Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The obscure intelligence bureau that got Vietnam, Iraq, and Ukraine right

vox.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 85 posts

Re: The obscure intelligence bureau that got Vietnam, Iraq, and Ukraine right

#21

Post by pjc50 »

tivert wrote: post #14

> The most important factor in building this culture, every veteran I spoke to stated, is the unusual way that INR selects and uses analysts. The CIA and DIA tend to favor generalists. Analysts rotate between roles every two to three years, often changing countries or even regions. At INR, the average analyst has been on their topic for over 14 years. “At most of the other intel organizations you rotate out of your p…

You know they'll take the "die at their desks" part out of context. And not absorb the fundamentally unpalatable truth that expertise is real but specific.

Re: The obscure intelligence bureau that got Vietnam, Iraq, and Ukraine right

#22

Post by poochipie »

throw0101d wrote: post #16

Somewhat meta-ish question about the Vietnam War for someone who has perhaps studied the topic more: Did the US "lose" the war or did they simply stop 'bothering' with it? In 1973 there was the Paris Peace Accords that crystallized (Communist) North Vietnam and (non-communist) South Vietnam, just like the two Koreas. Then in 1975 the north invaded: * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1975_spring_offensive and the US (mil…

Depends what you mean by "win". I suppose it implies "achieved some defined geopolitical goals". Those wars, perhaps, didn't have defined goals -- so what does "win" mean in the context of not having a win condition?

Re: The obscure intelligence bureau that got Vietnam, Iraq, and Ukraine right

#23

Post by comfysocks »

Maybe it’s because “nobody’s heard of them” and “nobody listens to them” that they are allowed to come to correct conclusions?

Maybe if they were as influential as the CIA they would get a ton of political pressure to throw out their analysis and echo the current administration’s foregone conclusions?

Re: The obscure intelligence bureau that got Vietnam, Iraq, and Ukraine right

#24

Post by mcphage »

throw0101d wrote: post #16

Somewhat meta-ish question about the Vietnam War for someone who has perhaps studied the topic more: Did the US "lose" the war or did they simply stop 'bothering' with it? In 1973 there was the Paris Peace Accords that crystallized (Communist) North Vietnam and (non-communist) South Vietnam, just like the two Koreas. Then in 1975 the north invaded: * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1975_spring_offensive and the US (mil…

> Did the US "lose" the war or did they simply stop 'bothering' with it?

I think it all depends on (a) what was our desired outcome, and (b) did it come to pass? If we didn't achieve our desired outcome, then we lost.

Re: The obscure intelligence bureau that got Vietnam, Iraq, and Ukraine right

#25

Post by vundercind »

throw0101d wrote: post #16

Somewhat meta-ish question about the Vietnam War for someone who has perhaps studied the topic more: Did the US "lose" the war or did they simply stop 'bothering' with it? In 1973 there was the Paris Peace Accords that crystallized (Communist) North Vietnam and (non-communist) South Vietnam, just like the two Koreas. Then in 1975 the north invaded: * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1975_spring_offensive and the US (mil…

The question doesn’t make much sense because “stopped bothering with it” is how rich foreign states meddling in colonized territory usually lose wars. It’s not like Vietnam was gonna invade the US, or like we couldn’t have stuck around indefinitely if we’d really wanted to.

This is just what losing looks like in that situation. Yes, we lost.

Re: The obscure intelligence bureau that got Vietnam, Iraq, and Ukraine right

#26

Post by bawolff »

throw0101d wrote: post #16

Somewhat meta-ish question about the Vietnam War for someone who has perhaps studied the topic more: Did the US "lose" the war or did they simply stop 'bothering' with it? In 1973 there was the Paris Peace Accords that crystallized (Communist) North Vietnam and (non-communist) South Vietnam, just like the two Koreas. Then in 1975 the north invaded: * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1975_spring_offensive and the US (mil…

If you fail all your objectives and then "stop bothering", that is losing the war.

The point of war isn't neccesarily to have your opponent destroyed, just to have them yield to your political objectives. If you give up on all your objectives , and grant your opponent everything they want, that is a loss.

Re: The obscure intelligence bureau that got Vietnam, Iraq, and Ukraine right

#27

Post by bawolff »

vundercind wrote: post #25
throw0101d wrote: post #16

Somewhat meta-ish question about the Vietnam War for someone who has perhaps studied the topic more: Did the US "lose" the war or did they simply stop 'bothering' with it? In 1973 there was the Paris Peace Accords that crystallized (Communist) North Vietnam and (non-communist) South Vietnam, just like the two Koreas. Then in 1975 the north invaded: * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1975_spring_offensive and the US (mil…

The question doesn’t make much sense because “stopped bothering with it” is how rich foreign states meddling in colonized territory usually lose wars. It’s not like Vietnam was gonna invade the US, or like we couldn’t have stuck around indefinitely if we’d really wanted to. This is just what losing looks like in that situation. Yes, we lost.

Even in wars between peer-level nations, it doesn't end with total destruction.

Did Germany lose world war 1 or did they just decide to stop bothering with it? I think the answer is clearly the former, but in the end they still kept an independent state, weren't occupied, etc.

Re: The obscure intelligence bureau that got Vietnam, Iraq, and Ukraine right

#28

Post by jajko »

bawolff wrote: post #17

Getting iraq not having WMD right probably isn't that hard. Allegedly canadian intelligence knew this, but had it all marked "for canadian eyes only" because they were worried about consequences if usa found out they weren't on board. I highly doubt canada has super-spies, the problem is usa really wanted there to be WMDs, so they came to the conclusion there was. https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/canadian-intelligenc…

i recall GWB speech in UN on this. Literally everybody called BS on this, it was glaringly obvious. Then nations leaned on each side if they simply wanted war to happen (and subsequent contracts from all the change and damage) or not. It wasnt a stellar day for US, and history showed why.

Re: The obscure intelligence bureau that got Vietnam, Iraq, and Ukraine right

#29

Post by vundercind »

bawolff wrote: post #27
vundercind wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The question doesn’t make much sense because “stopped bothering with it” is how rich foreign states meddling in colonized territory usually lose wars. It’s not like Vietnam was gonna invade the US, or like we couldn’t have stuck around indefinitely if we’d really wanted to. This is just what losing looks like in that situation. Yes, we lost.

Even in wars between peer-level nations, it doesn't end with total destruction. Did Germany lose world war 1 or did they just decide to stop bothering with it? I think the answer is clearly the former, but in the end they still kept an independent state, weren't occupied, etc.

Absolutely right, negotiated peace in some fashion is common even then. But either side might be able to follow through and entirely subjugate the other, or at least dismantle their state. That’s not on the table with very-unequal combatants. The only plausible outcome (barring expansion of the war into something more like a world war, anyway) of the Vietnam war that was a victory for north Vietnam was “the US gives up and leaves”. That’s the only way a US loss was ever gonna look—there weren’t (realistically) other ways to lose.

[edit] my point simply being that yes, that’s a loss, and in fact it was the only real way a loss could have looked, so if that’s not a “real” loss then I guess we “couldn’t lose” that war, which is plainly a strange way of looking at it.

Re: The obscure intelligence bureau that got Vietnam, Iraq, and Ukraine right

#30

Post by llamaimperative »

0xbadcafebee wrote: post #13

3 things right over 70 years, that's.... quite a track record

This is an interesting comment because it's stated with an air of confidence but interpreting statements like "got Vietnam, Iraq, and Ukraine right" this way (i.e. got everything else wrong or there were no other tests) would really distort someone's perception of reality.
Post reply on HN