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

41–50 of 85 posts

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

#41

Post by FrustratedMonky »

segasaturn wrote: post #37
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 particularly remember the mainstream media in the US cheerleading for the war and shouting down anybody who raised doubts as being "with the terrorists". The truth is that the intelligence never mattered, it was always meant as an act of revenge against the Arab/Muslim world for 9/11 and a settling of scores from the 90s Gulf War.

I remember when the US invaded Iraq(II) it was treated like a party. The media loved it, it was like a football game. And when out to eat, I saw a lot of Americans were loving it , it was entertainment. Shock and Awe, it was spectacle.

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

#42

Post by mmsc »

People join the likes of the CIA because they know the name CIA and set it as a goal. No different from large companies.

But as people set goals the work at a certain place, people lesser-qualified slowly join the ranks until the place is a shell of what it used to be, made up of posers.

Can't let the truly skilled individuals do great work either, otherwise it'll expose the unskilled individuals' lack-of-purpose in that place, so bureaucracy gets built and gets in the way of everybody trying to do real work.

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

#43

Post by baud147258 »

andrewflnr wrote: post #31
kklisura wrote: post #11

Ok so what's the INR take on China-Taiwan?

Classified, I'm sure.

There's two classified versions and only one will get revealed once that situation is resolved. The version which would have gotten it wrong will just get burried to protect the agency's reputation...

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

#45

Post by foobarian »

vundercind wrote: post #20

Iraq was pretty easy to call. I got it largely right as a high schooler at the time it started. One thing that threw me was that we stayed so damn long, which put my “cross-border islamist group destabilizes Syria” prediction off by years. I underestimated our stomach for throwing money and lives away I guess.

> throwing money away

When thinking about this it's very important to recognize what this means exactly. The money is not put on a pile and set on fire. It goes somewhere where it has very significant impact, most likely flowing into military-industrial complex which is a huge chunk of domestic economy.

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

#46

Post by jayd16 »

jajko wrote: post #28
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.

Don't forget Powell throwing away his career by waving a little vial of prop anthrax to get the UN on board.

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

#47

Post by rqtwteye »

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 remember reading reports by a German UN weapons inspector. The CIA gave them a few of their bests leads but every time the inspectors went there they found nothing or equipment that hadn't been used in years. The CIA's response was to cut them off completely. The US clearly wanted to go to war no matter what. The WMDs were just cover.

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

#48

Post by foobarian »

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…

Something that strikes me as really ironic is that, here we are in 2024 and tons of goods are being manufactured in Vietnam for a pittance and exported to the west. We are effectively just a small step above having enslaved this country, without a single boot on the ground.

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

#49

Post by cthalupa »

vundercind wrote: post #29
bawolff wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> 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.

Well, I think the entire reason the US has been so quick to insert itself in situations like this is because there's a very real feeling that the US can't really lose these wars, because the consequences of failure are very different from, say, WW2.

If the stakes were higher for America as a nation we'd probably be significantly less likely to enter into these sorts of conflicts to begin with. And if the stakes were higher for America in the conflict for some other reason - say it was Mexico instead of Vietnam - there'd probably be significantly more political and public support for continued action and additional resources being thrown at it. But it's hard to do that when it's for the more nebulous idea of keeping the foreign power most aligned with US interests in the region in power.

Which isn't to say I disagree with the general idea - Vietnam was a loss by any reasonable sense of the word - but that I think there is a certain amount of truth to the idea that people in power really did look at Vietnam as a war that couldn't truly be lost.

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

#50

Post by ghaff »

jajko wrote: post #33
ghaff wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's a reasonable cynical take on it. Another is that different organizations have different biases, incentives, historical perspectives, and so forth. So it's reasonable to consider different points of view.

By that logic, 10 is always better than 2, so they are still seriously lacking balanced info

Maybe 10 is better than 2 if there's some independence of data gathering and perspectives. In general, though, at least a couple of different takes is probably valuable--assuming they're bringing at least some diversity of experience.
Post reply on HN