EMAIL SIGN UP!
Most Popular This Week
- Corporate Win: Supreme Court Says Monsanto Has 'Control Over Product of Life'
- How the US Turned Three Pacifists into Violent Terrorists
- Cornel West: Obama 'Is a War Criminal'
- In 'March Toward Disaster,' World Hits 400 PPM Milestone
- Revealed: How US State Department 'Twists Arms' on Monsanto's Behalf
Popular content
Today's Top News
Iraq's Early Vietnam Moment
Four years ago - on Nov. 2, 2003 - a U.S. helicopter was shot down over Iraq, killing 16 U.S. troops, an early "Vietnam moment" in what was emerging as a powerful Iraqi insurgency.The incident helped convince a newly organized group of former U.S. intelligence officers, the Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity, that the war was unwinnable. Below is the prescient analysis written by VIPS co-founder Ray McGovern on Nov. 3, 2003:
The killing of 16 US troops and wounding of 20 others on Nov. 2, 2003, when a U.S. helicopter was downed by a missile in Iraq, brings to mind the fateful attack by Viet Cong guerrillas on U.S. forces in Pleiku, Vietnam on Feb. 7, 1965.
The Johnson administration immediately seized on that attack, in which nine U.S. troops were killed and 128 wounded, to start bombing North Vietnam and to send 3,500 Marines to South Vietnam.
Unlike the U.S. advisory forces already in country, the Marines had orders to engage in combat, marking the beginning of the Americanization of the war. By 1968 U.S. forces had grown to over 536,000.
From the outset, my colleagues in CIA were highly skeptical that U.S. forces could prevail in Vietnam even with hundreds of thousands of troops.
CIA analysts were quick to remind anyone who would listen of the candid observation made by Gen. Philippe LeClerc, whom France sent to Vietnam shortly after World War II. The French general reported that, mainly because of the strong commitment of the Vietnamese nationalists/communists and their proven proficiency in guerrilla war, a renewed French campaign would require 500,000 men and that, even then, France could not win.
Whiz Kids vs. Military Professionals
In 1965, similar warnings were blissfully ignored by Defense Secretary Robert McNamara and the civilian whiz kids with whom he had surrounded himself. Then as now, the advice of our professional military was dismissed.
While today's civilian leaders at the Defense Department hobbled through what passed for post-war planning for Iraq early in 2003, Army Chief of Staff Eric Shinseki warned the Senate Armed Services Committee that post-war Iraq would require "something on the order of several hundred thousand soldiers."
He was immediately ridiculed by Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and his deputy, Paul Wolfowitz, for having exaggerated the requirement. This evokes vivid memories of how McNamara and his civilian whiz kids dissed our professional military-and at such a high eventual price.
The poet George Santayana warned, "Those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it." What is increasingly clear is that neither the present-day Pentagon whiz kids nor their patron, Vice President Dick Cheney, have learned much from history.
They encourage President Bush to insist, "We are not leaving;" and Defense Secretary Rumsfeld to keep on insisting that this war is "winnable." But most of those with a modicum of experience in guerrilla warfare and the Middle East are persuaded that the war is not winnable and that the only thing uncertain is the timing of the U.S. departure.
After many weeks of refusing to admit the word "guerrilla" into evidence, Rumsfeld has reluctantly made his peace with it. Yet, when asked Nov. 2, 2003, on TV who the guerrillas are, he foundered, admitting in so many words that he hasn't a clue.
I was actually embarrassed for him. A terrific debater and otherwise reasonably clever man, Rumsfeld was reduced to telling us once again that Iraq is the size of California and bemoaning the deficiencies in "situational awareness" and lack of "perfect visibility" into who it is that are killing our troops.
At least we were spared the usual claims that we are "moving forward" and will prevail "at the end of the day." Apparently even Rumsfeld could see how incongruous such banalities would have sounded after such a disastrous week.
Recent sloganeering is eerily reminiscent of a comparable stage in our involvement in Vietnam. We have to "stay the course." We cannot "cut and run"-though that is precisely what we ended up doing in 1975 after 58,000 US troops and 3 million Vietnamese had been killed.
Why did we leave? Only because, despite continued lying by the administration then in power, Congress belatedly woke up to the fact that the war was unwinnable, admitted that for the previous ten years Congress had been wrong, and finally cut off funding for the war. Even then, Congress was not leading; rather it was reacting to a storm of protest across the land.
"But we can still win, and we must support our troops!" We heard that then as well.
But, after being lied to and tricked into passing the 1964 Tonkin Gulf resolution authorizing the president to wage war, our elected representatives finally rose to the occasion and said ENOUGH!
Just one year ago our current Congress was similarly lied to and tricked into ceding to the president its constitutional authority to declare war. And yet, sadly, its recent vote to authorize an additional $87 billion for "post-war" Iraq shows that it continues to grovel.
What may be required are widespread grass-roots demonstrations, led perhaps by the families of those troops dying every day in an illegal war, to force our elected representatives to see the light and act with some courage. One can only hope that this time it doesn't take ten years!
Is This Guerrilla War Winnable?
When Rumsfeld was asked on TV on Nov. 2, 2003, when he thought it might be possible to draw down U.S. troop strength in Iraq, he employed one of his favorite predicate adjectives, saying that this was "unknowable"-that it all depends on the security situation.
It is a no-brainer that U.S. troop reductions are unlikely anytime soon, but apparently we shall have to wait for Rumsfeld to acquire better "situational awareness" before he and his whiz kids are willing to admit this.
Instead of draw downs, pressure to send more troops will inexorably grow from neoconservatives and those they have co-opted-like the pompous but vacuous Joseph Biden, ranking minority member of the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations. (It is a cruel twist of fate that, at a time when we need a Fulbright, we get Biden!)
Having learned nothing from history, from the U.S. intelligence community, or from the professional military, Rumsfeld's whiz kids and those in Congress still under their spell may persuade President Bush that the best course is to send more troops to "get the job done"-(ironically sealing his political fate).
One small problem, of course, is the unwelcome fact that all too few troops are available for reinforcement. But this kind of military "detail" would not likely affect the urgings of second-string but influential advisers like Douglas Feith, William Kristol, and Kenneth Adelman, each of whom knows less about war than a freshman ROTC cadet.
A Bush administration decision to escalate (to exhume that familiar word from Vietnam) in that way would only provoke more widespread guerrilla attacks in Iraq and terrorist acts against U.S. personnel and facilities elsewhere as well. The U.S. troop presence in Iraq is the problem, not the solution.
And someone needs to dispel Rumsfeld's confusion regarding who is the enemy. It is every Iraqi with a weapon or explosive who means to make the occupier suffer. The tools are readily available, and the guerrillas, whether homebred or from neighboring states, will not be quelled-even if 500,000 troops are sent.
No One Knows
The most embarrassing part of Rumsfeld's interview with ABC's This Week on Nov. 2, 2003, came when he attempted to grapple with the question of how to reduce the number of terrorists.
"How do you persuade people not to become suicide bombers; how do you reduce the number of people attracted to terrorism? No one knows how to reduce that," he complained.
Over a year ago, CIA analysts provided an assessment intended to educate senior policy makers to the fact that "the forces fueling hatred of the U.S. and fueling al-Qaeda recruiting are not being addressed," and that "the underlying causes that drive terrorists will persist."
The assessment cited a recent Gallup poll of almost 10,000 Muslims in nine countries in which respondents described the United States as "ruthless, aggressive, conceited, arrogant, easily provoked and biased." And that was before the war in Iraq.
How can we be so misunderstood, you might ask. A major factor is the Bush administration's one-sided support of Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon, whether he is bulldozing Palestinian homes, encouraging new Israeli settlements in the occupied territories, building Berlin walls to make impracticable any viable Palestinian state, or bombing Syria.
Someone needs to tell Rumsfeld and Bush that Muslims watch it all on TV-and then crowd the recruiting stations.
Cooked Intelligence
But no one will. There is no longer any sanity check.
Sad to say, over the past year the director of the CIA and his malleable managers have shown a penchant for sniffing the prevailing winds and trimming the sails of their analysis to the breezes blowing from the Pentagon and White House.
The president's father had an acute appreciation for the essential role of unbiased intelligence. Indeed, I had the privilege of watching-and helping-him face down strong pressure from other administration officials to cook the intelligence to the recipe of policy.
In contrast, the son seems oblivious to the importance of protecting intelligence process from prostitution. As a result, Cheney and Rumsfeld have free rein, CIA director Tenet kowtows, and intelligence community analysis is thoroughly politicized. The president has no place to turn for a check on Rumsfeld's/Cheney's whiz kids.
It is a classical Greek tragedy; with the major character flaw of hubris planting the seeds of the ruler's own destruction.
Rumsfeld eventually will write his memoir-his own version of McNamara's "We were wrong; terribly wrong"-and probably use the proceeds to add to his estates in Taos. This will bring no consolation, though, to the one likely to be the next one-term Bush back in Texas.
It is also tragic that the president does not read very much, for he would have found the following in his father's memoir:
"Trying to eliminate Saddam...would have incurred incalculable human and political costs. Apprehending him was probably impossible...we would have been forced to occupy Baghdad and, in effect, rule Iraq...there was no viable 'exit strategy' we could see, violating another of our principles...Going in and occupying Iraq, thus unilaterally exceeding the United Nations' mandate, would have destroyed the precedent of international response to aggression that we hoped to establish. Had we gone the invasion route, the United States could conceivably still be an occupying power in a bitterly hostile land."
Real Power to the UN
As long as the occupation continues, so will the killing of U.S. troops and others. The way to stop the violence is to end the occupation; the only way to protect our troops is to bring them home.
Whether or not U.S. policymakers can admit at this point that they were "terribly wrong," they need to transfer real authority to the United Nations without delay and support the UN in overseeing a rapid return to Iraqi sovereignty.
But, many protest, we can't just withdraw! Sure we can, and better now than ten years from now, as in the case of Vietnam.
If it is true that we are not in Iraq to control the oil or to establish military bases with which to dominate that strategic area, we can certainly withdraw. As in Vietnam, the war is unwinnable...hear that? UNWINNABLE!
If the U.S. withdraws, would there be civil war in Iraq? Given that country's history, one cannot dismiss this possibility.
But it is at least as likely that a regional-federal model of government that would include substantial autonomy for the Kurds in the north, the Sunnis in the center, and the Shiites in the south (something foreshadowed by the composition of the existing Council) could begin to function in relatively short order with help from the UN.
While some degree of inter-ethnic violence could be expected, chances are good that this model would still allow a representative national government to function.
We won't know if we don't try. Besides, there is no viable alternative.
Ray McGovern works with Tell the Word, the publishing arm of the ecumenical Church of the Saviour in Washington, DC. During his career as a CIA analyst, he prepared and briefed the President's Daily Brief and chaired National Intelligence Estimates. He is a member of the Steering Group of Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity (VIPS).
© 2007 ConsortiumNews.com
Comments
Note: Disqus 2012 is best viewed on an up to date browser. Click here for information. Instructions for how to sign up to comment can be viewed here. Our Comment Policy can be viewed here. Please follow the guidelines. Note to Readers: Spam Filter May Capture Legitimate Comments...
30 Comments so far
Show AllThe only comparrison I see with the war with Vietnam and Iraq is, we had no business being there in either case.
One major difference is, we have used a couple of thousand tons of depleted uranium ammunition and DU in bombs in Iraq. We have "won", if one considers we have literally killed everyone in Iraq, including our troops and other Americans there, by subjecting them to a long and slow death with untreatable radiation poisoning.
And if we did "win" the Iraq War by keeping our troops there until the "insurgents" gave up, would we bring the troops home then? No, of course not. The occupation isn't there to win the war. We are waging war to maintain the occupation.
Something really stinks about the whole process from beginning to end. Democracy as it is practiced in USA, Britain, and now Canada sucks. So does the economic model. Time for a change.
I have always believed in the need for the UN, I have encountered many who are rigid with fear over the very idea. In conversation with them they use the concept of one world government, dig a little deeper and I find they imagine a one world government with the darkest despot attributes of their own minds.
People, ye got to expand your consciousness a little bit more, this was brought up forty years ago and we still have some distance to go. We only have one planet.
one other thing, Right On, Ray!
This was a powerful piece of writing then and it's proven mostly true now. (He predicted that W would be a One-Term Bush and no one predicted Sharon's brain hemorhage) So glad that he continues to speak out. Go Ray!
"Something really stinks about the whole process from beginning to end. Democracy as it is practiced in USA, Britain, and now Canada sucks. So does the economic model. Time for a change."
'
What do you suggest? Monarchy? Communism? Corporate Feudalism? Anarchy?
"Democracy is the worst form of government.. except for all the others"
How about something really revolutionary? Participation in our Democracy, rather than sitting on the sidelines as disgruntled consumers of the end product?
Over half of the eligible voters in this country don't turn out. Many of them are disgusted by the choices they are offered, but most of the no-shows just don't think that it matters.
That reliable antipathy/apathy, that inattentiveness, has opened a road in for corruption.
We must separate the Corporations from the State just as surely as we separate Church from State.
"Democracy is the worst form of government.. except for all the others"
True, except that we don't have true democracy. What we do have is "freedom and democracy" U.S. style. Anyone who has followed the way that is implemented in other countries (Iraq and Afghanistan being only the latest examples in a very long series) and still doesn't understand how the system works just isn't paying attention -- or is willfully blind, or both.
P.S.: And anyone who thinks its fundamental underpinnings are any different within the USA itself is naive as well as blind.
Ray,
Very good article! One of the underlying themes you are attempting to flesh out is the fact that politicians will never openly admit they make mistakes. Their egos are too big. You are absolutely right stating that this is a "Greek tragedy with the major character flaw of hubris planting the seeds of the ruler's own destruction." Sadly, things will get worse, but fotunately we are getting closer to the final act before the next set of characters takes the stage.
Kem Patrick..You have stated it precisely and frighteningly. The poisons that have been loosed have yet to show their toll. We have contaminated a land for billions of years and thousands of American and Iraqi children, yet to be born, will be deformed.
Soldiers from all sides will suffer and die from some form of radiation illness, as have many 9/11 rescuers from the Draino air that the EPA insisted did not exist. I hope the Universe can forgive these Masters of War. I CANNOT. Karmic Law will take it's path.
"Greek tragedy with the major character flaw of hubris planting the seeds of the ruler's own destruction." Yes, if only life unfolded like it does in Greek tragedy. Then the Bushs and Cheneys and Rices would all get their just rewards in the last chapter. Maybe they are but we just can't see it. But forget the idea that these folks are going to destruct at the end of the story when the guy on the white horse rides in. Right on CV November, what about a radical idea like participation. Oh, but no, we americans are just too busy and the whole thing of politics is so messy and besides, someone might get mad at you and then boycott you. What blackmailing bullshit. It's so easy to sit in front of a computer screen and let it all out to the world. It's another to write your congressman, write letters to your local newspaper, organize rallies, stand up to idiots who think imperialism and a foreign policy based on domination and exploitation are good ideas. Way too many americans are way too quiet. In other countries, the Ukraine, France, Bolivia, Argentina, the people take to the streets when their government isn't responsive to their will. They shut down business and thus get noticed. And they don't go home until they get what they want. Here, too many just go shopping. If you don't like what's happening to your country, take some risk, no matter how small, to take it back.
The difference between Iraq and Vietnam? That's easy! Iraq is a dry heat.
"Trying to eliminate Saddam…would have incurred incalculable human and political costs. Apprehending him was probably impossible…we would have been forced to occupy Baghdad and, in effect, rule Iraq…there was no viable 'exit strategy' we could see, violating another of our principles…Going in and occupying Iraq, thus unilaterally exceeding the United Nations' mandate, would have destroyed the precedent of international response to aggression that we hoped to establish. Had we gone the invasion route, the United States could conceivably still be an occupying power in a bitterly hostile land."
Typical what you'd get from the CIA trying to burnish their image in these defining times. And how predictable that ex-functionaries of the empire would write their memoirs in a revisionist form, as if to make it seem they had some good qualities and that the U.S. was something other than a pirate nation. The first idiot president Bush was as much a coward as his despicable son the current idiot president, although I'm sure that closet queen would jump out of an airplane if he had a hard man strapped to his back.
The first idiot president Bush didn't go after Saddam because, after the Iraqis blew up all the oil wells in Kuwait when they were leaving, the U.S. administration figured that Saddam would do something similar to the whole of Iraq if they pressed him too hard. And if there is one thing that scares that scum in the U.S. hierarchy is if they see someone acting crazier than they are. Plus, they used him in a war against Iran on one occasion and they figured they could keep him there as a buffer and manipulate him by having a future president flatter him if they ever had to make use of that card again.
The U.S. has no principles, and they never have had any. And once a CIA agent, always a CIA agent. And if some agents form a diversionist organization which is intended to toss away some worthless and expired cards so that they can make the unsuspecting populace believe that rigtheous honor resides at the core of that totally rotten organization which is the CIA, well....
The only thing he got worng, understanably, is God's curses
God cursed Sharon with a brain hemmorage (may he rot in hell) and cursed the USA with another 4 years of Dumbass Dubya
jmacneil (13) wrote:
"Typical what you'd get from the CIA trying to burnish their image in these defining times."
"And if some agents form a diversionist organization which is intended to toss away some worthless and expired cards so that they can make the unsuspecting populace believe that rigtheous honor resides at the core of that totally rotten organization which is the CIA, well…."
COMMENT:
Perhaps that is true, perhaps not, I've seen no proof. I am reluctant to make assumptions let alone flat statements disparaging someone when I've seen or heard no proof that warrants such disparagement.
Ray McGovern isn't defending the organization's history of political murders; or assassinations of leaders of sovereign nations; support of genocides in Asia, Latin America, and Africa; the CIA's involvement in the overthrow of democratically elected governments and the installation of brutal dictators; and the long history of torture and other crimes by the CIA.
McGovern is simply condemning leadership of the CIA for allowing politicalization and distortion of information collected by and presented by intelligence professionals, and condemning politicians for starting wars the analysts warned were unwinable.
I will say that find it difficult to believe that past members of an organization who are condemning the leadership of the organization are somehow trying make the populace have the warm fuzzies for that organization, especially when working with the publishing arm of an ecumenical Church. I'd also point out that Ray McGovern and others appear to have been involved within the CIA merely collecting and analyzing information, not out slitting throats, and seem to have used at least some their time in trying to prevent the war in Vietnam and later the war in Iraq.
When it comes to crimes, the CIA is to the Sicilian mafia as a nuclear bomb is to a hand grenade, but it serves no good purpose accusing those who have stepped forward of having belonged to a "totally rotten organization." General Smedley Butler also belonged to a "totally rotten organization" that has been responsible for slaughtering millions, devastating nations and ruining the lives of tens of millions all for the US investment class, but I'm grateful that he stepped forward, and I'm grateful that Ray McGovern and others also have. Without such people, we, the public, would be even more ignorant than we, as a people, already are.
Because of our Corporate Media may citizens have missed this
http://www.youtube.com/results?search_quer...rfk&search=
Yes, the U.S. is adept at using belief and culture to misname and misuse whatever facet will help them hide and further their nefarious purposes. Confusion is not only for the enemy. Their extensive use of chaplains is particularly disgusting and puts me in mind of that apt song by The Animals, "Sky Pilot".
Their having a "Veteran Intelligence Professionals For Sanity" old boys club is particularly ludicrous. The only pronouncements they ever make are after the "shit hits the fan", so to speak. Those pronouncements can still appear timely and prescient to anyone not conversant with the operation of world affairs, but the CIA has such a long history of distinguished failures that they can tell almost right away when things are buggered and so they have no trouble writing a little article to make it seem to the dupes that it's the mature CIA professionals who are really looking out for the best interests of their country.
Another home run article by Mr. McGovern...of course GWB doesn't read and doesn't care about history, only the DOW report and returns on investments....support the occupation and keep shopping.
"Military professionals" in the US, makes as much sense as "military intelligence". The US military has doctors that help killers kill more, lawyers with no concept of rule of law or jurisdiction, and chaplains that encourage soldiers to not follow the laws of their religion. Cowardice is considered a prime virtue. Success is defined by the organization being evaluated, and after the fact.
The irony of that helo shootdown near Fallujah is that the death toll closely matches that of the first massacre of Fallujah, carried out in late April 2003. Poetic justice.
"The poet George Santayana warned, "Those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it." What is increasingly clear is that neither the present-day Pentagon whiz kids nor their patron, Vice President Dick Cheney, have learned much from history."
That makes the very-large 'assumption' that he (or McNamara, for that-matter) "didn't learn" -- and didn't know exactly what they were lying the US into. [In the case of Iraq, actually, resistance was rather-'slow' and needful of varied covert-'encouragements']
"The assessment cited a recent Gallup poll of almost 10,000 Muslims in nine countries in which respondents described the United States as "ruthless, aggressive, conceited, arrogant, easily provoked and biased." And that was before the war in Iraq...How can we be so misunderstood, you might ask."
ROF...LMAO!
Money! Oil was $20 a barrel when President Shit-for-Brains started his pack of lies war and now it is approaching $100. Nobody HE knows or cares about has died and a lot of rich people are much richer. That part is obvious, not so obvious is the concentrated wealth created by the Independant Contractors like Blackwater or the misery these Pinkerton-like thugs are going to cause us right here at home when our corporations point their security forces at american citizens, as already experienced in New Orleans. And of course, there is always the drugs. Tons of Opium from Afganistan and likewise Cocaine from South America are funneling money into the the hands of the CIA and those that direct the CIA operations. Just where is all that money going from the drugs. Just how did the trade towers fall. Who really shot the Kennedy's. I'll no doubt never know, but I am convinced there are traitors among us.
Veteran 66-68
CV: Oh,if it were that easy! For everyone to get involved and start to vote instead of being on the sidelines grumbling at the end product. I wish it were that easy that sudenly the populace would become involved and vote. Right now VOTING IS NO MORE EFFECTIVE THAN GIVING YOUR CAR A TUNE-UP WHEN THE ENGINE AND TRANSMISSION ARE DESTROYED. Voting is fine when everything else is working(hence the car analogy) But the sad truth is the heart and soul of democracy has been destroyed by Political whores,Corporate interests,bad foreign policy,corrupted elections a military-industrial complex is now in charge and calling most of the shots along with a constant assault on the middle class, too many taxes no health care,etc,etc, all of which voting will not fix! Were way beyond simple fixes!!!! Even if we would have had everyone voting all these years I think we would still be where we are today!!
Wherever corporate interests around the world are concerned the USA military will be there to help them exploit the country of its resources.
Our tentacles and our outsourcing corporate expatriates have extended their reach much beyond what the British Empire controlled.
So basically there is no difference between the invasion of Iraq and the war in Vietnam.
The only reason the private army of the corporations, (the US military) is becoming imperialistic again is; the neo cons wrestled power from the people.
You see the neo cons; Bush/Cheney and friends always supported the war in Vietnam and still think we could have won that battle if only we allowed the boots on the ground to do their job.
They could never in a million years admit that a bunch of "gooks" in black pajamas could defeat the mighty forces of the great American Empire.
So with this invincible attitude they proceeded to flex America's muscles once again and resumed our corporate domination of the world.
A morbid scenario of course had to transpire before we could show the erroneousness and stupidity of their approach and can now hopefully, finally put a stake thru the heart of neo con imperialism.
Vote for DENNIS the menace, an iconoclastic congressional rebel.
Ray you wrote a great article then, but I find the above commentary more interesting now. I am a newbie web reader and this site is by far the best I have seen. Nathanial, your link to youtube doesn't work for me. White Rose, you took the name I wanted. Randolfski you mentioned two points that do not fit into my analysis of the US. The countries you mentioned "the Ukraine, France, Bolivia, Argentina" are the size of average US states. If there were no US, the people of Wisconsin would rise up and do something if their government were as stupid as the US government. The major problem in the world and in Wisconsin is that the US Government is so large. The other thing that Randolfski mentions is the need to write to congress and participate. I believe it is in every way wrong to participate in US politics--murder or murder. It is so wrong that I dream of a do-not vote campaign that would ripple through the country. By not voting in federal elections but voting in State our votes for the first time would count towards the difference between federal and state. The US would disappear, the states and the rest of the world would be at peace. I have a web site that explores why the US should disappear this way.
Sorry try this link. Its not exactly on topic, but I cant restrain myselft...! I will return to topic Thursday around tea-time.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MSOOK3tocTk
tata,
Welcome to CD. It would be better (and easier) to boycott corporations. They are the ones who control both parties.
Nathaniel,
The video is a pattern the US is using against Iraqi's--shock. From youtube I learned of Guerilla News Network.
Claudius,
How would it be easier to boycott corporations? Are you interested in consumer boycotts? How could we possibly live? Imagine instead you tell people that their votes only count when they don't vote and that if they don't vote the US will disappear.
The comparison of the CIA with a lowly outfit of crooks like the mafia is quaint and actually describes adequately what the CIA is trying with their phony VIP-FS outfit, if you keep in mind how the mafia dons hand out largesse to the matrons and orphans in their own neighborhood so that someone will smile at them when they go home, while at their day job they are still killing, stealing and extorting. Just the moniker they gave that goofy group indicates that they wish to see if that turkey will fly and if it does they'll surely present their new name to the world, which must be something like "Veteran Intelligence Officers Of America".
thats the exact analysis so many people had, including BUSH 1, how could these guys have gone ahead with this madman's plan when this stuff was this obvious?