CIA dismantled?

[Asheran Mojomaster]

http://cnn.aimtoday.cnn.com/news/story. ... loc=NW_1-T

Hrmm, what do you guys think of this? Lol, it seems the Republicans in the Senate have pretty much decided to do this without even really explaining it fully to anyone else. If I were them, I wouldnt be fucking with the CIA too much, I have a feeling that could backfire bigtime, but then again, that might be good...could end up helping Bush and maybe the ones behind this out of office.

[Pherr the Dorf]

the CIA has no love for Bush

[Lohrno]

Probably it's because they have already set up some super secret information gathering agency that they don't want us knowing about. Either that or they don't care about actually getting information anymore.

Edit: Nope, Looks like they want to break it up into 3 agencies. Yay for bureaucracy.

-=Lohrno

[Voronwë]

i guess 15 intelligence agencies wasn't enough...

[Metanis]

the CIA has no love for Bush

Aye Pherr.

The CIA has no love for any policitician unless he or she is voting them unquestioned supersecret multibillion dollar appropriations.

I tend to support the philosophy the USA needs about 50 intelligence agencies and NONE of them coordinated centrally. There should be some room for cross agency competitiveness and creativity.

I'm reminded of the Central Committee of the Politburo of the USSR. Why in hell would we want to emulate that failed model?

[Dregor Thule]

Why dismantle a great scapegoat?

It won't happen IMO.

[Lohrno]

I'm reminded of the Central Committee of the Politburo of the USSR. Why in hell would we want to emulate that failed model?

I'm pretty sure Soviet Intelligence was not a 'failed model.' The USSR collapsed because of the economy. I'm pretty sure a good chunk of Russians will tell you "..and the economy collapsed because of Gorbachev."

But that has nothing to do with centralization or coordination of Information. Making more agencies, and more bureaucracy is a bad thing because it slows down our response time. Isn't that even the reason that the information concerning 9/11 was not acted upon? That the information was not being shared quickly enough between FBI and CIA?

-=Lohrno

[Xzion]

the CIA has no love for Bush

Aye Pherr.

The CIA has no love for any policitician unless he or she is voting them unquestioned supersecret multibillion dollar appropriations.

I tend to support the philosophy the USA needs about 50 intelligence agencies and NONE of them coordinated centrally. There should be some room for cross agency competitiveness and creativity.

I'm reminded of the Central Committee of the Politburo of the USSR. Why in hell would we want to emulate that failed model?

If that happened we would get a bullshit terror alert every 2 hours. There intel wouldnt mean jack shit...see "little boy who cried wolf"

[Metanis]

I'm reminded of the Central Committee of the Politburo of the USSR. Why in hell would we want to emulate that failed model?

I'm pretty sure Soviet Intelligence was not a 'failed model.' The USSR collapsed because of the economy. I'm pretty sure a good chunk of Russians will tell you "..and the economy collapsed because of Gorbachev."

But that has nothing to do with centralization or coordination of Information. Making more agencies, and more bureaucracy is a bad thing because it slows down our response time. Isn't that even the reason that the information concerning 9/11 was not acted upon? That the information was not being shared quickly enough between FBI and CIA?

-=Lohrno

Let me break this to you gently... the USSR is no more... it failed... gone.... dead...kaput... see ya, wouldn't want to be ya! You can quibble about which component failed first... my point is that it FAILED due to Centralized Control and Decision Making!

The trees are getting in the way of you seeing the forest here. Yes it was the economy! Because they tried a centrally managed and controlled method that was too unweilding and eventually crushed itself under the weight of beauracracy. The KGB was full of Directorates that rarely cooperated.

My point IS that beauracracy is BAD! But 1 gigantic example is much worse than 50 smaller, leaner, meaner, scrappy competitors for the almighty budget dollar.

One large agency will be paralyzed internally by the CYA mentality. And this whole recent business with the CIA is guaranteed to make the career intelligence analyst duck his head and keep his mouth shut and out of the line of fire. In other words, the exact opposite of what we need.

[Lohrno]

Let me break this to you gently... the USSR is no more... it failed... gone.... dead...kaput... see ya, wouldn't want to be ya! You can quibble about which component failed first... my point is that it FAILED due to Centralized Control and Decision Making!

Oh thanks for the update. What? Now you're going to tell me Reagan's no longer our president? This is all so much to take!


No dude, the USSR was a superpower before the late 80s. The reasons for their collapse were a couple things, not just 'bureaucracy.'

1) Their military spending plans. The arms race did take its toll not only on us but them too. All those nukes aren't too cheap.

2) Prohibition helped kill the economy. Gorbachev and co. instituted prohibition near the end. There were some of the same things going on then that were going on in our country. People were homebrewing, etc. Well, Then Gorby decided it would be a good idea to ban sugar and grapes because you can make wine from it. So all the grape crops were banned and toasted. This also made the people understandably unhappy.

I think you should remember all the agricultural wars that went on between us and them during the cold war. Didn't you notice that they weren't doing that bad until the late 80s? Do you really think that such a rapid change was evidence of the decay of a flawed system?

I'd also say that culture, and isolation may have made the people unhappy as well. Freedom is a valuable thing...I think it's important that WE remember that as well.

-=Lohrno

[Niffoni]

CIA is real good at overthrowing stuff. Not so good at that whole intellige-whatsit learning-stuff-type-thinkie-finding-stuff-out things.

[Markulas]

Wasn't Bush attacking Kerry when he said he wanted to completely change intelligence operations?

[Kelshara]

Btw, read some books about the cold war and the intelligence agencies. Both CIA and MI5/6 agents will say straight out what a formidable opponent the Russian intelligence organizations were. A lot of fascinating stories to read, and so much more went on in the shadows than the average person was aware of. Quite amusing really.

[Pherr the Dorf]

Btw, read some books about the cold war and the intelligence agencies. Both CIA and MI5/6 agents will say straight out what a formidable opponent the Russian intelligence organizations were. A lot of fascinating stories to read, and so much more went on in the shadows than the average person was aware of. Quite amusing really.

Yes very formidable, we only wiretapped 2 of their main uncoded phonelines between their sub/missile bases and moscow for ummm decades, they had some good/excellent agencies, but they had far too many bad ones as well

[Siji]

I'd guess they believe that they have to do something, anything to make it look like they're trying to fix things. I don't blame Bush or his administration for feeling like that.. I do think this isn't the best idea or way to go about fixing things. Then again, I couldn't point out a better method but would think that lessening the number of organizations would make it easier for information to be shared. *shrug*

[Kelshara]

heh those wiretaps went both ways btw.. not to mention the double agents they got into leadership positions of opposing intelligence organizations.

[Siji]

Well, I found why they're dismantling the CIA!

I guess we didn't learn from training Osama and Saddam.

http://sg.news.yahoo.com/040811/1/3mci0.html

The Pentagon has urged Congress to authorize 500 million dollars for building a network of friendly militias around the world to purge terrorists from "ungoverned areas" -- and warned Muslim clerics against providing "ideological sanctuary" to radicals.

Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz, a key architect of the Iraq war, told the House Armed Services Committee Tuesday the money would be used "for training and equipping local security forces -- not just armies -- to counter terrorism and insurgencies."

If approved as part of a larger defense bill, the package will "provide greater internal security in areas that are or could become sanctuaries for terrorists," he said.

No specific beneficiaries of the program were named, but US officials have repeatedly expressed concern about vast tracts of land along the Afghan-Pakistani border, in Iraq, the Caucasus, Horn of Africa and various islands in the Philippines where radical Islamic fighters could set up shop.

The strategy has already been tried in Afghanistan, where US special forces managed to forge alliances with some tribal warlords, who became instrumental in bringing down the Taliban government in 2001 and keeping its remnants at bay, said US military experts.

"Indeed, our most important allies in the war on terrorism will be Muslims who seek freedom and oppose extremism," Wolfowitz stated.

The request comes amid a concerted push by top Defense Department and other administration officials to develop new forms of "asymmetrical" warfare that would be more effective against small terrorist cells and would spare the United States the need to deploy large contingents of its own forces around the world.

Addressing the Chicago Council on Foreign Relations last week, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld spoke of the need for the Pentagon to adjust to the new reality of not having to confront big foreign armies, navies and air forces it was originally trained to fight.

"There are not a lot of them around at the moment," the secretary pointed out. "And we've got manhunts going on."

To help establish contact with local chieftains and get into their good graces, the Pentagon is considering hiring immigrants to serve as "bicultural advisors" in unfamiliar areas and implementing a number of economic aid projects there, according to defense officials.

In his testimony, Wolfowitz also suggested expanding the scope of the war on terror by including into the list of its possible targets radical Islamic clerics, who, in his words, provide "ideological sanctuary" to terrorism.

In addition, he called for tightening control over international communication networks, including the Internet.

He argued that extremist clerics provide cover to militants "by sanctioning terrorism, by recruiting new adherents, and by intimidating moderate clerics from speaking out against them."

However, there was no mention by name of Moqtada Sadr, a Shiite preacher that is leading an anti-American revolt in the Iraqi city of Najaf.

"There should be no room in this world for governments that support terrorism, no ungoverned areas where terrorist can operate with impunity, no easy opportunities for terrorists to abuse the freedom of democratic societies, no ideological sanctuary, and no free pass to exploit the technologies of communications to serve terrorist ends," Wolfowitz insisted.

He did not say what additional measures could be taken to prevent terrorists from exploiting freedoms in the United States, but pointed out it would involve "difficult decisions."

The USA Patriot Act passed by Congress in the wake of the September 11 attacks grants the FBI and other law enforcement agencies additional surveillance and investigative powers. But it has been under attack from civil libertarians, who call it an assault on the US constitution.

[Aruman]

The articles I have read say the plan for the CIA doesn't say it's going to be dismantled, just reorganized into three different sections that report to a central director.

Personally I don't think this is a good idea since it hinders communication and slows down decision making.

[Winnow]

The articles I have read say the plan for the CIA doesn't say it's going to be dismantled, just reorganized into three different sections that report to a central director.

Personally I don't think this is a good idea since it hinders communication and slows down decision making.

My guess would be that Bush made sure the intelligence agencies were ok with the plan before announcing it and that it benefits Bush as opposed to Kerry who has promised to revamp our intelligence agency with no real facts which should get him on the three letter agency black lists.