The people, "projects" and organisations written about, and at times almost book itself, have an ambience of "it is OK for the USA to take actions to destroy other people/nations in promotion of one ideology" - things like seeking the "regime change" in Chile when Allende was overthrown, but there are other perhaps less well known examples which you can read the book to see for your local library for a loan if you cannot afford to buy one [mine came from a second hand shop] - and, if they haven't got one, ask to to get an inter-library loan).
The greatest surprises, however, in the book are the good stories, such as the key role Director of Central Intelligence John McCone played in the strategy which avoided war in the Cuban missile crisis (I'll have to revise my view on the film "Thirteen Days", which I rather like because of its prevention of war theme), the warning by Richard Helms (someone I don't view favourably) that the US military was becoming divorced from reality in Vietnam McCone had earlier warned that the war would arouse national and international discontent), and the level of effective internal appraisals from time to time. I use the CIA's "World Factbook" as a quick reference from time to time, and the CIA website now has what I would consider good statements about inclusivity, acknowledgement of past mistakes, etc - all probably forced to be there because of things like the US House of Representatives and US Senate committees scrutinising the CIA, and the growing level of public outrage over matters such as the invasion of Iraq, and the lack of forewarning about "9/11" which, interestingly, had more or less been a predicted outcome of some earlier cut backs of the CIA).
As far the whole espionage thing goes, there is a relevant quote in the book, in the section discussing the Iraq failures:
"The meaning of that failure was left for the CIA's chief weapons inspector, David Kay, to explain in full: "We think intelligence is important to win wars," he said. "Wars are not won by intelligence. They're won by the blood, treasure, courage of the young men and women that we put in the field. . . . What intelligence really does when it is working well is to help avoid wars."
Now, as far as this blog goes, what is relevant are the lessons on what can go wrong with a group, particularly any group that tends to be somewhat insular (as some alternative groups I have been in have tended to be - which does NOT apply to the groups I am in now): problems such as "group think", the adoption of a mutually reinforced view of the world/the group/"outsiders". In some groups, such as the Exclusive Brethren or the CIA, the consequences of that can be extreme the CIA started its association with torture back in 1950, and the Exclusive Bretheren has been in court in recent years over its political activities, and has been criticised over its attitude towards ex-members having contact with family members (such as children).
On a milder note, I have seen the damage caused by personality clashes, infighting, bickering and other group dynamic problems within groups such as sailing clubs and even a dairy goat society.
Any group can - PARTICULARLY if it or its members think they are above the possibility - make such mistakes.
I am a great believer in the adage that those who do not learn from history are condemned to repeat its mistakes. This book about the CIA is a useful sourcebook on what can go wrong with a group. It is also a very example of situations where individuals either did, or should have, weighed up their personal ethics against the expectations of being willing to be unethical (e.g., commit illegal acts such as murder, torture, etc) for "the greater good", and made some questionable decisions ... [Note 1]
Of course, having identified the mistakes, the next step is how to learn from it ...
Note 1 - something I have decided to do is see the film "The Fog of War", to see how Robert McNamara views his past decisions: as well as group dynamics and group ethical issues, individuals have ethical issues to address in a wide range of situations. I left my last job because I considered the company had treated staff, including some of my team members, unacceptably morally - although there was absolutely NO doubt that the company acted legally. I left because I considered staying would be a tacit moral endorsement of the actions - I was lucky, in that I had another job to go to, although I gave up massive job security at my previous position, and things haven't particularly been smooth sailing in my new job. Once, a few decades ago, I threatened to take a previous employer to the ethical committee of the Institution of Engineers, Australia: that worked, but also led to me copping some flak. Attempting to do the right thing, such as be a whistleblower, is sometimes not easy ...
Also, those who fail such moral tests can place pressure on others - such as, say ... the supermarket staff member who marks down prices just before they buy those items, who may put others in the unenviable position of having to choose between reporting what is effectively theft, which may result in inadequate (or no, in one case I know of) backup from management, let alone action against the thief.
These situations are less ... "spectacular", less grandiose and impactful than the mistakes of those in positions of power: nevertheless, the moral tests of character may be the same.
The wheel of life turns: prince one lifetime, pauper the next; powerless one lifetime, powerful the next - and, in that next life, drawing on the lessons absorbed into one's being in other, "lesser" situations.
Love, light, hugs and blessings
Gnwmythr
Tags: history, learning from mistakes, group dynamics, courage, personal responsibility,
First published: Sunday 25th April, 2010, Anzac Day (see here, here and here), which is the day after the commemoration of the Armenian Genocide
Last edited: Monday 26th April, 2010
