The CIA-in-Chile Scandal at 50(nsarchive.gwu.edu)
nsarchive.gwu.edu
The CIA-in-Chile Scandal at 50
https://nsarchive.gwu.edu/briefing-book/chile/2024-09-09/cia-chile-scandal-50
100 comments
The honest, moral ones seem to be the minority far too often.
I think a lot get pushed out for not going with the plan. It's like this in a lot of organizations. The other problem is morality is based on an individuals view. Most of the most egregious actions were likely deemed morally fine by those that perpetrated it. It's messed up. Working in the IC can be amazing and also nerve wrecking. Many bad decisions start out more as a Bad choice 1, bad choice 2, or bad choice 3.. and that's the only real options out there.
The CIA have been cowboys.. and I suspect that the modern CIA still has this going on.
The CIA have been cowboys.. and I suspect that the modern CIA still has this going on.
It may be soothing to focus on a few individuals who acted "with integrity and admirable values". The Guardian has a few articles about diplomats that recently resigned because they wanted no collusion with clear crimes against humanity. But that's anecdotal. The USA did their best to destroy democracy in South-America, put millions of people under military dictatures for decades, and induce the torture of tens of thousands. And most people in the USA agreed or didn't care.
> And most people in the USA agreed or didn't care.
Where did they hear about it, at the time, and what did they hear?
Where did they hear about it, at the time, and what did they hear?
People really ought to read the Wikipedia on this. After 50 years, the evidence of practical US involvement is theoretical.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_intervention_i...
On the flip side, the US military intervention in Granada saved its democratic government from a coup and in Panama liberated it from a dictatorship. But there is a segment of people who need the US to be a pure villain. Fortunately, there is a lack of evidence that the US is doing worse than any other nation would if it had its power.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_intervention_i...
On the flip side, the US military intervention in Granada saved its democratic government from a coup and in Panama liberated it from a dictatorship. But there is a segment of people who need the US to be a pure villain. Fortunately, there is a lack of evidence that the US is doing worse than any other nation would if it had its power.
A stirring patriotic speech: "We can't be proved to be doing worse than others would do if given our power!"
They should engrave that on a monument somewhere.
They should engrave that on a monument somewhere.
What the US did in South America is appalling, and I can't believe they got away with it.
The women of Calama have been searching for decades for their children, brothers, and husbands who disappeared during the dictatorship of Pinochet.
The women of Calama have been searching for decades for their children, brothers, and husbands who disappeared during the dictatorship of Pinochet.
[deleted]
Urge Anyone interested in this topic to read (or hear the free audio book read by the author on several platforms) the book about alende bringing the father or cybernetics to organize the country factories. It also show what the cia meddling actually cause on the ground.
Title is a joke on chigago boys: the Santigo boys
Title is a joke on chigago boys: the Santigo boys
There are also many YouTube documentaries/videos about Chile's "Cybersyn", e.g. https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=ACfgc1o3P6o&pp=ygUIY3liZXJzeW4...
And a decent Wikipedia page: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Cybersyn
And a decent Wikipedia page: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Cybersyn
Nuts that when the coup was mounted the military completely gutted the Cybersyn facility out of sheer ignorance about what was being done inside.
I went to the Museum of Memory and Human Rights in Santiago, and I appreciate how blunt it is about US involvement in the coup. All-in-all a phenomenal museum.
I think it’s exceptionally appropriate on 911 for us to reconcile and understand that as a nation from the 1960s onward, and accelerating with the growth of the intelligence community since 9/11, the United States has covertly or clandestinely interfered with every nations political process worldwide since the end of WWII and the “Pax Americana.”
I was an intelligence officer for ~17 years, served in Iraq and saw first hand how heavy of a hand the US plays globally in a way that is so expansive and embedded there’s no single body (HPSCI, commissions etc…) that can control it.
Yes technically all collection, processing, dissemination etc… activities are still under congressional budget authorities and executive control and subject to judicial review.
However, the fact that title 10 and title 50 authorities are so broad and interchangable, in addition to the reach into industry for any ability to do data collection, that you couldn’t dismantle the US influence system even from the inside at this point. There’s also a million checks internally to ensure OPs are LEGALLY allowed, but that just means you found a loophole or have topcover, or find an OCA that will make your activity SAP
I was an intelligence officer for ~17 years, served in Iraq and saw first hand how heavy of a hand the US plays globally in a way that is so expansive and embedded there’s no single body (HPSCI, commissions etc…) that can control it.
Yes technically all collection, processing, dissemination etc… activities are still under congressional budget authorities and executive control and subject to judicial review.
However, the fact that title 10 and title 50 authorities are so broad and interchangable, in addition to the reach into industry for any ability to do data collection, that you couldn’t dismantle the US influence system even from the inside at this point. There’s also a million checks internally to ensure OPs are LEGALLY allowed, but that just means you found a loophole or have topcover, or find an OCA that will make your activity SAP
50 years from now the official position of representatives of powers (Russia, US, China, Israel, etc.) on their own actions from today will still be completely avoiding the topic. But some might, at best, halfheartedly admit that what happened "back then" was not their proudest moment and they could have done better, all while actually being worse. But that will be their water under someone else's bridge and as long as that water sill allows them to reap the benefits of their "not proudest moments" then it's just going to happen again and again with the next generations getting a minor point of conversation.
If Russia can "poison" Eastern Ukraine for their benefit, if the US can cut the legs from under a democracy for their benefit, if Israel can eradicate the people from a land for their benefit, etc. and live to fully enjoy that benefit, people are going to have these conversations on "ancient" history time and time again.
If Russia can "poison" Eastern Ukraine for their benefit, if the US can cut the legs from under a democracy for their benefit, if Israel can eradicate the people from a land for their benefit, etc. and live to fully enjoy that benefit, people are going to have these conversations on "ancient" history time and time again.
Its sad but that's a reality of the world. The idea that freedom and democracy mean some 100% fair and just system, where amoral actions just don't happen, or if they happen they are either very well justifiable or always punished are lovely, we all like that idea very much but... thats not the reality, not in 2024, not even with champions of western democracies.
Reality is extremely messy, mistakes, negligence, or sometimes outright evil behavior does and will happen.
There is the saying - the bigger dog f*ks all other dogs.
TBH such behavior massively feeds pro-russian propaganda and emotions in ie Europe or Middle east. Since they don't really have to invent massive fantasies just spin mildly actual history, if even needed and continue from there. I manage to see easily forest for the trees so to say, but I personally know quite a few smart people fail at that and lean more into anti-american sentiment, and with less educated minds its even easier.
Reality is extremely messy, mistakes, negligence, or sometimes outright evil behavior does and will happen.
There is the saying - the bigger dog f*ks all other dogs.
TBH such behavior massively feeds pro-russian propaganda and emotions in ie Europe or Middle east. Since they don't really have to invent massive fantasies just spin mildly actual history, if even needed and continue from there. I manage to see easily forest for the trees so to say, but I personally know quite a few smart people fail at that and lean more into anti-american sentiment, and with less educated minds its even easier.
It is, indeed, true that the dead-eyed psychotics who run the US view the world this way. As do many of the folks who have had that rule inflicted on them, inside the US and out.
Looking at the actual relations between, say, the Soviets and Korea or China or Vietnam and the picture of every state as a vassal of a larger state doesn't seem to hold- there are a lot of reasons the USSR was not as interventionist in various people in the US would like to believe. And there are a lot of reasons China and Iran are both viewed as monstrous threats by folks in the US (and their vassals) and thought of as benign (compared to the US) by much of the wider world: if you're not part of a multi-century colonialist project then "establishing world dominance" doesn't make sense.
If you see yourself as "the big dog" and you view a "dog-eat-dog world" as a historical necessity, then if you have enough resources you can create that reality.
Looking at the actual relations between, say, the Soviets and Korea or China or Vietnam and the picture of every state as a vassal of a larger state doesn't seem to hold- there are a lot of reasons the USSR was not as interventionist in various people in the US would like to believe. And there are a lot of reasons China and Iran are both viewed as monstrous threats by folks in the US (and their vassals) and thought of as benign (compared to the US) by much of the wider world: if you're not part of a multi-century colonialist project then "establishing world dominance" doesn't make sense.
If you see yourself as "the big dog" and you view a "dog-eat-dog world" as a historical necessity, then if you have enough resources you can create that reality.
America is the The Chad Alpha Dog amongst a sea of Beta puppies.
> But that will be their water under someone else's bridge and as long as that water sill allows them to reap the benefits of their "not proudest moments" then it's just going to happen again and again with the next generations getting a minor point of conversation.
You are claiming at once that deepening our understanding of historic CIA misdeeds misses the forest for the trees, and then ignoring the trees to project current CIA misdeeds out 50+ years.
It's like the coastline paradox and the gambler's fallacy had a baby.
You are claiming at once that deepening our understanding of historic CIA misdeeds misses the forest for the trees, and then ignoring the trees to project current CIA misdeeds out 50+ years.
It's like the coastline paradox and the gambler's fallacy had a baby.
> You are claiming
On the off chance that this was not written by some bad LLM that will miss the point again... I'm claiming that some countries with power are in a never ending cycle of pulling some appalling, odious crap that furthers their interest and keep that crap buried for a generation or so, then after enough time passes the crap surfaces and the new generation who also benefited from that offers some weak platitudes about how the appalling, odious crap "was not a very nice thing to do" while pulling their generation's version of odious, appalling crap to further their interest and keep that crap buried for a generation or so. And so on.
In the chorus of voices that say today "wow, what the CIA was doing back then was pretty not ok" are people who benefit from what the CIA did and is still doing as we speak. People who vote, support, subsidize these acts, or take part in committing them even without knowing.
If you just read to answer you'll never get the point. And big words can only take you so far in hiding it.
On the off chance that this was not written by some bad LLM that will miss the point again... I'm claiming that some countries with power are in a never ending cycle of pulling some appalling, odious crap that furthers their interest and keep that crap buried for a generation or so, then after enough time passes the crap surfaces and the new generation who also benefited from that offers some weak platitudes about how the appalling, odious crap "was not a very nice thing to do" while pulling their generation's version of odious, appalling crap to further their interest and keep that crap buried for a generation or so. And so on.
In the chorus of voices that say today "wow, what the CIA was doing back then was pretty not ok" are people who benefit from what the CIA did and is still doing as we speak. People who vote, support, subsidize these acts, or take part in committing them even without knowing.
If you just read to answer you'll never get the point. And big words can only take you so far in hiding it.
In my opinion, the transformation of the role of intelligence gathering arms of the state in the United States occurred after World War 2. What emerged from that heady moment was a transplantation of the ethos of the British Empire's intelligence apparatus. I noted in your bio a pdf -- "The Myth of Scarcity" -- that indicates that you have an inclination to pursue a matter to its root cause. What is proposed to you is that you review the provenance of 'Anglo-American' intelligence services to its beginnings in Elizabethan England.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Francis_Walsingham
Those who are familiar with that period of English history know full well that the 'realm' was engulfed in internal conflicts and that the 'system' devised to "protect the realm" viewed the "subjects of the Crown" as potential adversaries. There you will find the 'DNA' of CIA. [So r/1960s/1947 ..]
America won "World War 2" but lost its soul.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Francis_Walsingham
Those who are familiar with that period of English history know full well that the 'realm' was engulfed in internal conflicts and that the 'system' devised to "protect the realm" viewed the "subjects of the Crown" as potential adversaries. There you will find the 'DNA' of CIA. [So r/1960s/1947 ..]
America won "World War 2" but lost its soul.
Secret police and the maintenance and extension of power through internal/external covert ops seem to be an inevitable feature of government at any scale.
Rome had the Frumentarii, and there are examples from Persia, China, and Sparta.
These were overt empires run by emperors. What we've had since the end of WWII is a covert empire directed by an informal pseudo-government of oligarchs, hidden under a veneer of democracy.
In the UK the Crown never changed its mind about internal adversaries, as the recent "spycops" inquiry shows.
https://www.spycops.co.uk/
Rome had the Frumentarii, and there are examples from Persia, China, and Sparta.
These were overt empires run by emperors. What we've had since the end of WWII is a covert empire directed by an informal pseudo-government of oligarchs, hidden under a veneer of democracy.
In the UK the Crown never changed its mind about internal adversaries, as the recent "spycops" inquiry shows.
https://www.spycops.co.uk/
In fact, we directly inherited the British spying apparatus via George Washington’s first counterintelligence apparatus which pre-existed the revolutionary war
People forget that George Washington was a traitor of the British crown directly - Which, of course I support however, Washington did not actually dismantle such power structures, simply transferring ownership of them
People forget that George Washington was a traitor of the British crown directly - Which, of course I support however, Washington did not actually dismantle such power structures, simply transferring ownership of them
One of my history professors once took an aside to note that the American “Revolution” is a bad name for the event, because there was very little change in power structures: the people in power before the war, were largely still in power after.
War for independence, yes. Revolution? Eh, not really.
War for independence, yes. Revolution? Eh, not really.
Thank you for this insight.
I'll do my best not to sound glib or combative, or judgmental; but I genuinely would love to know:
How did people working as 'intelligence officers' manage to make informed decisions without the fundamental knowledge that Iraq (and Afghanistan and Syria and Yemen etc) was basically a murderous, internationally illegal money laundering operation?
Or, to try and put it another way, what processes are used to make sure that people have enough information to be effective in their jobs, while also making sure they don't know/care about the unspeakable evil they're enabling? ... Is it just effective compartmentalization? Camaraderie? Nationalism?
Did you guys know, but just sort of not look at the elephant in the room? I'm probably failing at sounding non-judgmental... Apologies if so, but I've wondered this for a long time.
I'll do my best not to sound glib or combative, or judgmental; but I genuinely would love to know:
How did people working as 'intelligence officers' manage to make informed decisions without the fundamental knowledge that Iraq (and Afghanistan and Syria and Yemen etc) was basically a murderous, internationally illegal money laundering operation?
Or, to try and put it another way, what processes are used to make sure that people have enough information to be effective in their jobs, while also making sure they don't know/care about the unspeakable evil they're enabling? ... Is it just effective compartmentalization? Camaraderie? Nationalism?
Did you guys know, but just sort of not look at the elephant in the room? I'm probably failing at sounding non-judgmental... Apologies if so, but I've wondered this for a long time.
My answer would be too nuance for the Amount I’m interested in writing on this forum. I think it’s a combination of youthful exuberance, propagandized indoctrination from parents and society, etc. that leads certain groups to believe that you’re doing the right thing so whatever doubts you have, and even to whatever extent that you acknowledge the disconnect, there’s really no space to Change it even at the highest levels
Ultimately you decide whether or not you’re going to put blinders on, try to fix the system or exit the system.
I tried my best to Fix the system, but ultimately it was clear that I was going to be more effective outside of it and so I left it.
Ultimately you decide whether or not you’re going to put blinders on, try to fix the system or exit the system.
I tried my best to Fix the system, but ultimately it was clear that I was going to be more effective outside of it and so I left it.
Thank you.
I wish you the very best of luck in your endeavors, which seem remarkably admirable in both intention and execution.
I wish you the very best of luck in your endeavors, which seem remarkably admirable in both intention and execution.
Thank you, I appreciate that.
It gets lonely out there and nice to see people who understand
It gets lonely out there and nice to see people who understand
Well articulated. I hope you will continue this advocacy. If I can be of help at all even just as moral support, lmk.
Genuinely the best thing you can do is build non-governmental non-oligarchic cooperatively owned organizations
The only way out is through and it is by seizing the means of production, such that the ownership and control is exclusively and explicitly done by labor power
The only way out is through and it is by seizing the means of production, such that the ownership and control is exclusively and explicitly done by labor power
While I was speaking to the intel-community-run-amok aspects, I can soeak to tbe governance-economic aspect frim your reply:
I appreciated DK too, but I think its usage of the word 'seize' (or tyoical attribution to it in any case) may have been counterproductive to its author's motivations.
Perhaps because I don't believe the English language contains precisely the alternative concept I'm looking for in one word, but I'm inclined to think 'saturate & outclass' is both much more palatable to all the parties concerned, in place of 'seize', and better-descriptive of what modus operandi I believe will be more effective. The image I want to convey is of a market producton volume under the co-op context that performs so much betterand is so much more engaged with by its 'customer-stakeholders' that the oligarchic-driven incumbents are rendered irrelevant into insignificance by tbe size, expansion, and caliber of the cooperativrly-owned concerns.
I appreciated DK too, but I think its usage of the word 'seize' (or tyoical attribution to it in any case) may have been counterproductive to its author's motivations.
Perhaps because I don't believe the English language contains precisely the alternative concept I'm looking for in one word, but I'm inclined to think 'saturate & outclass' is both much more palatable to all the parties concerned, in place of 'seize', and better-descriptive of what modus operandi I believe will be more effective. The image I want to convey is of a market producton volume under the co-op context that performs so much betterand is so much more engaged with by its 'customer-stakeholders' that the oligarchic-driven incumbents are rendered irrelevant into insignificance by tbe size, expansion, and caliber of the cooperativrly-owned concerns.
I totally concur that the idealized firm would be able to actually sit in the space that you describe, namely, providing a better more coherent, more integrated service at a more equitable price point across the range of services
However, that’s not the world we live in and the reality is that existing monopolies don’t remain entrenched accidentally. They remain entrenched because they use state power via the law to entrenche their immoral activities.
In the face of that, you actually have to be - not just passive - because you will be faced with active attack.
So seizing really does a certain point mean at the detriment to existing monopoly power, and more or less whatever that takes to fight
However, that’s not the world we live in and the reality is that existing monopolies don’t remain entrenched accidentally. They remain entrenched because they use state power via the law to entrenche their immoral activities.
In the face of that, you actually have to be - not just passive - because you will be faced with active attack.
So seizing really does a certain point mean at the detriment to existing monopoly power, and more or less whatever that takes to fight
> 1960s
https://ratical.org/ratville/JFK/Unspeakable/TrumanLimitCIA....
[Deserves being quoted in full]:
Limit CIA Role To Intelligence by Harry S. Truman December 22, 1963 The Washington Post, page A11
INDEPENDENCE, MO., Dec. 21—I think it has become necessary to take another look at the purpose and operations of our Central Intelligence Agency—CIA. At least, I would like to submit here the original reason why I thought it necessary to organize this Agency during my Administration, what I expected it to do and how it was to operate as an arm of the President.
I think it is fairly obvious that by and large a President's performance in office is as effective as the information he has and the information he gets. That is to say, that assuming the President himself possesses a knowledge of our history, a sensitive understanding of our institutions, and an insight into the needs and aspirations of the people, he needs to have available to him the most accurate and up-to-the-minute information on what is going on everywhere in the world, and particularly of the trends and developments in all the danger spots in the contest between East and West. This is an immense task and requires a special kind of an intelligence facility.
Of course, every President has available to him all the information gathered by the many intelligence agencies already in existence. The Departments of State, Defense, Commerce, Interior and others are constantly engaged in extensive information gathering and have done excellent work.
But their collective information reached the President all too frequently in conflicting conclusions. At times, the intelligence reports tended to be slanted to conform to established positions of a given department. This becomes confusing and what's worse, such intelligence is of little use to a President in reaching the right decisions.
Therefore, I decided to set up a special organization charged with the collection of all intelligence reports from every available source, and to have those reports reach me as President without department “treatment” or interpretations.
I wanted and needed the information in its “natural raw” state and in as comprehensive a volume as it was practical for me to make full use of it. But the most important thing about this move was to guard against the chance of intelligence being used to influence or to lead the President into unwise decisions—and I thought it was necessary that the President do his own thinking and evaluating.
Since the responsibility for decision making was his—then he had to be sure that no information is kept from him for whatever reason at the discretion of any one department or agency, or that unpleasant facts be kept from him. There are always those who would want to shield a President from bad news or misjudgments to spare him from being “upset.”
For some time I have been disturbed by the way CIA has been diverted from its original assignment. It has become an operational and at times a policy-making arm of the Government. This has led to trouble and may have compounded our difficulties in several explosive areas.
I never had any thought that when I set up the CIA that it would be injected into peacetime cloak and dagger operations. Some of the complications and embarrassment I think we have experienced are in part attributable to the fact that this quiet intelligence arm of the President has been so removed from its intended role that it is being interpreted as a symbol of sinister and mysterious foreign intrigue—and a subject for cold war enemy propaganda.
With all the nonsense put out by Communist propaganda about “Yankee imperialism,” “exploitive capitalism,” “war-mongering,” “monopolists,” in their name-calling assault on the West, the last thing we needed was for the CIA to be seized upon as something akin to a subverting influence in the affairs of other people.
I well knew the first temporary director of the CIA, Adm. Souers, and the later permanent directors of the CIA, Gen. Hoyt Vandenberg and Allen Dulles. These were men of the highest character, patriotism and integrity—and I assume this is true of all those who continue in charge.
But there are now some searching questions that need to be answered. I, therefore, would like to see the CIA be restored to its original assignment as the intelligence arm of the President, and that whatever else it can properly perform in that special field—and that its operational duties be terminated or properly used elsewhere.
We have grown up as a nation, respected for our free institutions and for our ability to maintain a free and open society. There is something about the way the CIA has been functioning that is casting a shadow over our historic position and I feel that we need to correct it.
Copyright © 1963 by Harry S Truman
https://ratical.org/ratville/JFK/Unspeakable/TrumanLimitCIA....
[Deserves being quoted in full]:
Limit CIA Role To Intelligence by Harry S. Truman December 22, 1963 The Washington Post, page A11
INDEPENDENCE, MO., Dec. 21—I think it has become necessary to take another look at the purpose and operations of our Central Intelligence Agency—CIA. At least, I would like to submit here the original reason why I thought it necessary to organize this Agency during my Administration, what I expected it to do and how it was to operate as an arm of the President.
I think it is fairly obvious that by and large a President's performance in office is as effective as the information he has and the information he gets. That is to say, that assuming the President himself possesses a knowledge of our history, a sensitive understanding of our institutions, and an insight into the needs and aspirations of the people, he needs to have available to him the most accurate and up-to-the-minute information on what is going on everywhere in the world, and particularly of the trends and developments in all the danger spots in the contest between East and West. This is an immense task and requires a special kind of an intelligence facility.
Of course, every President has available to him all the information gathered by the many intelligence agencies already in existence. The Departments of State, Defense, Commerce, Interior and others are constantly engaged in extensive information gathering and have done excellent work.
But their collective information reached the President all too frequently in conflicting conclusions. At times, the intelligence reports tended to be slanted to conform to established positions of a given department. This becomes confusing and what's worse, such intelligence is of little use to a President in reaching the right decisions.
Therefore, I decided to set up a special organization charged with the collection of all intelligence reports from every available source, and to have those reports reach me as President without department “treatment” or interpretations.
I wanted and needed the information in its “natural raw” state and in as comprehensive a volume as it was practical for me to make full use of it. But the most important thing about this move was to guard against the chance of intelligence being used to influence or to lead the President into unwise decisions—and I thought it was necessary that the President do his own thinking and evaluating.
Since the responsibility for decision making was his—then he had to be sure that no information is kept from him for whatever reason at the discretion of any one department or agency, or that unpleasant facts be kept from him. There are always those who would want to shield a President from bad news or misjudgments to spare him from being “upset.”
For some time I have been disturbed by the way CIA has been diverted from its original assignment. It has become an operational and at times a policy-making arm of the Government. This has led to trouble and may have compounded our difficulties in several explosive areas.
I never had any thought that when I set up the CIA that it would be injected into peacetime cloak and dagger operations. Some of the complications and embarrassment I think we have experienced are in part attributable to the fact that this quiet intelligence arm of the President has been so removed from its intended role that it is being interpreted as a symbol of sinister and mysterious foreign intrigue—and a subject for cold war enemy propaganda.
With all the nonsense put out by Communist propaganda about “Yankee imperialism,” “exploitive capitalism,” “war-mongering,” “monopolists,” in their name-calling assault on the West, the last thing we needed was for the CIA to be seized upon as something akin to a subverting influence in the affairs of other people.
I well knew the first temporary director of the CIA, Adm. Souers, and the later permanent directors of the CIA, Gen. Hoyt Vandenberg and Allen Dulles. These were men of the highest character, patriotism and integrity—and I assume this is true of all those who continue in charge.
But there are now some searching questions that need to be answered. I, therefore, would like to see the CIA be restored to its original assignment as the intelligence arm of the President, and that whatever else it can properly perform in that special field—and that its operational duties be terminated or properly used elsewhere.
We have grown up as a nation, respected for our free institutions and for our ability to maintain a free and open society. There is something about the way the CIA has been functioning that is casting a shadow over our historic position and I feel that we need to correct it.
Copyright © 1963 by Harry S Truman
"I am, of course, referring to what in Latin America is often called “the first 9/11”: September 11, 1973, when the United States succeeded in its intensive efforts to overthrow the democratic government of Salvador Allende in Chile with a military coup that placed General Pinochet’s ghastly regime in office. The dictatorship then installed the Chicago Boys—economists trained at the University of Chicago—to reshape Chile’s economy. Consider the economic destruction, the torture and kidnappings, and multiply the numbers killed by 25 to yield per capita equivalents, and you will see just how much more devastating the first 9/11 was." - Noam Chomsky
https://www.bostonreview.net/articles/noam-chomsky-responsib...
https://www.bostonreview.net/articles/noam-chomsky-responsib...
I see your September 11, 1973 and raise you the actual first 9/11, the fall of Barcelona in 1713 - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41510919 ( tongue in cheek, no event is more important than another of course )
Remembered on this very day as "La Diada" in Catalunya.
Remembered on this very day as "La Diada" in Catalunya.
I by no means support the efforts of the CIA in Chile, however it is worth noting how transformative the economy of Chile has been since then.
Well that's the story some people tell to justify fascism, but it's not actually true:
https://noahpinion.substack.com/p/pinochets-economic-policy-...
"Pinochet's economic policy is vastly overrated"
> Mining a bunch of copper, helping your cronies get rich, and pumping up land prices is not a "miracle".
https://noahpinion.substack.com/p/pinochets-economic-policy-...
"Pinochet's economic policy is vastly overrated"
> Mining a bunch of copper, helping your cronies get rich, and pumping up land prices is not a "miracle".
During the rule of Pinochet the people of Chile we oppressed horrendously. Fascism is no excuse to justify economic growth. That is not the point. The point is to look at different economic systems and compare the results; not compare how they were implemented. Fortunately Pinochet’s power was not indefinite and Chileans became much freer economically and politically after he left.
> The point is to look at different economic systems and compare the results; not compare how they were implemented.
We never got to look at Allende's economic system and how it compares.
Politically Allende was freedom minded to a fault in the sense that the coup would have been a lot harder if he'd accepted violence. Economic freedom doesn't mean anything.
We never got to look at Allende's economic system and how it compares.
Politically Allende was freedom minded to a fault in the sense that the coup would have been a lot harder if he'd accepted violence. Economic freedom doesn't mean anything.
True, though I was referring socialism in general as the system. Yes we don't know how it could have turned out, but we can estimate the results by looking at the failure of the other socialist systems that were tried in the 20th century.
By economic freedom I mean the measure of freedom from coercion to spend your money. All governments must collect taxes, but the more you are forced to pay in taxes the less economic freedom you have. If you can spend your money how you like, and if you want to save it to fund your own or other's political activity, you are more able to campaign for your political freedoms. This seems to be how Pinochet was removed from power.
By economic freedom I mean the measure of freedom from coercion to spend your money. All governments must collect taxes, but the more you are forced to pay in taxes the less economic freedom you have. If you can spend your money how you like, and if you want to save it to fund your own or other's political activity, you are more able to campaign for your political freedoms. This seems to be how Pinochet was removed from power.
Chile's economy started really growing only in the late 1980's when Pinochet was ousted and the "monetarist experiment" had ended (in a huge banking crisis in 1982). And the poverty rate increased from 29% to 36% under the Chicago boys.
Can that be said to be a result of the coup, though? The nationalization of copper mines was never reversed and the post-coup economy was pretty bad and unstable until the tail end when Pinochet was already on the way out.
It is definitely not the result of the coup. However I think it is a result of the economic policies put in place after the coup. You can see how different the other South American economies have been since then.
Also worth noting that Allende was backed by the Soviets and Cuba, there's important Cold War context to the US intervention.
https://issforum.org/reviews/106-chile
https://issforum.org/reviews/106-chile
Not that Allende government had much choice after USA imposed heavy sanctions "to make the economy scream" after they nationalized some industries.
"The president’s White House lawyer subsequently advised Ford that his statement “was not fully consistent with the facts because all the facts had not been made known to you.”
Plus ça change...
Plus ça change...
I think the US was very concerned at the time that Chile under Allende would become a client state or a vassal of the Soviet Union similar to Cuba. The US still upholds the Monroe Doctrine which states that any intervention in the politics of the New World by foreign powers is a threat to the US. The US does not want any foreign interference or potential military bases in its 'backyard'.
That sounds scarily familiar to how Russia sees Ukraine today, and I'm unable to see how it could justify what happened in the past or justify what is happening now.
From a HN commentator in 2054:
> I think Russia was very concerned at the time that Ukraine under Zelensky would become a client state or a vassal of the US. Russia still upholds the "No outsiders" Doctrine which states that any intervention in the politics of the Russian World by foreign powers is a threat to Russia. Russia does not want any foreign interference or potential military bases in its 'backyard'.
From a HN commentator in 2054:
> I think Russia was very concerned at the time that Ukraine under Zelensky would become a client state or a vassal of the US. Russia still upholds the "No outsiders" Doctrine which states that any intervention in the politics of the Russian World by foreign powers is a threat to Russia. Russia does not want any foreign interference or potential military bases in its 'backyard'.
Yes, it's pretty much identical to Russia-Ukraine. And I'm not justifying it, I am just explaining how the US sees it.
There is no morality in geopolitics. In the anarchic international system, there is no global enforcement mechanism, so states will always try to maximize their security at the expense of others. In short, might makes right in this system.
"The strong do what they can and the weak suffer what they must." - Thucydides
There is no morality in geopolitics. In the anarchic international system, there is no global enforcement mechanism, so states will always try to maximize their security at the expense of others. In short, might makes right in this system.
"The strong do what they can and the weak suffer what they must." - Thucydides
That’s right. It’s only us normal human beings that have an aversion to war and killing.
Basically everyone has an aversion to war and killing. Until something happens that they think is worth going to war for, or killing for.
The unnormal humans are the architects of these events who do it just for the sake of money and power.
Isn't that exactly what the poor 18 year old from Kentucky is doing when he signs up for the army?
That’s not a good way to get neither money nor power.
A common refrain to explain kids joining the army is to escape being stuck in a small town with no opportunities.
So, they are saying they're okay with killing in order to improve their economic prospects.
So, they are saying they're okay with killing in order to improve their economic prospects.
Compared to other prospects for that 18 year old? College is out of reach without help and the military is a good way to get the help needed to go there.
[deleted]
> And I'm not justifying it, I am just explaining how the US sees it.
Yeah, I guess it's a thin line between "providing neutral historical context and reasoning" and "implicitly suggesting that the reasoning makes the actions acceptable or understandable". I'll trust what you're saying though and assume you're not actually trying to justifying it.
> states will always try to maximize their security at the expense of others
I don't think this is true for every single country in the world, especially those more concerned with their own well-being above their "global security status". That's the kind of black and white view that leads to more division and separation rather than humans trying to work together.
Yeah, I guess it's a thin line between "providing neutral historical context and reasoning" and "implicitly suggesting that the reasoning makes the actions acceptable or understandable". I'll trust what you're saying though and assume you're not actually trying to justifying it.
> states will always try to maximize their security at the expense of others
I don't think this is true for every single country in the world, especially those more concerned with their own well-being above their "global security status". That's the kind of black and white view that leads to more division and separation rather than humans trying to work together.
> I don't think this is true for every single country in the world, especially those more concerned with their own well-being above their "global security status". That's the kind of black and white view that leads to more division and separation rather than humans trying to work together.
For some countries, maximizing their security simply means trying to survive and not get taken over. These are typically smaller countries such as Armenia. They can't afford to focus on their economic well-being or working with other nations if their existence is threatened. For other countries that are established powers, maximizing security can mean anything from securing the territory it currently holds (India, Pakistan, North Korea, South Korea) to expanding its territory (Russia, Azerbaijan) to getting or maintaining a sphere of influence (US, Russia, China).
For some countries, maximizing their security simply means trying to survive and not get taken over. These are typically smaller countries such as Armenia. They can't afford to focus on their economic well-being or working with other nations if their existence is threatened. For other countries that are established powers, maximizing security can mean anything from securing the territory it currently holds (India, Pakistan, North Korea, South Korea) to expanding its territory (Russia, Azerbaijan) to getting or maintaining a sphere of influence (US, Russia, China).
The "Russia is just defending their geographical sphere of interest" argument for Russia's invasion of Ukraine only comes from Western isolationists and pro-Russia activists.
The actual internal political communication within Russia makes it clear that they don't consider Ukraine and the Ukrainian identity as legitimate. That is why they want to annex Ukraine. Putin launched the invasion in a speech where called Ukraine a fake nation that shouldn't exist.
The actual internal political communication within Russia makes it clear that they don't consider Ukraine and the Ukrainian identity as legitimate. That is why they want to annex Ukraine. Putin launched the invasion in a speech where called Ukraine a fake nation that shouldn't exist.
And Bush launched the Iraq invasion on the totally false pretexts of WMD and 9/11 involvement.
The stated reasons for starting a war are rarely the true reasons. Although Putin did, among other "reasons", say NATO expansion is a critical factor.
The stated reasons for starting a war are rarely the true reasons. Although Putin did, among other "reasons", say NATO expansion is a critical factor.
The key difference being the Cold War is over
But more importantly, from a "realpolitik" International Relations perspective, the biggest problem with the invasion of Ukraine is that Russia couldn't win it as swiftly as it believed it could. If they were not a paper tiger and had in fact succeeded in taking Kyiv shortly after the start of the conflict, the rest of the world would have had to accept it. Because they failed, they get the US and other Western allies supporting a resistance for the stated goal of defending Ukraine's sovereignty but for the true goal of not allowing Russia to grow stronger.
But more importantly, from a "realpolitik" International Relations perspective, the biggest problem with the invasion of Ukraine is that Russia couldn't win it as swiftly as it believed it could. If they were not a paper tiger and had in fact succeeded in taking Kyiv shortly after the start of the conflict, the rest of the world would have had to accept it. Because they failed, they get the US and other Western allies supporting a resistance for the stated goal of defending Ukraine's sovereignty but for the true goal of not allowing Russia to grow stronger.
> If they were not a paper tiger and had in fact succeeded in taking Kyiv shortly after the start of the conflict, the rest of the world would have had to accept it.
Not at all true.
Not at all true.
Show me one instance in which a permanent member of the UN security council successfully invaded another country and suffered any real repercussion other than political backlash.
Downvoting me and saying "not true" doesn't make it less true.
Downvoting me and saying "not true" doesn't make it less true.
I think that's an accurate explanation that many people will take as an excuse or justification.
The short of it is "the US (like all powers which can afford to, but more) will do whatever it needs to do for its benefit while crucifying the same actions from anyone else".
The short of it is "the US (like all powers which can afford to, but more) will do whatever it needs to do for its benefit while crucifying the same actions from anyone else".
Yes, I didn't think I needed to add a disclaimer on Hacker News that explanation != justification, but alas.
It was in fact a Soviet client state, but the Soviets themselves were starving in 1973 (they were actually importing US grains) and couldn't provide enough assistance to both Cuba and Chile.
Read about how a 25 year old American girl, Ronni Moffitt, who was a fundraiser and opponent of Chile's dictatorship, was killed by car bomb, along with Orlando Letelier, in Washington DC in 1976 by Chile's intelligence service. Convicted of the murder was Michael Townley, a US born man who moved to Chile and worked for Chile's intelligence service. Lots of interesting aspects of the case.
Henry Kissinger is a war criminal in the same club as Adolf Eichmann and Pol Pot. He is responsible for the deaths of millions.
The US, at least since WW2, are the bad guys. Look at what happened to the perpetrators of Unit 731. Or all the Nazis that ended up in positions of power in the West. I mean, look at the resume of Adolf Heusinger [1]. The US were the bad guys in the Cuban missile crisis, almost precipitating WW3. The USSR putting missiles in Cuba was a direct response to the US putting Jupiter MRBMs in Turkey. It's for the restraint of one man (Vasili Arkhopov [2]) that we didn't have a nuclear war.
In the 1950s, we started overthrowing governments at the behest of the interests of Western companies (eg Guatemala [3], Iran [4]).
Anytime any country has even hinted that they'd nationalize extraction industries of someone who was left-leaning won an election, that country would have a coup and the CIA's fingerprints would be all over it. Pinochet is just one of dozens of examples.
Now we largely exact vengeance for defying US interests by starving people to death (aka "economic sanctions"), a policy that has also killed millions.
None of this is principled. People may point to the Monroe doctrine or the Truman doctrine or defending democracy but we've overthrown too many democracies for that claim to have any credibility.
If this were Star Wars, we we would be the Empire.
[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adolf_Heusinger
[2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vasily_Arkhipov
[3]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1954_Guatemalan_coup_d%27%C3%A...
[4]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1953_Iranian_coup_d%27%C3%A9ta...
The US, at least since WW2, are the bad guys. Look at what happened to the perpetrators of Unit 731. Or all the Nazis that ended up in positions of power in the West. I mean, look at the resume of Adolf Heusinger [1]. The US were the bad guys in the Cuban missile crisis, almost precipitating WW3. The USSR putting missiles in Cuba was a direct response to the US putting Jupiter MRBMs in Turkey. It's for the restraint of one man (Vasili Arkhopov [2]) that we didn't have a nuclear war.
In the 1950s, we started overthrowing governments at the behest of the interests of Western companies (eg Guatemala [3], Iran [4]).
Anytime any country has even hinted that they'd nationalize extraction industries of someone who was left-leaning won an election, that country would have a coup and the CIA's fingerprints would be all over it. Pinochet is just one of dozens of examples.
Now we largely exact vengeance for defying US interests by starving people to death (aka "economic sanctions"), a policy that has also killed millions.
None of this is principled. People may point to the Monroe doctrine or the Truman doctrine or defending democracy but we've overthrown too many democracies for that claim to have any credibility.
If this were Star Wars, we we would be the Empire.
[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adolf_Heusinger
[2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vasily_Arkhipov
[3]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1954_Guatemalan_coup_d%27%C3%A...
[4]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1953_Iranian_coup_d%27%C3%A9ta...
I agree with everything you've said here. The question is, what can really be done about it?
Dig him up and put his corpse on trial.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cadaver_Synod
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cadaver_Synod
Lol, I meant what can we do about the CIA destroying the entire world, piece by piece... not specifically Kissinger.
The CIA is a symptom rather than the problem. The CIA simply reflects US foreign policy. This isn't a political issue either because you'd be hard-pressed to find a difference between Democratic and Republican administrations when it comes to foreign policy.
The so-called War on Terror and the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq persisted through 4 presidents, 2 from each party. Both parties are neoliberals.
Abrahm Lincoln [1]:
> Labor is prior to, and independent of, capital. Capital is only the fruit of labor, and could never have existed if labor had not first existed.
sounds an awful lot like Karl Marx and the Labor Theory of Value [2]. So what happened? The two world wars massively increased US wealth, power and influence [3] and there was also the Red Scare, particularly after WW2 (although there were concerns about communists prior to that). The Red Scare (and Reagan in particular) destroyed the labor movement in the US. Now we people who champion tax cuts for Jeff Bezos. That's how successful the propaganda has been.
What's clear is the capitalists will side with fascists to destroy socialists and communists. Every time. Fascism is capitalism in crisis.
Why do I bring all this up? Because when you make a materialist analysis of historical events, you see the US acting in the interests of capital owners every time. So after WW2, with the red Scare, who was good at fighting communists? Nazis obviously. So is it any surprise that Nazis ended up in the command structure of NATO? Not in the slightest.
So there's no reforming the CIA in the current system. The entire system is corrupt. And the only antidote is class consciousness and class solidarity. Any polarization you see in modern politics is merely a tool to prevent class solidarity by workers. Racism was fanned in Reconstruction to avoid unity between freed slaves and poor white people. Race, religion, sexual orientation, gender identity, the middle class (as distinct from the "lower class"), whatever it is. There's always some manufactured culture war nonsense to keep people divided.
Until people realize they have more in common with their fellow worker than they do the guy who owns the warehouse they work in, nothing will change.
[1]:https://www.cooperative-individualism.org/lincoln-abraham_on...
[2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Labor_theory_of_value
[3]: https://archive.is/QxfjL
The so-called War on Terror and the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq persisted through 4 presidents, 2 from each party. Both parties are neoliberals.
Abrahm Lincoln [1]:
> Labor is prior to, and independent of, capital. Capital is only the fruit of labor, and could never have existed if labor had not first existed.
sounds an awful lot like Karl Marx and the Labor Theory of Value [2]. So what happened? The two world wars massively increased US wealth, power and influence [3] and there was also the Red Scare, particularly after WW2 (although there were concerns about communists prior to that). The Red Scare (and Reagan in particular) destroyed the labor movement in the US. Now we people who champion tax cuts for Jeff Bezos. That's how successful the propaganda has been.
What's clear is the capitalists will side with fascists to destroy socialists and communists. Every time. Fascism is capitalism in crisis.
Why do I bring all this up? Because when you make a materialist analysis of historical events, you see the US acting in the interests of capital owners every time. So after WW2, with the red Scare, who was good at fighting communists? Nazis obviously. So is it any surprise that Nazis ended up in the command structure of NATO? Not in the slightest.
So there's no reforming the CIA in the current system. The entire system is corrupt. And the only antidote is class consciousness and class solidarity. Any polarization you see in modern politics is merely a tool to prevent class solidarity by workers. Racism was fanned in Reconstruction to avoid unity between freed slaves and poor white people. Race, religion, sexual orientation, gender identity, the middle class (as distinct from the "lower class"), whatever it is. There's always some manufactured culture war nonsense to keep people divided.
Until people realize they have more in common with their fellow worker than they do the guy who owns the warehouse they work in, nothing will change.
[1]:https://www.cooperative-individualism.org/lincoln-abraham_on...
[2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Labor_theory_of_value
[3]: https://archive.is/QxfjL
I think this is a sound analysis, if rather depressing!
I really just can't see how this ever changes. You are right that the Dems and Republicans are two cheeks of the same arse - but worse, they don't even play fair within their own rules; just look at the shenanigans they've been undertaking to keep Jill Stein's Green party underfunded and off the ballot!
I really just can't see how this ever changes. You are right that the Dems and Republicans are two cheeks of the same arse - but worse, they don't even play fair within their own rules; just look at the shenanigans they've been undertaking to keep Jill Stein's Green party underfunded and off the ballot!
The US, at least since WW2, are the bad guys.
I'll go with "the US has been bad".
But to say that they were simply "the bad guys", in a world bursting full of bad guys in practically every corner, is simplistic and naive.
It also (ironically) denies these other societies any respect for their own agency, and their own salient capacity to be corrupt, incompetent, genocidal and warmongering, and run themselves into the ground in countless other ways without any help at all from the US. In that sense, it's actually quite a myopic and hegemonic way of looking at things.
I'll go with "the US has been bad".
But to say that they were simply "the bad guys", in a world bursting full of bad guys in practically every corner, is simplistic and naive.
It also (ironically) denies these other societies any respect for their own agency, and their own salient capacity to be corrupt, incompetent, genocidal and warmongering, and run themselves into the ground in countless other ways without any help at all from the US. In that sense, it's actually quite a myopic and hegemonic way of looking at things.
This amounts to "other people are bad too". Is that really a defense? It's also a question of scale. The amount of direct and foreseeable harm caused by the United States goes all the way back to its founding. The genocide of Native American peoples, the translatlantic slave trade, chattel slavery, segregation and then in the 20th century we go global.
The British Empire is described as the first drug dealer empire. First tobacco then opium. Well the US is the arms dealer empire. Eisenhower's farewell address warned of the increasing threat and power of the "military industrial complex" [1].
But in virtually every conflict post-WW2 we've been on the wrong side. Take the defining moment of 9/11, a terrorist attack perpetrated by Saudis, funded by members of the Saudi royal family. What did we do? We turned around and invaded Afghanistan (who offered to hand over bin Laden [2]) and Iraq (who had absolutely nothing to do with it), killing millions.
[1]: https://www.archives.gov/milestone-documents/president-dwigh...
[2]: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2001/oct/14/afghanistan.te...
The British Empire is described as the first drug dealer empire. First tobacco then opium. Well the US is the arms dealer empire. Eisenhower's farewell address warned of the increasing threat and power of the "military industrial complex" [1].
But in virtually every conflict post-WW2 we've been on the wrong side. Take the defining moment of 9/11, a terrorist attack perpetrated by Saudis, funded by members of the Saudi royal family. What did we do? We turned around and invaded Afghanistan (who offered to hand over bin Laden [2]) and Iraq (who had absolutely nothing to do with it), killing millions.
[1]: https://www.archives.gov/milestone-documents/president-dwigh...
[2]: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2001/oct/14/afghanistan.te...
It's not a defense; just a (much) more grounded contextualization, in my view.
This amounts to "other people are bad too".
It's also not whataboutism. To suggest that it is amounts to, well, an "either/or" response.
All I'm saying is: it seems you're trying to essentialize the woe and evil the world in a way I don't find valid or useful.
This amounts to "other people are bad too".
It's also not whataboutism. To suggest that it is amounts to, well, an "either/or" response.
All I'm saying is: it seems you're trying to essentialize the woe and evil the world in a way I don't find valid or useful.
> Secret White House Memo Documented Kissinger's Attitude: "I Don't See Why We Have to Sit Around and Let a Country Go Communist Due to the Irresponsibility of its Own People"
There is a saying, attributed to Stalin during the Yalta conference (but it's most definitely apocryphal): "I always thought that 'democracy' means the rule of the people but comrade Roosevelt here quite clearly explained to me that 'democracy' actually means the rule of the U.S. people". It's funny because apparently the top US diplomats and leaders genuinely do believe that.
There is a saying, attributed to Stalin during the Yalta conference (but it's most definitely apocryphal): "I always thought that 'democracy' means the rule of the people but comrade Roosevelt here quite clearly explained to me that 'democracy' actually means the rule of the U.S. people". It's funny because apparently the top US diplomats and leaders genuinely do believe that.
I am eagerly awaiting the complete declassification of the JFK assasination documents, which will further damage the CIA's reputation.
If there is anything really damning that happened, there is no reason it will be revealed, ever, or that documents about it still exist.
Why should they? Who is doing full constant oversight of whole CIA that has always upper hand above them to make it happen? Sorry but this is just a pipe dream, just look how that agency behaved when SHTF. Boeing kills whistleblowers despite literally whole world seeing what a shitshow that company is now. That's just effin Boeing, not folks who can kill almost anybody anywhere and not caring about consequences.
Why should they? Who is doing full constant oversight of whole CIA that has always upper hand above them to make it happen? Sorry but this is just a pipe dream, just look how that agency behaved when SHTF. Boeing kills whistleblowers despite literally whole world seeing what a shitshow that company is now. That's just effin Boeing, not folks who can kill almost anybody anywhere and not caring about consequences.
It's promising that RFK Jr could potentially be in a future administration and push to declassify these documents[1]. It would really only take an executive order. He probably has enough of a chip on his shoulder to accomplish this.
[1]: https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/article/2024/aug/23/trum...
[1]: https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/article/2024/aug/23/trum...
I think parents point is you can't declassify documents that no longer exist. IIRC many of the CIA's more heinous acts only have documentation because some one misfiled them allowing them to escape intentional destruction.
Backups have a way of appearing that surprise those who try to destroy evidence.
Do you truly believe these documents will ever be released, unedited?
There's a 50% probability that RFK Jr will be a part of the future administration, and I believe he is sufficiently motivated to force Trump to uphold his promise.
What makes you think Trump will do anything RFK wants after RFK endorsement of Trump led to a majority Harris polling bump? Did you know Trump hasn’t invested in any down ballot races and is on track to lose the House as a result, meanwhile Harris is investing tens of millions into down ballot races for a chance at securing a congressional majority? Dysfunctional governance is all we can hope for under Trump’s administration.
tazu(1)
That was the old CIA, i'm sure they've stopped doing this and we should just accept what they say about countries today
The CIA was never one thing, working toward a single coherent goal. The liberation of Eastern Europe in the 1990s and the defense of Ukraine were partly the work of the CIA and allied intelligence services.
Except for the Cold War aspects of regime change in South America, and we know a lot of it had very little to do with geostrategic concerns and a lot to do with US private sector economic interests, the South American dictators they installed have done a lot that harms US interests in addition to the obvious harm to the people living there.
The CIA is capable of both and a lot more.
Except for the Cold War aspects of regime change in South America, and we know a lot of it had very little to do with geostrategic concerns and a lot to do with US private sector economic interests, the South American dictators they installed have done a lot that harms US interests in addition to the obvious harm to the people living there.
The CIA is capable of both and a lot more.
It's so nice to have free media to tell us which is which!
[deleted]
Yep, at least they don't do this sort of thing any more: https://archive.ph/TnumH
They don't have to. You can't travel anywhere in LA, SA or the ME without encountering the view that people have no agency.
Their leaders even cultivate that view as a means to stay in power. And there is an endless queue of commenters to percolate it forever.
Greatest psyop ever. The CIA could have gone out of business decades back and it wouldn't change anything.
Their leaders even cultivate that view as a means to stay in power. And there is an endless queue of commenters to percolate it forever.
Greatest psyop ever. The CIA could have gone out of business decades back and it wouldn't change anything.
Of course. They achieved their goal.
Director William Casey Quote: "We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything they believe is false!"
Director William Casey Quote: "We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything they believe is false!"
[deleted]
Those central and south american civil wars against communism were dirty, and consistent with how people there fought. CIA torture progams at black sites continue to the modern day where they let the local authorities use their own ethics in interrogations. CIA's history is ugly, but mostly because they partner with the local devils they know. However, communists never won elections, they manipulated them, and anyone familiar with 20th century history knows fighting communist expansion was a just war.
It appears CIA has stared into the abyss a bit too long and have turned their tactics against americans though. First with mk-ultra, then with the crack epidemic, and then with tolerating the fentanyl crisis by picking winners in the cartels and literally training the Zeta cartel at WHINSEC, along with abetting a refugee crisis to secure electoral influence for whoever the anti-populist party is.
The rationale appears to be they think they come out on top as the central committee if they orchestrate 20th century totalitarian playbooks in the west and become, as Karl Rove famously said, "history's actors." Nations needed their intelligence services, but in a post-national framework, many parts of them have become malignant. People should take heed of what is done on their behalf as after decades of dealing with devils to fight totalitarian communism, their chickens appear to be coming home to roost.
It appears CIA has stared into the abyss a bit too long and have turned their tactics against americans though. First with mk-ultra, then with the crack epidemic, and then with tolerating the fentanyl crisis by picking winners in the cartels and literally training the Zeta cartel at WHINSEC, along with abetting a refugee crisis to secure electoral influence for whoever the anti-populist party is.
The rationale appears to be they think they come out on top as the central committee if they orchestrate 20th century totalitarian playbooks in the west and become, as Karl Rove famously said, "history's actors." Nations needed their intelligence services, but in a post-national framework, many parts of them have become malignant. People should take heed of what is done on their behalf as after decades of dealing with devils to fight totalitarian communism, their chickens appear to be coming home to roost.
One of the earlier times I was reading about underhandedness, it involved a US ambassador raising red flags about grave human rights abuses by the foreign gov't. For whatever reason, that ambassador was replaced by one who would publicly deny what was going on. At the time I read that (long after it happened), I paid attention to the latter, villain ambassador, but not enough attention to the earlier ambassador, who seemed to be on the right side.
A bit like the saying from Mister Rogers lore, "Look for the helpers."[1]
[1] https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/198594-when-i-was-a-boy-and...