Regardless of how you feel about the US IC, I think the systematic dismantling of the national infrastructure and capacity to govern is, to put it mildly, a serious problem.
I suppose that position comes down to weather you feel like these folks are representing you or you feel like they govern you.
Having read a couple of popular histories of the CIA and knowing how they thought about how folks like me live in the world, it is easy to understand that they are decidedly not acting in my interests.
If you find the interests of the US power to align with your own, that's probably pretty normal for US citizens. But even just looking at Paperclip and Phoenix, I'd be sad to be aligned with either of those crimes, and that's not even looking at the horrible outcomes of their work in Guatemala, Indonesia, Laos, Cambodia, etc.
The CIA is a pretty handy thing I suppose, as it's existence has convinced me that the US gov neither has my interests in mind nor represents me in any meaningful fashion.
Given the fact I think that they have done an immense amount of harm in the world, that fact has made my conscience much lighter.
That depends on the degree to which a nation is entangled in foreign trade and security and the threat it faces from foreign aggressors. The US of course being one the the most integrated, most meddling and most targeted nations in the world.
Averting threats from abroad is sort of important. E.g. a more capable foreign intelligence organization could have averted 9/11, and with it, an avalanche of changes in the way US citizens live and are governed.
I agree, but the CIA is quite out of line, quite a lot of times. Specifically in its current iteration, I do not see the agency being high up in the absolute requirement for the capacity to govern.
> but the CIA is quite out of line, quite a lot of times
More than other intelligence agencies? Extant or historical?
Intelligence is messy. Here. And among our enemies. We have to contain that messiness domestically, to keep it from consuming us. In that way, it's analogous to our immune system. And just like our immune system, turning it off means all the other out-of-line elements around the world now have easy pickings over you.
The CIA has been more destructive than other modern agencies because it's far reaching. It's not more evil than other ICs. Just more capable. I'm not thrilled to learn who occupies that vacuum if the CIA goes away; almost by definition, it won't be anyone benevolent.
> Some 9/11 attackers were CIA assets and protected from FBI/police scrutiny as such
Citation seriously needed. This is untrue unless the words you are using are not to be understood in any sense common to English speakers. The most generous fact based interpretation I can give it is that Saudi financiers were underscrutinized for political reasons, resulting in missed opportunities to stop the attacks. The actual attackers were not CIA nor FBI assets.
> The most generous fact based interpretation I can give it is that Saudi financiers were underscrutinized for political reasons, resulting in missed opportunities to stop the attacks.
We more or less agree. "Asset" does not mean card-carrying CIA agent.
I think if the US had an intelligence strategy priotized around protecting the homeland rather than interfering in distant lands, it is highly unlikely that 9/11 would have succeeded.
Keep in mind 9/11 was a godsend for the latter strategy. PNAC was begging for a new Pearl Harbor to increase defense/IC spending just months before it happened.
> if the US had an intelligence strategy priotized around protecting the homeland rather than interfering in distant lands, it is highly unlikely that 9/11 would have succeeded
Sure. That still doesn’t implicate the CIA in a domestic intelligence failure.
The CIA didn’t aid and abet 9/11—I frankly thought this nonsense died a decade ago.
Or it could have sit on that information in full knowledge that something like 9/11 would enable an avalanche of changes in the way US citizens are governed that increase the power of said foreign intelligence organization...
How big is "big enough"? All aspects of the US Federal Government have grown enormously within my lifetime, and there have been very few cutbacks. Often times, an organization is less effective when it is bigger. You have the "too many cooks" issue, and the "need for consensus" issue, both of which become more of a problem with growth.
I'm sure the "all conspiracies are without basis / nothing ever happens / I'm not organized so no one else is" crowd is pretending Iran Contra never happened as they downvote you.
"Yankees, Confederacy, California, Texas, and None Of The Above" would probably reflect the political and population-geography splits of the US better than the current situation. Would be very messy getting there though.
That's what US is openly planning against all other countries in the world. Divide every country into dozens tiny "independent" countries with puppet "democratic" governments obliging every decision from USA.
There are maps of this new world regularly published by US think tanks.
It's good for the US, where it will have absolute hegemony. Bad for all the other countries that will be too small to defend their own interests. Also this scheme will inevitably start hundreds of new wars all around the world. Again, good for US, bad for everyone else.
