Some may argue that this is not technically history, but I'd argue it is since this has been a topic of contention in Turkey for well over 30 years and now similar claims are being made by very respectable figures in the US, UK, etc.., it's now germane to a discussion of any modern government in the interests of placing proper historical context.
It's also not a "conspiracy theory" theory since Glenn Greenwald-- in my opinion among the few ethnical journalists left (along with Raimondo from antiwar com and a few others) treat it as a very serious subject.
If you are not familiar with this, it's the idea that we have now seen the full flourishing essentially of what Eisenhower wanted about in his farewell address-- the full rise of "Military-Industrial-Congressional Complex" (as it was written in his speech but he decided to cut out the final term at the last minute.
Thus my question-- since the 1950s, and esp accelerating after 9/11 do you think it's fair to say the US now has a de facto "Deep State" just as Turkey does, with Byzantine layers of useless bureaucracy who stay in power regardless of who is elected and in many respects hold the true power regardless of who is elected? I'm a 3L at a t-10, and I made the argument for this in an international law class. The professor did not disagree with me. I didn't ask him for book recommendations (and didn't want to give impression I don't have enough work or would have been signaling to him to pile on more and would have earned ire of the class), but curious what some of you think of this idea that Glenn Greenwald, Justin Raimondo, and a few other very credible journalists have been circulating-- that the Us has had a de facto "Deep State" since the 1950s and the pace has only accelerated after 9/11 until now the US is little better than Turkey, and the current proxy wars between US tel agencies illustrate this. Any thoughts?
Before any might tell me "antiwar.com" is not a serious site for news, I'd refer you to the late, tremendously respected Chalmers Johnson who said it was the first thing he read every morning and I quote: "I've come to the point where I no longer read the NY Times or Washington Post for the news-- I read it for the lies. I go to the antiwar.com if I want the truth." If any don't don't know, Chalmers was a Korean War vet who taught Intl Relations at UC Berkley and was a consultant for the CIA for a time, along with writing 3 bestselling books on the coming decline and fall of the "American Empire."
Justin Kelly
partially agree. Eisenhower's warning has been truly reached atm, but it's going there. I know democracy and freedom indicators have been receding since 2005.
Jose Evans
That's what I'm thinking as well. We now have this entrenched...I know I'm repeating the phrase, but I think there is no better adjective than "Byzantine;" this entrenched layer of essentially useless lobbyists, contractors, administrators, who now form essentially a class of their own in the DC suburbs.
I'm very ambivalent about Trump, but I think Greenwald (who is among the most liberal journalists in the world and was the only journalist Snowden trusted to get his story out) is definitely correct in that were are now seeing a proxy war within "The Deep State."
If anyone is interested, this is Greenwald's most recent article on this phenomenon:
There's no doubt in my mind the average middle manager at the department of state or the CIA has more power than the average senator or congressman.
Dominic Bennett
Is this book actually worth reading?
Robert Mitchell
Agree with this. Which leads me to believe we are either going to see a steady drip of disparaging info on Trump (true or not) trying to get him impeached. Or Trump is going to clean them out. Was reading a statistic yesterday that only 10 percent on CIA agents will every spend more than a total of 2 years of two years overseas in their entire careers. And if you've read "Legacy of Ashes," (Pretty much the accepted official history of the CIA), you know the CIA has never really had a good track record at much of anything, with the possible exception of the "dirty Wars" in Central and South America. and even that led to Iran-contra and and entire mess since they could not keep it sufficiently covert.
Caleb Wilson
I've heard a lot of people criticize Legacy of Ashes. Idk if I'd call it accepted official history of the CIA.
Mason Jenkins
>Is this book actually worth reading? The book on "The Deep State?" I'm sitting wondering if I should get the electronic version from Amazon, actually what I was hoping to find out.The pulitzer-prize winning "Legacy of Ashes" on the systemic failure of the CIA since it changed from OSS to CIA is definitely worth reading if you want to get context for the environment in which all this is taking place.
As of 2009 (?), the average CIA employee only had 5 years experience, and very little of it overseas, thus the need to rely so much on contractors. I think I'm getting the book now so I'd be able to let you know tomorrow if it's worth reading. But "Legacy of Ashes" is a must, even if quite long. I'd recommend the audio personally do you can listen at the gym or on subway or wherever your travels take you.
Matthew Reyes
>ethnical journalists
David Cox
>criticize Legacy of Ashes. lol, mostly from within CIA. I was hired to do research on...a fairly recent movie that had to do with he CIA and won a lot awards, and they made it very clear (from CIA) they did not agree with it. But it did win Pulitzer prize.
But yes, if you are ever working with anyone from CIA in a PR context, don't mention that book.
Isaac Lewis
>ethnical journalists Greenwald and Raimondo aren't ethical? Please, good learned sir, provide your list of those who were able to stay even somewhat impartial in the 2016 election. I'll wait, notepad in hand.
Adam Robinson
do grand macro analysis of government structure like this even make sense? there are tens of thousands of people directly involved in government in some way all with their own self interests and reasoning for being, does it really make sense to construct a "deep government" narrative when you're not privy to even 1% of the inner workings and motivations, especially when they are intwined with business interests you will never even hear about?
not disparaging the theory, merely curious
Liam Ward
>fucking retard can't tell the difference between ethical and ethnical
Xavier Gutierrez
Yes, it wasn't a typo, I clearly was referring to "ethnical" journalists. When someone becomes pedantic, it's generally an indication they have no valid answer, as is the case with you.
user, I may be exhausted, but I'm far more clever than you could even aspire to be. That's a guarantee.
Noah King
It seems insane to publicity insult the CIA. Billions of dollars floating around off the books, extralegal powers, a history of creative coups. I don't think he'll last very long. Eventually some event or leak will happen and the CIA will do their thing.
>does it really make sense to construct a "deep government" narrative when you're not privy to even 1% of the inner workings and motivations, especially when they are intwined with business interests you will never even hear about?
Yes, because it's basically a discussion on institutions, what they are.
David Hill
>instead of ignoring it or just typing "lel" in response he goes full sperg You're a tremendous failure at life m8 I can tell
David Miller
The author has been shilling for the CIA ever since Trump was elected though. This is one example:
>o grand macro analysis of government structure like this even make sense? Again, it's a valid question and can't pretend to speak didactically, but I'd say they do. The CIA is not...yes, there are many individual aspects that the public will never be privy to, but in a larger sense I'd say it's valid to be able to criticize/analyze the CIA in thank leaks such as those related to the recent US presidential campaign are reflective of both morale and a culture in which the CIA see themselves as kingmakers and have clearly "taken sides" against Trump.
that isn't me speaking, that's Greenwald, who has a stellar reputation in these areas as being both doggedly aggressive and honest. He is very openly not a fan of Trump, but he recognizes the behavior of CIA in the past few months as disgraceful.
I don't claim any great, secret knowledge of CIA other than dealing with the PR people and interviewing a few former agents. But I trust both Greenwald and Weiner (author of "Legacy of Ashes") esp given the thousands of interviews and almost a decade it took Weiner to compile his sources for the book.
And, if the CIA thought his book was in the end going to boil down to essentially an indictment, I seriously they'd ever have given him the access they did.
Jose Morgan
>I can tell Well, if "you can tell.." that settles it then. I'll make a note. Cannot provide any specific answer, but goes for what he clearly knew to be a typo since he had no answer.
Might consider investing in a mirror when looking for failures in life. Best Wishes,
Camden Cooper
>arguing with dubs
Josiah Bailey
>dubs
Landon Reed
Kek has spoken.
Jaxon Mitchell
Just ordered the Audio version of this. After I sleep for long enough to be coherent in typing, will complete and give my thoughts on the book if anyone cares:
"The Deep State: The Fall of the Constitution and the Rise of a Shadow Government Paperback – September 13, 2016 by Mike Lofgren (Author)"
also, has anyone read Lofgren's other book and has any initial thoughts on him as a writer? It's hard to even assign credibility based on reputation as a "journalist" anymore. Just finished book "A Rage For Order" ( a book about the Arab Spring) by former NYT Beirut Bureau Chief. What was his conclusion after 5 years of reporting?
The same as Dr. Michael Scheuer (former had of Bin Landen Unit/Alec Station) 5 years previously.
Austin Jones
>reuters.com/article/us-weiner-cia-commentary-idUSKBN14407T I just noticed this, thanks. Reading it, not sure I would interpret it as "shilling for CIA" (he points out their logistical problems in even getting access to Carter for one).
As I see it, over the next few years to MSMS are going to go to any length possible to try to cement some sort of "legacy" for Obama as "Obamacare" is rolled back. In passing, I saw an MSNBC ad for a special with Lying Brain Williams to go over his "accomplishments" (the only one which they can site was getting bin laden...which, while significant, not sure qualifies for him uniquely "owning" that).
People here may not like to hear it, but given the current Leftist control of the news and entertainment media, you can expect them to go to any length to try to insist Obama was more than, at best, a mediocre president (he was not) and anything he failed to achieve was due to racism.
That claim will be firmly cemented into the fabric of political and then historical thought until it is unquestionable within 15-20 years. The story will not be "Junior senator who probably didn't have the right experience became president and he and his chosen 32 year old assistant, Ben Rhodes, essentially took foreign policy into their own owns and messed up badly."
It will be "racism forced Obama from achieving what he wanted." which is, imo, total nonsense. Just wished the book "The Operators" (book by the Rolling Stone author who got Stanley McCrystal fired). Hastings certainly was not an opponent of Obama, and yet he cited instance after instance where Obama either outright failed or was simply disinterested in taking any sort of truly hands-on role into how Afghanistan and Iraq were left.
Another book I read recently "Confront and Conceal" goes further into the failures of Obama and Rhodes and--despite the book only covering his first term-- one can extrapolate from that just how bad Obama's 2nd term was.
Oliver Jackson
(kindly forgive spelling mistakes/typos have been up for 36 hours ((I'm a writer by profession)) and too tired to sleep, so come here to flesh out thoughts on politics anonymously and hope that a few smart/interesting people are awake for discussion. But yes, i assure you, under normal circumstances I can indeed spell and punctuate properly).
Jacob Johnson
This isn't the only article where he seems to be lecturing the President-elect on how important the CIA are by the way. I can link a few more if you want.
Your main argument seems to be though that Weiner's book was well written and accurate but because Trump won this has made him start doing anything to disrupt his presidency. Could it be that he is just a normal establishment Democrat journalist/pundit that campaigned against the CIA when it was convenient, (in 2007 while there was still a Republican president) but now he's on the same side as the CIA he has changed his tune because of political motivations?
Asher Diaz
That's certainly possible user. If you have any more links, would live to read them. I personally am no fan of Trump, but we live in a democratic system, we have to abide my the rules. I also admit, I keep RT on my phone to alert me to breaking news. Why? They are consistently 30-45 minutes ahead of the Western media in breaking sources.
It would not surprise me to see Weiner suddenly siding with the CIA to try to retain whatever teaching/think tank job he has now. I'd like to compare what he is writing now to what he wrote then just to see how sycophantic the Dem. party establishment becomes when faced with the potential prospect of losing their own source of income.
So yes please, if you have links easily accessible, would love to read. thanks mate.
Julian Mitchell
This one I wouldn't call straight up shilling for the CIA since he does criticize them in this one. At the same time though it kind of feels like he's only adding it in so he sound more objective when he bashes Trump.
One thing I forgot to mention why this is is because he keeps giving the CIA credibility by saying that they said the Russians hacked the election so that means Trump must trust them. Any reasonable person knows there is very little soft evidence at all to prove this, mostly insinuations and assumptions. There is also literally no hard evidence.
Grayson Walker
thanks, going to read now...
Benjamin Price
eish...sorry, can you archive the financial times link if you get a second user? Cannot get it work, am outside the US on business. Or just give the exact title and I will use VPN to try to access it through the US?
If you don't know how to archive, just go to to "archive.is" and past the link, and it will churn out a new link. Thanks. (maybe you already know this, don't mean to be condescending of you do).
Easton Ross
Umm sorry lol, read it earlier but paywall wouldn't let me read it again and I linked without checking. Here is the title though:
A new low point in White House-CIA relations
Benjamin Butler
And this is the closest to straight up shilling for the CIA I've seen from him besides a bit of that false objectivity he does by slightly insulting the CIA before he admonishes Trump.
>ft.com/content/44dd2236-c136-11e6-81c2-f57d90f6741a yeah, can't get into it even through Tor or a VPN. If you get a sec and can archive, would be very interested to see how he is changing his tune given that he wrote what is considered by far the most damaging and damning assessment of the CIA in its history. Within that community, the book has been so hated that former agents get visibly flustered if one mentions it in passing as a source of relatively benign information.
Anthony Price
ok, will check this one. When I'm on my home computer, know how to get past the paywall thing but on a tablet I'm screwed. thanks for your help though, will try this...
Austin Ross
...
Joseph Cruz
>bloomberg.com/view/articles/2017-01-10/presidents-have-always-needed-unwelcome-cia-advice LMAO, did you read this whole thing user? Weiner goes through a litany of failures of FUBARS from the CIA past and then the very last sense, something that seemed like it was tacked on by the editor in order to take a shot a Trump, it says: "But if Trump seeks revenge for its findings on Russia's plot, or if he simply tunes it out entirely, it's more than a bad sign -- it's a danger to the national security of the United States."
That's truly among the most bizarre pieces I've eve read. The author goes through a history of CIA systemic floured, givens numerous reason why the CIA should NOT be trusted, and then in very last sentence the message (from the editor) seems to be: "...and yet despite this legacy of not only uselessness but actively DAMING US interesting around the world, Trump MUST listen to them,,,. (???)
Something interesting I've learned from numerous journal articles/books is that JSCO (Joint Special Operations command) and in particular a part of it called "The Orange Unit" or "Grey Fox" has essentially taken over the Job from the CIA of collecting actionable intelligence.
A great book, one very much worth read is "Relentless Strike: A History of JSOC." Even though the title sounds very...GI JOE, the information with there is amazing. So much so that the NY Times has made the author of the book a regular contributor. (cont'd)
Evan Davis
If you do a lot of reading, between the book and a few others on the military disaster "Operation Eagle Claw" (failed US mission to rescue Iranian Hostages), you can actually get the name of a Polish.Us national who was used during Iraq war for very dangerous spying rights inside Baghdad. Despite the sort of gauche title, "Relentless Strike.." is one of the most informative and in many ways shocking books I've read in years, just in terms of the way it reveals and meticulously details things like...the proxy way going on in Iraq between the US forces and Iranian Quds force. Just things you can't read about anywhere else, but the author was given unique access as a naturalized Brit to US citizen who led to write for "Stars and Stripes," so he was in apposition to have the elite military units and even higher officers.
Joshua Perez
Maybe this should be a new thread, but if we have anyone on here who has studied this issue as I have where do you put the odds at of a war with Iran over their nuclear capabilities?
Anthony Lee
I did. I assume from what you were saying you agree with me.
Nathaniel Ross
Tell us the gist of this proxy war you speak of
Aaron King
>the Us has had a de facto "Deep State" since the 1950s and the pace has only accelerated after 9/11 Almost correct.
It was 1947.
Pic related.
Camden Phillips
>US Intel Proxy War
A real thing that has been going on for decades.
Establishment of Homeland Security only made it worse as the factions got upset at having a nanny to look over them.
Elijah Taylor
t=The proxy war in Iraq? Sorry, you are probably gone now, I wisH I had seen THIS earlier. I'm not trying to insult anyone's intelligence or to sound..didactic so calm down, I'll just start from the beginning....
OK, so Iraq is a nation right on main Sunni/Shia divide. If you don't understand this...it has do with the Shia accepting Mohammed's son-in-law and cousin as his successor and thus the leader. He was named Ali. The Sunni did not want this for various reasons, and ended up killing Ali. So...anyway, the important part of re: Iraq today is that you have a majority Shia nation that was controlled by Sunnis (much as Bahrain is today). The Saudis also have a large number of Shias in the north whom they oppress.
So, when the US invaded and Iraq began to fall apart, (despite the fairly decent and very bloody Iran-Iraq war (1980-1988)-- which saw Saddam used chemical weapons--provided by the US-- on the Kurds (another group who want independence) and some allege on Shia in the south, but also in areas around Baghdad like a gin slum called Sadar City, named after the cleric murder by Saadam's forces.
Now, who is the strongest Shia power in the region? Iran of course. And Irans are genetically (at least mostly) Persian, they were theGreek's great rivals during times of antiquity, they are no pushovers. So you had Iran 's Quds Force, some elements from Hizbollah in Lebanon (who had defeated Israel in 2006) helping to train and arm militias. Thus is became a proxy war with Iran training Shia militias, but on occasion also Sunni militia they vetted and thought they could trust. did that make sense at all?
Easton Anderson
People talk about a do-nothing congress, but does congress even have a prerogative anymore?
Most of the time it seems like congress just rubber stamps whatever is already happening. Their power today seems to consist in creating new bureaucracies to augment old ones.
Congress is also supposed to be the entity that decides whether we go to war, but we haven't had an official declaration of war from congress since ww2. In situations like Iraq they just offer their consent to what was already happening.
Congressmen aren't even given a high level of security clearance. They are outside the alphabet soup, and are considered too risky and not worth briefing on the most sensitive issues. This despite the fact that congress is meant to act as the voice of the people in the government.
I think the removal of power from congress is part of a deliberate plan to take power from the people in the US. With the machinations of the uniparty ensuring that only pre approved candidates get into office, the ability of the people to use their power is nullified.
Also somewhat related, Lincoln created the first alphabet agency, to act as spies during the civil war and to infiltrate secession movements in the midwest.
Jeremiah Walker
That's what I've been seeing as well, a war between factions with essentially the CIA on one side (the anti-Trump side) and the FBI below the top/Comey level on the other (pro-Trump side). No clue about where the NSA stands though.
Alexander Williams
>CIA >Anti-Trump
From what Ive seen, they haven't committed to a side. They've published their findings and have handed in their reports on various security threats. And Trump has blatantly challenged their credibility, resulting in a push back.
The FBI however had clearly splintered.
Dominic Robinson
>From what Ive seen, they haven't committed to a side. Don't agree here. I think I linked to Greenwald's article above. He's very much a liberal, but regardless of what you are, people on all sides genuinely trust him because he he seems to be genuinely guided by principle. I know people who have worked with him and the rumor is that he was abandoned by his father at a very early age and so he's always searching for something he can never get and that's often used on the Left to somehow discredit him. But I think the fact that Snowden picked him out of every journalist out there to trust with his information speaks volumes about his trustworthiness.
The CIA absolutely did leak that meme, and from no less a source than the neo-con, war boy John McCain. The man is 80. Onbiously he despises Trump for being able to do what he could not: win. At what point is enough money enough money and he can stop trying to actively subvert his nation? McCain, btw, is the same man who crashed FIVE (count, em, 5) planes over the course of his career, including being involved in the USS Forrestal Fire and the plane he crashed that got him captured. If his dad were not CNO, he would not have been fling after he crashed the first 3 planes.
