Cold War: CIA Mission into China

[Ordie]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100620/ap_on_go_ot/us_cia_ambushed_in_china;_ylt=AgdS6Z8eUjM5XFYMR2LH2WUDW7oF;_ylu=X3oDMTJ1OXVyam1lBGFzc2V0A2FwLzIwMTAwNjIwL3VzX2NpYV9hbWJ1c2hlZF9pbl9jaGluYQRwb3MDMTcEc2VjA3luX2FydGljbGVfc3VtbWFyeV9saXN0BHNsawNsZXNzb25zZnJvbWY-

[Mastermind]

Jeeze...what a story. And, it would seem, the CIA was being operated by some of the dumbest fks in the world at that time. And, since the Bush days, still is!

I have been a student...avid reader...of spy stories for decades and I am constantly amazed at the dim-wits who run spy orgs. The Americans and the Brits have mangled some plots that could have produced fantastic rewards. Although there have been some pretty amazing successes. Even the Germans were total fantasy operators during the wars. It also seems the very best ops were managed, concieved and initiated and brought to conclusion by people who would otherwise be considered total amatures. The problem with most professional operations are that the bosses over think them. The Russians seem to have had some remarkable successes over the years of the cold war...but, those were usually initiated by traitors already hiding within the western sensitive operations.

Another problem with intelligence and covert ops is that the info gatherd, often at huge risk and sacrifice, is either misread, misintrepreted or down right rejected by "Smart" snobs in the HQ offices. Just look how badly the Germans of WWII handled the Enigma disaster...they were so confident of the system, they absolutely refused to believe it could be compromised...so confident, they even refused to test the system...ever! A massive mistake.

[Nano]

They even made a documentary about it?It matters not that tax payers foot the bill for their ****ups and incompetence, but they also pay for what amount to movies about said events.

[saf]

...The Americans and the Brits have mangled some plots that could have produced fantastic rewards. Although there have been some pretty amazing successes. Even the Germans were total fantasy operators during the wars. It also seems the very best ops were managed, concieved and initiated and brought to conclusion by people who would otherwise be considered total amatures. The problem with most professional operations are that the bosses over think them. The Russians seem to have had some remarkable successes over the years of the cold war...but, those were usually initiated by traitors already hiding within the western sensitive operations.

Another problem with intelligence and covert ops is that the info gatherd, often at huge risk and sacrifice, is either misread, misintrepreted or down right rejected by "Smart" snobs in the HQ offices. Just look how badly the Germans of WWII handled the Enigma disaster...they were so confident of the system, they absolutely refused to believe it could be compromised...so confident, they even refused to test the system...ever! A massive mistake.

...agreed.

[JJC]

It always appeared that commies were much more talented at human intelligence missions than CIA during the Cold War.

[Chris1012]

https://www.cia.gov/library/center-for-the-study-of-intelligence/csi-publications/csi-studies/studies/vol50no4/two-cia-prisoners-in-china-1952201373.html
Found this when I was looking for info on these two a while ago.

[Ordie]

It always appeared that commies were much more talented at human intelligence missions than CIA during the Cold War.

The Commies are always paranoid because they lack legitimacy. That's why they are good.

Keep in mind that the intelligence services in totalitarian nations serve the despot.

Intelligence services in democratic nations serves the nation.

[Russianlynxy]

Keep in mind that the intelligence services in totalitarian nations serve the despot.

Intelligence services in democratic nations serves despots in other nations.

fixed for ya ;)

[HellToupee]

The Commies are always paranoid because they lack legitimacy. That's why they are good.

Keep in mind that the intelligence services in totalitarian nations serve the despot.

Intelligence services in democratic nations serves the nation.

No in both cases the intelligence services serve the government, since the nation has no idea what these services get up to under their viel of secrecy .

[JCR]

Problem is, from what I read the CIA pretty much "spammed" agents into the east block in the early cold war.
The "spies everywhere" paranoia was actually pretty well founded as there WERE spies dropped or landed in the east block every night.
Only most of them had a reception committee waiting.
All this agent flood accomplished was a lot of needless deaths. The smart ones turned double while most of the rest just vanished.
Sometimes the Russians or Chinese did elaborate deceptions, like faking an entire uprising in Sinkiang.

All in all, the CIA efforts of the late 1940s mirrored the efforts of the Abwehr in WW2 and had the same less than stellar results. Not surprising if you consider that Gehlen was still involved. The only really weird thing is how the western agencies could pass all of this as a success.

[James]

The vast majority of you don't know what you don't know, and taking a single failed mission from almost 60 years ago as an indicator today is absurd.

[Mastermind]

The vast majority of you don't know what you don't know, and taking a single failed mission from almost 60 years ago as an indicator today is absurd.

I respectfully disageree, James. I'm thinking of even modern day examples of intelligence failure of mega proportions, like the WMD disaster in Iraq and the Yellow Cake disaster a la the Valerie Plame affair and her goof-ball of a husband. Politics have always infiltrated or at the least contaminated the Intelligence Services. Even the russians have been ill served or at the least screwed by their own intel people...and their good intel has been disastered by useless or ignorant politicians. I think, since Intel, by it's very nature is open to such abuse and mis-use. any time you have "black" budgets of unlimited proportions, you will get this ambiguity in the service that is supposed to be doing one thing and one thing only and that very well. But, it simply can not when it is pulled apart like taffy candy by idiots in the political arena.

And, I agree with you, probably the "good" stuff is still secret....look how long the under sea soviet telephone cable tap worked. until destroyed by that traitor (sorry, tired and can't recall his name). and another example is the recovery of a large portion of the wrecked Soviet sub by Golmar explorer...fantastic, at bigger than James Bond scale. So, it's probably true the only part of the iceberg we get to see is likely the bad part.

[T-5 Killer]

I respectfully disageree, James. I'm thinking of even modern day examples of intelligence failure of mega proportions, like the WMD disaster in Iraq and the Yellow Cake disaster a la the Valerie Plame affair and her goof-ball of a husband. Politics have always infiltrated or at the least contaminated the Intelligence Services. Even the russians have been ill served or at the least screwed by their own intel people...and their good intel has been disastered by useless or ignorant politicians. I think, since Intel, by it's very nature is open to such abuse and mis-use. any time you have "black" budgets of unlimited proportions, you will get this ambiguity in the service that is supposed to be doing one thing and one thing only and that very well. But, it simply can not when it is pulled apart like taffy candy by idiots in the political arena.

And, I agree with you, probably the "good" stuff is still secret....look how long the under sea soviet telephone cable tap worked. until destroyed by that traitor (sorry, tired and can't recall his name). and another example is the recovery of a large portion of the wrecked Soviet sub by Golmar explorer...fantastic, at bigger than James Bond scale. So, it's probably true the only part of the iceberg we get to see is likely the bad part.

Ronald Pelton is the traitors name. He is currently serving three consecutive life sentences as Federal Prison Inmate '22914-037', but is scheduled for release in November 2015

http://www.bop.gov/iloc2/InmateFinderServlet?Transaction=IDSearch&needingMoreList=false&IDType=IRN&IDNumber=22914-037&x=45&y=11

WTF 2015?

[hay_txa]

The Commies are always paranoid because they lack legitimacy.

can you please elaborate ?

[Ordie]

can you please elaborate ?

When was the last time the Chinese Communist Party won an election?

[hay_txa]

When was the last time the Chinese Communist Party won an election?so according to you legitimacy exists only in liberal countries ?

[Ordie]

so according to you legitimacy exists only in liberal countries ?

No

Legitimacy is a means to justify the existence of government by the governed.

For western countries, the legitimacy of government is through elections.

For traditional societies, the legitmacy of government is through a soveriegn (i.e monarchy)

For China, the legitimacy of the government is based on if they can deliver stability, economic growth and nationalism as a means to placate the masses.

[hay_txa]

No

Legitimacy is a means to justify the existence of government by the governed.

For western countries, the legitimacy of government is through elections.

For traditional societies, the legitmacy of government is through a soveriegn (i.e monarchy)

For China, the legitimacy of the government is based on if they can deliver stability, economic growth and nationalism as a means to placate the masses.so if no why did you mention the lack of elections ?
and china has all the 3 attributes that you mentioned: it is stable and economically growing country that pursues its national interests. how does the communist government illegitimate in that case ?

sorry, one more question: when you said commies are always paranoid and illegitimate did you mean only commies of china or all commies ?

[Ordie]

sorry, one more question: when you said commies are always paranoid and illegitimate did you mean only commies of china or all commies ?

Almost all Communist and Totalitarian governments are riding the tiger they cannot dismount.
The Chinese Communist Party for example is more fearful of the Chinese people than any outside threat combined. That is why they invest a lot in domestic security forces.


so if no why did you mention the lack of elections ?

Elections are the easiest means of determining legitimacy. Leaders are either rewarded or fired by the electorate.


china has all the 3 attributes that you mentioned: it is stable and economically growing country that pursues its national interests. how does the communist government illegitimate in that case ?

As long as the Chinese people are happy with a government that provides stability, prosperity and sovereignty, it is therefore seen as legitimate government in the eyes of its people. However, this requires a lot of work, planning and second guessing what the masses want.

[hay_txa]

As long as the Chinese people are happy with a government that provides stability, prosperity and sovereignty, it is therefore seen as legitimate government in the eyes of its people. However, this requires a lot of work, planning and second guessing what the masses want.so it is legitimate then ? how come you said that there is lack of it ?

also, absence of elections doesn't automatically predetermine that a regime lacks legitimacy.

PS as for the fears of ccp and the ride on the tiger, i'll leave it at that. at least for now.

[Ordie]

so it is legitimate then ? how come you said that there is lack of it ?

also, absence of elections doesn't automatically predetermine that a regime lacks legitimacy.

PS as for the fears of ccp and the ride on the tiger, i'll leave it at that. at least for now.

The Communist legitimacy to govern China is based on delivering stability, economic growth and nationalism.
They will do everything including manipulating the currency, the stock markets and sending out the people's armed police to bring harmony. Insuring this harmony comes at a greater cost and bring unintended consequences.

The other means through elections, gives the people a greater stake and responsibility. As we can see in Taiwan where people's demand on government is equally high but the government does not engage in heavy handed measures knowing they can be fired through elections and an independent judiciary.

[hay_txa]

The Communist legitimacy to govern China is based on delivering stability, economic growth and nationalism.
They will do everything including manipulating the currency, the stock markets and sending out the people's armed police to bring harmony. Insuring this harmony comes at a greater cost and bring unintended consequences.

The other means through elections, gives the people a greater stake and responsibility. As we can see in Taiwan where people's demand on government is equally high but the government does not engage in heavy handed measures knowing they can be fired through elections and an independent judiciary. i am not asking on what their legitimacy is based. you said that already. and based on what you said it seems you proved yourself wrong: they do have legitimacy. or am i missing something here ?

[Ordie]

i am not asking on what their legitimacy is based. you said that already. and based on what you said it seems you proved yourself wrong: they do have legitimacy. or am i missing something here ?

No, its just that China has chosen a harder path towards political legitimacy that as time moves on becomes more fragile.

Ask yourself this question.

If there were free multi-party elections in China next week, would the Communist Party win?

[hay_txa]

No, its just that China has chosen a harder path towards political legitimacy that as time moves on becomes more fragile.

Ask yourself this question.

If there were free multi-party elections in China next week, would the Communist Party win?i don't think it's right to accuse a government of lacking legitimacy at a present time based on assumptions about the future. just because their legitimacy may vanish doesn't mean it's not present; moreover, if you say it will vanish it means it exists because something that doesn't exist cannot vanish, right ? :-) so, if you had said that they are afraid of losing it and they're paranoid about it and yada yada, i'd understand you; but then it'd be something much different from what you've stated.

as for imaginary elections: any answer to that is a pure speculation. i'd not want to go further into that discussion but one possible outcome to think about is that ccp may actually win simply because people know or have experience with no other alternative while ccp as we've agreed at least provides enough security and, most importantly, strong economic growth. but this is just something about which one can think. counter arguments to this also have their strong points.