder of CBI) gave a speech at a conference of the Institute for Historical Review, which publishes Holocaust denial material. When McCloskey ran in the 2006 Republican Party primary for Congress, which he would lose, there was a public controversy over exactly what he said about the Holocaust at the event.[55][56]
Abdurahman Alamoudi, a member of the CNIF Board of Directors, stated at a rally on October 28, 2000, against Israel in Lafayette Park, across from the White House: "'Hear that, Bill Clinton! We are all supporters of Hamas. I wish they add that I am also a supporter of Hizballah."[57][58][59][60]
In 2004, Alamoudi pled guilty to financial and conspiracy charges related to terrorism and was subsequently sentenced to 23 years in prison.[61] Eugene Bird explained that at the time he joined CNI Alamoudi was a highly regarded Muslim spokesperson who worked with the United States Department of State. As soon as Alamoudi was convicted, CNI asked him to leave its board.[62]
On May 4, 2004 Eugene Bird was interviewed by Neil MacDonald on Canadian Broadcasting Corporation's ("CBC") National News and commented, "We know that the Israeli intelligence was operating in Baghdad after the war was over. The question should be, were there any foreign interrogators among those that were recommending very, very bad treatment for the prisoners?" Honest Reporting Canada, a pro-Israel NGO objected to Eugene Bird's comments and wrote complaints to the CBC. This resulted in CBC later stating "there was no evidence Israel was involved in the Abu Ghraib affair" and that CBC was negligent in not mentioning Bird's connection to the Council for the National Interest.[63][64][65]
In 2006 the Jewish Community Center of Greater Washington cancelled a poetry reading by the Partners for Peace group because it rented office space from CNI. Center representative stated that because of Partners for Peace's "link to an anti-Zionist group, we decided it wasn't in the best interests of the center and the community to co-sponsor the event." Faith United Methodist Church in Rockville sponsored the event instead.
At least these guys seem legit (but misguided). Not like Lyndon LaRouche, who the FR Russians appear to favor when he suits their aims.
Like many CIA loud mouths, they think that they are or should be policy makers instead of intelligence officers. They need to shut up and do their jobs. If they want to be policy weenies, quit and go work for the White House or OFA.
Sadly, there are many Obama voters within the intelligence ranks. Many remain true believers to this day.
The Fox 13 Hours program was clear that the “stand down” came via CIA boss of the heroes.
The author can't bring himself to say that the Russians have more recently marched into Donetsk and Luhansk so he says Sevastopol, an invasion that was done months ago.
(So the short answer to whether those engaged at the working level in national security actually believe what their bosses are saying is, “Probably not.”
Manichaeism (/ˈmænɨkiːɪzəm/;[1] in Modern Persian آیین مانی Āyin e Māni; Chinese: 摩尼教; pinyin: Móní Jiào) was a major Gnostic religion that was founded by the Iranian[2] prophet Mani (in Persian: مانی, Syriac: ܡܐܢܝ, Latin: Manichaeus or Manes) (c. 216–276 AD) in the Sasanian Empire.[3][4] Manichaeism taught an elaborate dualistic cosmology describing the struggle between a good, spiritual world of light, and an evil, material world of darkness.
This is where we get 'Manichean solution'?
One of his gaylovers, some post here too.
Piss on Russia.
Let the Russians and the Islamists have at each other they both so love war and killing people.
We can bomb the remainder back to the stone age.
Indeed. Nothing is as it seems anymore.
Jesus Christ: You can’t impeach Him and He ain’t going to resign.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.