CIA DO Resignations

[QRQ 30]

I would disagree with this statement:

It is also hard to imagine their coming into being unless these jihadist moles are well paid. A starting salary of a quarter of a million dollars a year would be reasonable.ad."

There are many people who would do the job without money as the reason. A man who's sole motive is money is likely to be bought off if discovered. In fact there are documented cases of just that. There are two sayings concerning money: 1."Everyone has his price" and "Money is the root of all evil". They are only both true if the first is true.

God knows that money wasn't a motive when I joined Special Forces and I don't think it was for anyone. There are many and various reasons listed in the "Why did you join SF" thread but I don't recall money being one. Men of similar psychological make up are likely recruits as CIA operatives. It is the job and not the pay.


But, I digress from the subject of leadership.

[Jimbo]

Originally Posted by QRQ 30

It is the job and not the pay.


But, I digress from the subject of leadership.

I don' t think that is too far off the discussion of leadership. I know a number of people who will work for little pay and low job satisfaction if they are working for a good leader. If the leadership is bad and the job satisfaction is moderate to low, the pay is going to have to be high in order to get qualified (or any) people to do the job.

Given that careerism has largely replaced good leadership in much of the government, I don't fault people for wanting a little more cash up front.

[Roguish Lawyer]

Yeah, I catch all kinds of flak from you guys every time I bring up pay increases as part of the solution to anything. I still think that low pay is a reason why people don't enter public service, and that eliminating that disincentive would be prudent.

[QRQ 30]

Originally Posted by Roguish Lawyer

Yeah, I catch all kinds of flak from you guys every time I bring up pay increases as part of the solution to anything. I still think that low pay is a reason why people don't enter public service, and that eliminating that disincentive would be prudent.

This reminds me of a saying that also probably belongs in the "SF Motto" thread.

:"And to think we actually get paid to do this shit!", or "And to think civilians have to pay to do this shit!", said while suspended from the side of a wind/snow blown cliff, or draging an akio across the frozen tundra, etc.

[magician]

you know what?

you are right.

I would do it in a heart beat, for little to no money, if the phone rang.

it is either in the heart, or it is not.

[Huey14]

Originally Posted by Roguish Lawyer

Yeah, I catch all kinds of flak from you guys every time I bring up pay increases as part of the solution to anything. I still think that low pay is a reason why people don't enter public service, and that eliminating that disincentive would be prudent.

Would also eliminate the threat of people being tempted by greed, a la Ames.

[Jimbo]

Originally Posted by Huey14

Would also eliminate the threat of people being tempted by greed, a la Ames.

Ames was not tempted by greed. Ames did what he did because he thought he was superior to everyone around him. His material possessions were a physical manifestation of that. Had it been pure greed, he likely would have asked for more money and hidden it until he could get away and spend it. However, since he thought he was better then everyone else, he never thought he would get caught.

[Huey14]

Alright.

[NousDefionsDoc]

Article

Bush's purge at CIA is unwise
By Haviland Smith

Porter Goss, the new CIA director and a devoted political ally of President Bush, has brought with him to Langley a Praetorian Guard from the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence.

Against the backdrop of his hands-off management style, they are making it clear, without much tact or subtlety, what their goal is: They have come to shake the place up.

Whatever is going on, it is at the behest of the White House, and it probably does not focus on faulty intelligence about weapons of mass destruction but rather on the conduct of the Iraq war and its aftermath.

In that context, the administration's wrath seems directed toward the clandestine service, that component of the CIA that recruits and handles spies (not the component that publishes intelligence estimates). Since Goss' arrival in Langley, Va., much of the senior management of the clandestine service has been fired or has quit, reportedly to be replaced with more compliant officials.

David Brooks of the New York Times wrote in a vituperative column in mid-November that we were viewing a death struggle between the White House and the CIA. He claimed that the CIA had been trying to contribute to the president's defeat in the election by leaking classified material designed to bolster the idea that the Iraq policy was ill-conceived and going badly.

Apparently, that idea was absolutely correct.

It appears that the CIA, both the clandestine service and the intelligence directorate, had indeed been leaking a wide variety of secrets. They could and should have been prosecuted for the unauthorized disclosure of classified information. They were not. Instead, it appears that the administration has found in their actions a welcome excuse for collective punishment of the CIA.

Given the way the Bush White House has handled intelligence during the past three years, it makes sense that it is angry at the clandestine service. The officers in that service are often required to give their opinions about policies in advance of their implementation.

It is unlikely that any clandestine service officer, having spent a career in the Middle East, would see our current policy there as flawless. Thus many in the White House probably see the clandestine service as a nest of enemies. They might just want to consider an alternative possibility: that the service is made up of professionals who would like to save their country from the further embarrassment and potential difficulties of a truly flawed and dangerous Iraq policy.

Once a year, all CIA station chiefs write a message to the director of central intelligence giving their analysis of how things are going in the country to which they are assigned. These analyses are straightforward and normally show extraordinary understanding of local realities. They contain the kind of candor that, if it were to get unvarnished to a Bush White House or to the media (as the most recent one from Baghdad recently did), would likely infuriate the administration. After all, this is the president who will not acknowledge any shortcomings in either his policy or its outcome in Iraq.

Given his dogged adherence to the righteousness of that policy, it makes sense that the president would be angry with the clandestine service. It seems quite possible that the service is being punished for having been right, or at least unsupportive of administration policy.

The agency's statutory responsibility is to speak the truth, whether the truth supports the president's plans or not. It would appear that this concept is not shared by this administration.

Porter Goss and his troops from the Hill are wreaking havoc on the best current line of defense we have against terrorism. However angry this administration is with the clandestine service, whose officers run human intelligence operations, those operations are the last, best hope we have to keep up with the terrorist problem. Purging the CIA at this unfortunate moment, when we need to be dealing with real issues of terrorism, is cutting off our nose to spite our face.

Haviland Smith is a retired CIA station chief who served in east and west Europe, the Middle East and as chief of the agency's counterterrorism staff.


Publication Date: 01-06-2005

[Surf n Turf]

QRQ 30

For QRO 30 --

Originally Posted by QRQ 30

The lynching of Col Rheault was probably the beginning of the modern era de-fanging process. (

It wasn’t the pipe smoking, tweed jacketed, Ivy league intel types who (metaphorically ) lynched Bob Rheault. It was a case of fratricide by the trade school boys over control, people, and money. Rumor has it that civilian intervention was the only thing that kept Rheault (in a trailer) outside of LBJ.

Surf n Turf

[Surf n Turf]

NousDefionsDoc
[QUOTE=NousDefionsDoc]
You are trying to equate a bunch of arrogant, Ivy League, bureaucratic, "hang on got my my 30 and Volvo" college boys with my NCO Corps? QUOTE]

Originally Posted by NousDefionsDoc

The administration is missing its chance to rebuild American intelligence in fundamental ways -- and there is no better time to do it than during a war, as "Wild Bill" Donovan and the OSS showed

Originally Posted by Jimbo

Some of the people he recruited were former Army. Back then, just about everyone had some kind of military experience.

Many of his recruits were just some college boys (and girls).

OSS Staffing --- Doc, you sure you want another OSS ??

The Office of Strategic Services (OSS) was the major U.S. intelligence agency during WW2. Its research branch consisted largely of conscientious humanities and social science liberals from Harvard and Yale. Their sudden access to international secrets, when mixed with inbred academic elitism, proved quite compelling. By war's end, these opinion-makers had become converts to OSS director William Donovan's vision of a postwar agency. Despite Truman's reluctance, Donovan's old-boy network was formalized into the CIA; the pipe-smoking liberal of the thirties became the cold warrior of the fifties. It wasn't until the 1960s that the academic community would begin to recover its social conscience.

http://www.namebase.org/sources/LY.html

[NousDefionsDoc]

Yes. Not the R&A - the OGs and SI

You think William Casey and Aaron Bank were wimps?

[Jimbo]

Originally Posted by Surf n Turf

http://www.namebase.org/sources/LY.html

Don't ever quote namebase as a source.

[Surf n Turf]

Originally Posted by NousDefionsDoc

Yes. Not the R&A - the OGs and SI

You think William Casey and Aaron Bank were wimps?

NousDefionsDoc

No, and neither were Allan Dulles, Dick Helms, Bill Colby, and hundreds of other “field” people who made their careers as professionals in the Intelligence community.

My point was probably poorly made --- everyone had generally commented on Operations (i.e. DDO) – the “least broke part of the entire organization” ---- My point was to contrast Operations with the rest of the organization, primarily that of “analysis” (which I believe is broke – big time).

From what I read in the newspapers, I think that it is now pretty clear that CIA does not get operations control, operations planning, tasking, “para-military” staff, etc. ------ BUT, You can’t have an operation without some analysis (hopefully “actionable intelligence” ) that tell’s someone, somewhere, that we need to do something.

I believe that analysis falls under the Intelligence Directorate (DDI) job title, where the collection and evaluation staff, analysts, specialists, researchers, librarians, etc. work, and that is what is most “broken” within the organization.

Granted, since the Carter / Turner “Thanksgiving massacre”, and a less than aggressive hiring program during the last decade, we probably don’t have the sources we need, but with ad’s in every local newspaper we are filling a pipeline. Our methods of collection are probably the best in the world.

From the military side, since Goldwater / Nichols (86), and the restructuring and upgrading of SOCOM, our Operations endeavours have improved significantly, and that responsibility will probably go to DoD.

But, back to my point --- Our Analysis has Not improved, and has probably degraded !!

That’s my story, and I’m stickin’ to it

SnT

[Jimbo]

Namebase is run by people with an agenda. Not too long ago it was nothing more than an effort to prove government conspiracies. They take a dim view of the government in general and intelligence in particular, so choosing what they have chosen to associate with an entity is like relying on Wikipedia for authoritative positions on issues.