CIA revelations about its clandestine operations undermine public trust in government.
The Washington Post has published an article announcing that the CIA plans to declassify decades of “dirty laundry” being referred to as “the family jewels.”…
"A sinister cabal of superior writers."
Article comments
— go to most recent comments26 - Dr Dreadful
Dave #24: I think your "tinfoil beanie wearer" is just perfect, myself.
27 - Zedd
Dave
I vote for "t.f.b.w.". Aconyms sound more important.
28 - Mike Green
Ignoring the ignorant commentary that defers intellect to name-calling, I would like to address the request for data regarding forward deployment of U.S. troops.
On any given "official" government Web site, there are a number of variations in the number of forward deployed U.S. military personnel. I will give you a few URLs (official and unofficial) to check and you may also check elsewhere as you see fit. But may I begin with a statement by the Secretary of the Army.
"On any given day in 1997, the Army had, on average, over 31,000 active and reserve soldiers and civilians deployed in over 70 countries, not counting the 100,000 forward-deployed soldiers. In May 1997, worldwide deployments reached the 100-country mark for the first time in the Army's history. Such involvement does not come without costs. We are doing more with fewer people, performing three times more deployments than during the Cold War."
Here is the URL for that statement:
Keep in mind those figures are solely for Army personnel. Moving forward in history a bit we find that the number of forward deployed troops had increased well past the 100-nation mark. And we might also keep in mind that no other nation comes close to forward deployment of its military in as many nations as the United States.
According to the NATO report "Changes in U.S. forward deployment and its effects on Europe", in any given year between 1945 through 1995 the U.S. had 500,000 military personnel deployed abroad.
NATO's report states that nearly 300,000 troops have returned to the U.S. since the end of the Cold War.
Oh, really? Let's see if the numbers vouch for that.
The review of current plans in the NATO report claims that currently there are still 106,000 deployed American troops in Europe. That assessment was recently echoed by CNN as well. And given the Secretary of the Army's assessment, which concurs, I can accept the 100K+ number for troops in Europe alone.
So, if more than 100,000 U.S. troops are in Europe and more than 200,000 in Iraq and Afghanistan combined (185K with troop surge in Iraq alone), that's over 300,000 U.S. troops. Could there be more in other countries?
The Secretary of the U.S. Army seems to think that since 1997 America's military has surpassed the 100-nation mark in forward deployments.
Who else agrees with him?
Try the folks at GlobalSecurity.org
They claim the U.S. has troops in nearly 130 countries, numbering approximately 350,000.
Then there is that report by CommonDreams.org, which lists each specific military department and person from which it solicited its data. It believes the U.S. has military deployed in 140 countries.
If we keep in mind that there are only 192 recognized nations on the planet, the fact that the U.S. military is deployed in a great majority of them is substantially relevant to any discussion of international politics and the particular subject of global domination.
Well, the information I provided should be enough data to keep the naysayers busy for a while formulating more arguments and accumulating more creative names and labels to pin on me. That's okay.
Perhaps by the next round of debate I will have enough tin foil hats to pass around to all of you who find enough common ground between us to see things my way. I may need a truckload.
29 - Mike Green
Re: comment #23: "The number of countries we actually supply with arms, military training and support - REAL military aid - is a lot smaller than 130."
This unsubstantiated statement sounds wise because it comes from the sideline where anyone can toss in a comment or two as an attack grenade. Grenades just explode and injure. They don't have to explain themselves.
But upon close examination we see that the maker of this grenade has provided no information regarding what is "a lot smaller" than the 130. Thus, the comment sounds wise but lacks data to support it.
I like when folks ask for data rather than making assumptions.
Additionally, the forward deployment of troops IS the issue, not "military aid," which can be construed to be any number of various operations that do not necessarily include U.S. troops.
Forward deployed troops must fill a billet. They must have orders. And they must be assigned a duty station. Under that definition, we find that the U.S. military does indeed have military personnel deployed in 130 nations around the globe, and the comment "a lot smaller than 130" is quite a lot smaller than fact.
30 - Dave Nalle
Mike, that's such utter, deceptive bullshit I can't believe you even dare to spout it. If you really mean deployed troops, the ONLY way you can reach the number 130 is by including all of the nations in which we have embassies at which we have marines stationed as guards and/or military attaches, all of which technically count as US military presence, but are meaningless otherwise.
Your own link to globalsecurity.org makes it very clear that aside from our long-term commitments at established bases in Europe we have deployed troops in only 3 other countries, and that most of the other troops in various countries are on detached duty acting on behalf of the UN or other treaty organizations, which does not technically count as an actual US deployment.
And you use commondreams.org as a source? Is there no depth you won't sink to in your pursuit of conspiracies? Now you think socialist propaganda is reliable?
Dave
31 - STM
The CIA certainly exists for a purpose, and while it's been playing on the wrong side of right on occasions, I don't believe they have been overly concerned in the past with ordinary citizens of foreign countries, or their activities, unless there had been some direct evidence that they might have been a security threat. People who think the CIA is heavily involved in snooping on US citizens are probably wrong; that's the role of the FBI.
I am absolutely certain the CIA didn't follow me around in the US (while they wouldn't have been bored, they'd have had a hard time keeping up, specially on the golf cart during the midnight run in Miami).
However, the flip side of the coin: the KGB certainly kept within 200m everywhere in Moscow. There was one guy who always used to catch the same subway train, no matter what time I got on it ("G'day, Boris").
The trains always ran on time, but I just wish the KGB had warned me about the beetroot soup and the degree of difficulty involved in getting a roll of bog paper.
Heaven knows how anyone would have gone getting enough tinfoil to make a micro-wave protective helmet.
32 - Dr Dreadful
When I applied for a visa to move to America I was checked out, as per DoJ requirements, by (in no particular order) the CIA, the FBI and the Metropolitan Police. The Met wouldn't even have checked me out at all if I hadn't asked them to (and slid some cold, hard cash over the counter). The sergeant I handed the form to looked kind of amused - whether at the notion that I might actually have a criminal record (I am the spitting image of what Reggie Kray would have looked like if he'd looked nothing like Reggie Kray), or because I was insane enough to want to move to the Untied States, I don't know.
33 - STM
Those Kray brothers were a fascinating pair of mongrels, eh Doc?
I love the stories, and the names ... the killing of Jack the 'At, then they disposed of George Cornell in the public bar of an east-end pub - the Blind Beggar in Whitechapel? - where no one who was questioned saw a thing and couldn't identify Ronnie in a line-up? Funny about that. I think that's what got them buggered in the end, though, because someone did grass on 'em, although they had a lot of trouble trying to pin the Jack McVittie killing on them (or any other killing for that matter).
Then there was the Battle of Mr Smith's Club, involving Mad Frankie Fraser and the Richardson gang from South London, during which one of the Krays' relatives, Dickie Hart, was shot dead.
The story I heard was that Cornell was the shooter and when the Krays walked in to the Blind Beggar, Cornell said "Well, look who's here". Playing in the background on the juke box was: The Sun ain't gonna shine anymore ... Ronnie pointed the gun at him, and Cornell famously said: "You ain't got the bottle".
They were George's last words, although apparently the record got stuck on the "sun ain't gonna shine anymore" groove. Cornell's crime, apparently, was that he had enough ticker to stand up to the Krays, and had gone over to the Richardsons and had helped them when they tried to pinch a car park scam off the Krays. Just before the shooting, a police inspector from the Met had just left after having a sandwich and pint for his dinner. Should've stuck around, possibly ...
Ah, yes, those were the days, and the kind of stuff that was great fodder for me in my profession: proper gangs of crims, not gangs of idiot punks. One day DD I must tell you about the Sydney gangland wars of the 1980s. Just as fascinating, with similar kinds of characters ... it don't rain here that much, as you know, but geez, it was fair-dinkum raining bullets back then.
34 - STM
Mike: The 100,000 US troops in Europe are there as part of treaty obligations. I assume it's the same story as the 25,000 British troops stationed on The Rhine: they are all regarded as non-operational.
There are troops from all the other NATO countries there as well, all part of a treaty obligation that has been running pretty much unchanged since the end of WWII, so you can strike that one off the books for starters.
35 - Dr Dreadful
Well, in my opinion, although the Krays made for a lot of fascinating stories, they were still a pair of scumbags who should have been stillborn.
Still, the police back then were just as bad, by all accounts, so it's not surprising that the twins' reign of terror lasted as long as it did.
36 - Christopher Rose
Re #24:- How about "Nally"? As in, he's a real nally!
37 - STM
The Met were corrupt as ... in fact the investigations into the London gangland wars eventually had to be done by coppers from outside London, as everyone was on the take.
Almost as bad as the old NSW Police ... one of the most corrupt police forces ever, anywhere.
It took a Royal Commission back in the mid-'90s (with secret tapes, and covert film etc), and a whole series of rollovers, to finally clean it out. Not surprising though, is it, given the nature of how the colony of New South Wales started? My favourite Page 1 newspaper headline here during the Royal Commission into Police Corruption quoted a cop giving evidence about how police officers colluded to get their stories straight for court cases: "We lie under oath".
That's in the same category of headline as "Dog bites man". I would have thought at the time it would only have been a story if they hadn't lied under oath, which I did communicate to the boss.
38 - moonraven
Many months ago I provided the incidents where the CIA followed this US citizen around South America. Since they began their tricks in Caracas, it's obvious why.
The FBI normally doesn't deploy its agents in other countries--with Mexico being an exception.
39 - Dave Nalle
MR, I'm quite glad to hear the CIA is following you. Means they're doing their job. I'm sure they figured out pretty quickly that you were a tootheless blowhard and moved on.
Dave
40 - moonraven
No, they are still on my trail here in Caracas.
I have all of my perfect teeth.
Stop projecting.
41 - Clavos
The CIA definitely has too much time on its hands these days...
Or, they're training rookies how to spot a gringa metiche among all the Latinos.
42 - moonraven
Speaking of too much time on your hands, I think we all know what you're doing with at least one of yours right now.
43 - troll
careful now...based on her more violent imagery I've concluded that moonraven might well be a 'ma Barker' of some ex-patriot mob down in Mexico
so watch your fuckin' step
if she says that she's got big tits then she's got big tits
44 - Dr Dreadful
I have a theory.
The person following Moonraven around is a stalker. He just happens to work for the CIA.
45 - Clavos
"if she says that she's got big tits then she's got big tits"
Problem is, they're all bruised from being stepped on when she walks.
46 - troll
ya just won't listen...I advise a disguise when you go south of the border
perhaps that hat you got...
47 - Clavos
That's a good idea, troll.
But, I need to brush up on my Strine...
48 - troll
hmm - it's worse than that though...you'd have to learn how to speak Spanish with the correct Aussie accent
49 - Clavos
You're right. Guess I'll just have to go to Oz instead.
50 - alessandro Nicolo
"Paula, in addition to not being able to spell your own name.." Classic.
"He is not be to be taken seriously. But I am not a CIA wannabee, but a CIA target." Hmmm. I'll send this one to 'Last Comic Standing' or is it 'Last Loud Mouth Still Yapping?' I forget. Is Major League Baseball watching you too?
The public is stupid. And don't get me going about half the parking lots on this planet we call nations. The problem is that America has to often come down to the level of many countries. It's like a talented player on a line who has to play down to his linemates. I know. Negative. I'm in a foul mood. But still...
What, the CIA has to go public with their operations? Please.
I do see it as positive that they will disclose this.
51 - moonraven
Actually, back in my days as a sports commentator in the late 70s early 80s, a fair percentage of Major League Baseball WAS watching me.
How prescient of you to know that... [Edited]
52 - ellis valentine and tim raines
No wonder MLB was watching you. Wasn't that around the time cocaine use was ravaging MLB?
What sports did you cover? Cockfighting?
53 - Clavos
"Actually, back in my days as a sports commentator in the late 70s early 80s, a fair percentage of Major League Baseball WAS watching me."
Was that before or after you flew on the Apollo moon mission?
54 - Dave Nalle
Maybe she did color commentary from space...
Dave
55 - Mike Green
Re: comment #30
If I had an inkling of the minset of many Americans before I gave 12 years of my life to this nation's military service, I would have done something else instead. The faithful trust in a lying government that is put on display in this forum pushes me beyond incredulous.
I appreciate the outrage, though. Unfortunately, it appears to be misdirected. If only there were some way to shift that high intellect into high gear and point it toward the statements made by our government, perhaps some benefit might be had.
This forum restricts the number of URLs one can provide to support any post. But if any one of you really smart folks would just set aside your own bias and ojectively seek to find 3 (just three) official places where the numbers of U.S. deployed troops are in agreement, that would be far more credible in boosting your positions than merely yelling insults and obscenities.
In a debate, if you believe you have credible evidence that supports your position, it is far better to produce such than to summarily dismiss any supportive data presented to you simply because you hold the belief that no entity outside of the U.S. is more credible than the U.S.
Under that religious faith, Castro and Chavez were liars when they claimed the CIA was conspiring to oust or kill them. Iran was merely paranoid when it charged the CIA with overthrowing its government. Those who claimed the CIA was playing fast and loose outside the boundaries of both American and international laws in Iraq, Laos, El Salvador, Cambodia, Panama, Grenada, Guatemala, Mexico (and the list goes on) were obviously delusional since it is apparent to the religious faithful who worship the dogma of government, that such heresy against the CIA and any other secret compenent of our government is without credit.
So of course many in this forum would discount the numbers of deployed troops. Not only do the government parishioners not know how many troops are out there in diverse places for your sake and benefit, serving the very government you worship, you don't really even care ... do you?
Discount the ones in Europe, will you? Why? Aren't they serving abroad away from their home country, available for immediate orders to various places of conflict in nearby regions?
Discounting the 35K+ serving along the border of the DMZ in South Korea?
How about the thousands serving in Japan?
Care to tell me how many are serving in Bosnia or Yugoslavia (otherwise referred to as Kosovo since it seems to be a foregone conclusion that the NATO raid on Yugoslavia has weakened the nation enough to press for a independent state for Kosovo, which initiated that civil war)?
We don't have to remain in the Middle East to find hundreds of personnel stationed in a nation, or even thousands.
But if it doesn't add up to a nice little round number that can be used in a debate from the comfort of an anonymous computer screen, then it doesn't count and need not count.
I am very glad the men and women I proudly served with for 12 years are not privy to this convo. They tend to hope daily that we, the American people, care about each of their lives, wherever they are stationed and for whatever reason they were sent.
Instead, this forum has demonstrated a snooty disregard for the lives of those who volunteer to be subjected to the whims of political leaders. They do so believing they are doing something honorable and good.
Meanwhile, their lives are wasted and abused by callous liars in power, who find stringent support among the religious faithful who believe these cowards can do no wrong.
I do not subscribe to Communism, nor socialism. But I know they are no more forms of evil governance than capitalism. I do not, therefore, claim that a capitalist liar in my own government is to believed over a communist or socialist liar solely on the basis of the fact that my faith is placed in the capitalist liar.
Yet that is the very argument presented on this forum time and again.
It stuns me.
Yet, no effort is put forth to prove the statements made by those trusted liars in our government, while every effort is made to discount the statements made by liars in other governments.
Even when leaders in other nations are shown to have been telling the truth, as we look back through the prism of historical data, the faith is never shaken in the domestic leaders whose lies are then dismissed as "mistakes" or "good intentions."
This is the reason why our government can abuse our military ad nauseam. The religious faithful, who adore the power inherent in our government, accept without question the rationale, motives and pretext presented by the government ... even in the face of discovering it was all a lie!
Such folly can not be met with reasoned with. Therefore, I can ask only that those of you who do not believe or accept that our nation's military is deployed in 130 nations of the world, then pary tell me and each other exactly how many nations are they deployed in?
By the way, there are those of you whose intellect moves at the speed of light. And you know who you are. You are the ones who do not purport to know or care how many nations to which our military is deployed. You only care to whittle down the number to fit the small amount of nations you accept to be counted based upon substantial military operations.
I talked to one of your heroes this very evening. i had the privilege of interviewing former Secretary of Defense William J. Perry (SecDef 94-97). When I asked him how long has the U.S. military been in Iraq, he asked me to define military!
"Ground troops?"
"No sir. The U.S. military. All of it."
"Well, the ground troops were pulled out pretty quickly."
"Um, sir. Didn't we control Iraq's air space?"
"Well, yes, the Air Force was there, but just to patrol the No Fly Zone."
"Sir, did the military engage in any military operations or engage Iraq's forces since the ground forces left?"
"Well, there was some bombing during the patrol of the No Fly Zone, and there were some ground troops left in the Kurdish region, but on a humanitarian mission."
"Sir, the British have committed to 2012 in Iraq and Afghanistan. Do you think the U.S. will follow suit?"
"Well, that is for the next president to decide."
This is the stuff I get from the former Secretary of Defense. I might add that this guy was also the Deputy Director of the CIA at one time as well, not to mention that he was also the Director of Naval Inteeligence.
Today, he is involved with other members of the Iraq Study Group, as well as former leaders like Kissinger and Schultz and other, including former member of congress, Sam Nunn. Nunn's National Threat Initiative (check the board of directors for familiar names) conspires with Perry's movement to shore up the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty, which he admits the U.S. and Russia together have reneged on and continue to do so to this day.
You guys can call me names and have your fun. But while you're faithfully following the liars, they use your support to do irreparable harm here and around the globe.
56 - bliffle
MR may have faults but she is at least correct in her assessment of Nalle: truly, he is not to be believed. And all the pubescent comments of his Blog Claque only reinforce that conclusion.
57 - troll
faults - ?
...what faults - ?
58 - Lumpy
Bliffle. What I find hard to believe is your ability to live in a bubble of denial. Why does reality scare u so much?
59 - troll
I'm not even sure what 'Dave is not to be believed' means...sometimes he's right and sometimes wrong
and don't look for consistency from a sophist honing his craft and nally-isms
so...just who is it who should be believed here - ?
60 - moonraven
NO ONE is to be believed here.
This is what we call in Spanish a "diálogo de sordos"--a dialog between deaf people.
And no, I have no faults--at least not ones that are applicable to a virtual jerkoff site in Internet.
61 - troll
I hear ya
62 - Baronius
Mike, I don't think anyone here has denied that the CIA went after Castro. We're not blindly following those in power. We (I should say "I") are just ok with most of what the CIA does. Nations deal with each other on more than one level. It'd be great if we could all be above-board, but just like police need to speed to catch speeders, so I imagine the CIA has to spy to deal with spies.
And Moonraven, again, you really should drop the abuse. A free exchange of ideas can be interesting.
63 - moonraven
I have yet to see anything that could qualify as an idea on this site.
64 - Dave Nalle
Hell, Baronius - I wish the CIA were STILL going after Castro and a few other folks I don't need to name here...
Dave
65 - Mike Green
Just in case anyone wants to hear what the former Director of Naval Intelligence, Deputy Director of the CIA and Secretary of Defense, william Perry had to say last night ...
Here's a link to my column that provides access to the video I shot myself of the former Secretary. I also had a brief interview with him afterward. The video also contains a Q&A session that was unscripted.
At nearly 80 years old, this guy still has a lot of pep in him. He tells a few interesting stories, including his behind-the-scenes role in the Cuban Missle Crisis and the Soviet disarmament treaty. Good stuff.
Daily Tidings
66 - moonraven
I see that Dave Nalle is now worshipping at the altar of Pat Robertson, copycatting his calls for assassination of the world leaders Nalle doesn't like.
Let's here it for the bald Texas bonehead's freedom of speech!
67 - moonraven
Hear it....
68 - moonraven
Back to the TOPIC:
The UN indicated yesterday that Afghanistan's poppy crop is up 60%, so the CIA is rolling in dough and couldn't care less about any criticism....
69 - alessandro nicolo
Moonraven, funny how you overlook the Taliban's cut.
70 - Clavos
Not to mention the billions being made by all the scumbag drug pushers on the streets of every city in the world.
Until we legalize and regulate the sale of recreational drugs we will never solve the problem.
71 - Ruvy in Jerusalem
Interesting:
Marthe Raymond notes the Afghani poppy crop and the money the CIA is making on the deal: Alessandro Nicolo notes the Taliban's cut. What should be obvious is
1: The poppy crop is a traditional way of making money in Afghanistan;
2: Therefore, it is a way of life for the Pakhtun who grow it;
3. The Taliban consist largely of Pakhtun who have picked up this poisonous version of Islam from Deoband;
4. If the CIA is making money off the poppy crop, this is because it has muscled in on the profits, much like a mafia in Manhattan or Sicily;
5. And finally, the CIA is financing its own operations not from the budget that Congress allocates it, but from its "business" enterprises overseas.
Yawwwnnn...
So, tell me something I didn't know...
72 - STM
Clav wrote: "Problem is, they're all bruised from being stepped on when she walks."
LOL! How the f.ck did I miss that pearler? What a classic.
You're on fire Clav
73 - Clavos
Why, thank you kindly, mate, thank you kindly.
74 - Dr Dreadful
Dave laments: I wish the CIA were STILL going after Castro.
Perhaps they are, Dave. Unfortunately, the surgeon/agent they sent to perform his intestinal operation(s) proved to a better doctor than assassin...
Yes, the Cuban Incompetence Agency just can't seem to get it right, can they? ;-)
As ever, I don't understand why Uncle Sam can't just stop sulking about the Bay of Pigs and open the door to getting rid of Castro and the Communists the tried and tested way: by introducing the downtrodden populace to the wonders of Shiny American Goodies.
75 - STM
DD: "Introducing the downtrodden populace to the wonders of Shiny American Goodies".
Yes, proven fact: you catch more pesky flies in a jar of honey than you do in a jar of vinegar. Works every time ...