Do spies tell lies?

Do intel­li­gence ser­vices spread lies? Sir Richard Dear­love, the only time I ever spoke to him, said they don’t set out to do so, but implied that lies may be the con­sequence of their operations.

Stephen Had­ley, Bush 43’s National Secur­ity Advisor, begs to dif­fer. This from Janu­ary, 2005:

[Steve] Had­ley went head-to-head with CIA dir­ector Porter Goss and some of his ana­lysts and oper­at­ives. He wanted them to be engaged in pro­pa­ganda oper­a­tions to sup­port the elec­tion. But the CIA’s idea of inform­a­tion oper­a­tions, he thought, was to spread lies.

Why spread lies?” Had­ley asked. “Spread the truth. It’s much more power­ful. You don’t get it. You need to find ways to get out the truth in a way it won’t be instantly dis­cred­ited because it’s from us.”

From State of Denial, Bob Wood­ward (p.376).

2 thoughts on “Do spies tell lies?

  1. Let’s broaden the scope of the dis­cus­sion: For the last sixty years, the CIA has man­aged to main­tain a for­mid­able repu­ta­tion in spite of its ter­rible record, bury­ing its blun­ders in top-secret archives. Its mis­sion was to know the world. When it did not suc­ceed, it set out to change the world. Its fail­ures have handed us, in the words of Pres­id­ent Eis­en­hower, “a leg­acy of ashes.”
    Now Pulitzer Prize–winning author Tim Weiner offers the first defin­it­ive his­tory of the CIA—and everything is on the record. LEGACY OF ASHES is based on more than 50,000 doc­u­ments, primar­ily from the archives of the CIA itself, and hun­dreds of inter­views with CIA vet­er­ans, includ­ing ten Dir­ect­ors of Cent­ral Intel­li­gence. Weiner doc­u­ments everything from the agency’s form­a­tion in the after­math of WWII to its fail­ure to pre­vent the events of Septem­ber 11, 2001, and every mis­step, blun­der and inter­na­tional incid­ent in between.

    Mr. Weiner argues that a bad C.I.A. track record has encour­aged many of our gravest con­tem­por­ary prob­lems: Iran, Iraq, Afgh­anistan, ter­ror­ism. For instance he lauds the agency’s “epic suc­cess” against the Soviet occu­pa­tion of Afgh­anistan in the 1980s. But he com­plains that the C.I.A. “failed to see that the Islamic war­ri­ors it sup­por­ted would soon take aim at the United States, and when that under­stand­ing came, the agency failed to act.”

  2. Nice plug for Tim’s book!

    Although accord­ing to the CIA’s his­tory staff:

    The idea that the “Islamic war­ri­ors” CIA sup­por­ted in Afgh­anistan would later turn on the United States (page xv) fails to make the basic dis­tinc­tion between the Afghan muja­hedin, whom the Agency sup­por­ted, and Arabs who went to Afgh­anistan in the 1980s—whom CIA did not support.

    Steve Coll has pretty much covered all that ter­rit­ory though in Ghost Wars.

    There’s fur­ther read­ing here, although Philip Agee isn’t on the list…

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>