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

61–70 of 85 posts

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

#61

Post by chinchilla2020 »

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…

> In 2002, it happened again. The CIA, the Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA), and the rest of the intelligence community had concluded that Iraq’s Saddam Hussein was trying to build nuclear weapons

This from the article is false. The CIA never concluded that Iraq had a nuclear program.

In fact, the CIA was ignored when they refuted the politician's claims about the nuclear program.

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

#62

Post by [deleted] »

comfysocks wrote: post #23

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?

[deleted]

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

#63

Post by JoeDaDude »

chinchilla2020 wrote: post #61
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…

> In 2002, it happened again. The CIA, the Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA), and the rest of the intelligence community had concluded that Iraq’s Saddam Hussein was trying to build nuclear weapons This from the article is false. The CIA never concluded that Iraq had a nuclear program. In fact, the CIA was ignored when they refuted the politician's claims about the nuclear program.

The film Fair Game is about CIA analyst Valerie Plame and how she was shut out when decisions about WMD presence were made.

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

#65

Post by Ahmd72 »

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…

True, I think every neutral party at the time knew that Iraq had no WMDs, crazy how just cause might is right we have let the instigators of Iraq war get away with it while they end up destabilizing a whole region

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

#66

Post by vundercind »

foobarian wrote: post #45
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.

A bunch was deficit spending straight into corporate profits, so, inflationary hand-outs to the rich (and a bit to 401ks probably). Also, though far from a majority of the spending, we did ship whole pallets of cash and those just kinda vanished to wherever but I’m pretty sure if they made it back state-side it was a similar deal, deficit spending going more or less directly to someone already rich in return for very little. A quick google yeah about $12B of cash with awful accounting, and that’s just Iraq, same thing happened in Afghanistan.

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

#67

Post by vharuck »

foobarian wrote: post #45
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.

> The money is not put on a pile and set on fire.

In a small way, it kind of was. We used the money to produce weapons and ammunition. The producers took the cash and provided the arms. In an ideal economy, both sides would have a net gain: the producers reap profits, and the military uses the goods for a goal it (supposedly) believes is more valuable than the money spent.

But we shot the ammo, used the rifles, and detonated the bombs. And the USA didn't achieve the valuable goals it promised. So, while the arms manufacturers came out ahead, the military was left with little value. If they had put that money into research or upgrading bases overseas, then there'd be civilian profits and nice things the military could use for years.

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

#68

Post by no_exit »

INR was also the source of the concentration camp ("strategic hamlet") strategy in South Vietnam.

> The INR director saw the counterinsurgency effort's emphasis on military security as insufficient. Hilsman was much more receptive to ideas for population resettlement and control along lines advanced by Robert G. Thompson, a British consultant to the Diem government, and adopted them as his own. Kennedy asked Hilsman to prepare a paper showing how this concept could work.

https://nsarchive2.gwu.edu/NSAEBB/NSAEBB121/prados.htm

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

#69

Post by stevenalowe »

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…

strangely, Wikipedia disagrees [1][2]

It appears as though several countries were happily selling Iraq WMD components and materials. Including the US.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraqi_chemical_weapons_program.... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_and_weapons_of_mass_destr...

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

#70

Post by sillywalk »

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…

I depends on what "win" would've meant. South Vietnam was the creation of the US. It didn't really have any popular support, it was dictatorship, massively and systematically corrupt, and existed because of US aid.

It's doubtful that the US could've continued to keep troops in Vietnam.

By the time (1973) the Paris Peace Accords happened, there was little US domestic support in the public, in business leaders, or in Congress. US troops hadn't done any major offensives for years, in order to keep casualties low.

By 1970, within the US Army in Vietnam, there was an level of mutiny, with entire units refusing to go on missions, officers and NCOs getting fragged (murdered) if they sent troops on missions felt to be too dangerous or pointless. The US strategy was one of attrition, and they simply couldn't continue. The Vietnamese were going to kick the foreigners out and re-unite the country, no matter how long it took.

For the whole war, the NVA / Viet Cong - largely held the initiative - around 85% of the time from '65 to '68' and then around 75% afterwards, they could choose when, and if to engage US troops and thus control their casualties to a certain extent. Once engaged, the US could bring massive firepower, but it required grunts as bait to go searching for ambushes, in addition to the constant threat of mines and booby-traps.

Post reply on HN