April 02, 2006

A THOUSAND DAYS

I'm trying to read A Thousand days by Arthur M Schlesinger JR. documenting the time John F Kennedy spent in the White House. I'm going to quote a few sentences about US dealings with anti-Castro Cubans in the run up to the Bay of Pigs incident.

It is sometimes essential for a state, even for a democratic state, to undertake clandestine operations... But, when such operatins are undertaken, it is important never to forget that the relationship between an intelligence agency and its instruments tends to be a corrupting one. The agency has a natural desire to control...and therefore a natural preference for complian people...

Exiles are typically friendless, moneyless, jobles in a strange land;... They become increasingly dependant on the agent....

The relationship is degrading for them and demoralising for the agent. (p208.)

By nov 1960 the CIA operation had taken on a life of its own... In favouring the "reliable" exiles- those who would take orders- they were concievably endangering the whole project; for the men most capable of rallying popular support.. were bound to be more independent, more principled and more radical than the managable types whom the intelligence agency prefered for operational reasons. (p209.)

Kennedy: "Our objection isn't to the Cuban revolution, it is to the fact that Castro has turned it over to the communists." (p222.)

10 comments:

BigDog said...

Concise and revealing excerpts! Particularly the part about the value of principled and capable people.

"Never attribute to conspiracy what can be more easily explained by incompetence or laziness," I believe the saying goes.

The CIA is often percieved as a bogeyman, but its really a bureaucracy which lacked the ruthlessness of its KGB counterparts.

DAVE BONES said...

Thst because it subcontracts ruthlessness abroad these days.

DAVE BONES said...

I thought it also reveals why South America is still totally fucked up due to CIA field operatives favouring those of the rightwing regardless of who is in government in the US.

BigDog said...

Maybe South America is messed up because of their own political culture.

DAVE BONES said...

You don't believe the CIA between the 1950s and the 1980s supplied arms and logistical support to dictators? Jesus fucking Christ BigDog.

BigDog said...

Excuse me, Dave? No such words came out of my mouth.

Let me point out that the CIA are lazy bureaucratic dolts, they work with whatever government they find in place to achieve US policy goals. The US would have preferred to deal with stable democracies, but alas, Latin America is messed up. For example, the US has very happy to deal with Costa Rica, nice place, no dictators. If all latin nations were like that, the US would have been happy happy. Instead we had a choice: 1) support unpleasant autocrats. Moderate their behavior with threats of withdrawing support and bribery 2) Let WORSE governments replace them - Communists. who no only would kill more people and brutally oppress their populations would also be hostile to the US.

Damn, I hate crappy choices.

Anyway, Ever notice that Communist slave states always remain slave states until the commies are kicked out? Military dictatorships sometimes voluntarily straighten themselves out and establish democracies - with American encouragement. For example Chile or El Salvador.

BTW: Military aid to governments comes not from the CIA but from the US military. There is no need to use a spy agency to openly transfer weapons to a friendly government.

DAVE BONES said...

so they didn't prefer the extreme right because they were "better at taking orders"?

BigDog said...

The exerpt you cite indicates that the CIA preferred "manageable" types and not "more independent, more principled and more RADICAL" types. Radicals are people who want rapid change and can be of any ideology. The Founders of the American republic were radicals, for example. In other words, they didn't want "extreme" right types, they just wanted compliant bureaucratic fuddy duddies.

DAVE BONES said...

Yet history throughout central and South America shows us your country backing the extreme right up to Regan's time. They are reacting against this and I don't blame them. Its not just your country, Pinochet was a friend of Margaret Thatcher.

BigDog said...

we are talking about two different things. The CIA preferred to use compliant agents when they made operations in UNFRIENDLY - usually commie - nations.

Nations with friendly governments were/are already friendly, you don't need covert agents there - the government is already friendly.

Another point: Kennedy: "Our objection isn't to the Cuban revolution, it is to the fact that Castro has turned it over to the communists." Money quote there! America's major concern was fighting commies, specifically people who would ally with the Soviets. That meant allying with anti-Commies. Otherwise we didn't care much about there form of government, other than to wish they were less fucked up.