In 1951 he was Time Magazine’s Man of the Year. By August 1953 he was among the first of many to be imprisoned by Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlevi who had aIn 1951 he was Time Magazine’s Man of the Year. By August 1953 he was among the first of many to be imprisoned by Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlevi who had appointed him Prime Minister only two years earlier. Christopher deBellaigue gives a readable summary of his improbable life.
The author sets the stage by describing Iran at the time. Due to its poverty, Iran was of little interest to the great colonizing powers. It had no railroad. Food riots seem to be common. WWI made it important to Great Britain which needed oil. Iran’s elites made deals, favorable to themseives, that basically ceded control of the nation’s most valuable resource to a British oil company.
After WWII, nationalism grew in Iran. Its focus was on getting control of the oil. Great Britain had less need for oil but it wanted to keep the favorable terms of the oil treaties. Some feel that if it lost its grip on Iran's oil, after losing India, it would lose its prestige on the world stage. The emerging Tudeh party, which leaned toward communism, raised concerns in the US which was in its cold war with the USSR. Mohammed Mossedegh was seen by both the US and Great Britain as a threat to their interests.
Mossedegh, like his father and mother, had lifelong involvement in politics. In 1906, at the age 24 he was elected to a legislative office that he was too young to hold; but was elected to Parliament again in 1924 and 1941 and served. He held government positions in finance, foreign affairs and regional administration. He was recognized as an honest patriot who cared about democracy and civil liberties – rare for government officials in this time and place. The Shah, portrayed as indecisive, appointed him Prime Minister, basically he had to. Mossedegh was extremely popular.
deBellaigue takes you through his bold moves as PM. He introduced safety net types of programs. He resigned over a dispute with the Shah about who appoints the head of the military and after 5 days of protests the Shah had to re-instate him. In a departure from the past, he did not jail the journalists who criticized him. While many reformers wanted an end to the monarchy, he supported the Shah. It was the nationalization of oil that put Mossedegh’s downfall in motion.
While Britain was most aggrieved by the situation, the overthrow was orchestrated by the CIA and with help from MI6. The Shah had to be convinced to fire popular Mossedegh (and flee). The Iranian Army was used to start riots and cash was doled out to significant leaders. Kermit Roosevelt initiated demonstrations and street riots with murders, fires and looting. Mossedegh moved from place to place and hid for 3 days until his arrest. deBellaigue notes the times when he might have tried to stop the events, but he neither took action nor made statements during the riots. A trial followed, then a prison term, and then a house arrest.
The book introduces you to his family. Most memorable are: his thrice widowed mother who owned and managed a hospital; his wife who carved out her own independent life: of his children, you know most of his first son the doctor and his daughter who’s nervous breakdown during her father’s first arrest became a lifelong disability and his colorful uncle, Prince Farmanfarma. You observe the health issues, for which there is little clarity: Did he need to stay in bed? Was he really fainting at (in)convenient times? He lived to be 85.
The last chapter is a summary of the long term effects of this overthrow and how the repression that followed led to the situation of Iran today.
The index is very good and helpful for all that I looked up. There are interesting b & w photos. A map is needed.
This is a good summary of a pivotal figure in world history. The author is able to digest the complex situation of time and place for the non-historian such that it can be easily read by those with little background but interest in the topic....more
Stephen Kinzer demonstrates his research skills by reconstructing MK-ULTRA and Sidney Gottlieb’s deep involvement. Good reviews of this book can be foStephen Kinzer demonstrates his research skills by reconstructing MK-ULTRA and Sidney Gottlieb’s deep involvement. Good reviews of this book can be found through most media sources, so I will only comment on Kinzer’s portrayal of Gottleib and two points that deserve follow up for this story and others.
The bulk of the book is on Gottlieb’s work. He is portrayed as the consummate bureaucrat. The last chapters have information on him as a person.
Gottlieb had a well honed (or was it real?) image of a family man. His lifestyle (farm, yoga, folk dancing, yoghurt, use of solar energy in the 1990’s, community service in retirement) is that associated with a liberal… a bleeding heart one. How is it that he not just allowed these life threatening tests, but led them?
How did Gottlieb feel about giving dangerous and unknown drugs, electric shocks and sensory deprivation confinements to prisoners, patients who trusted their doctors and unwitting people who crossed his path? As his staff and CIA operators administered these “procedures” there was terrible suffering. Some patients died; others were permanently damaged. This went on for 10 years and in reduced forms, for another 10. By all accounts Gottlieb kept good records (which he later destroyed) so only he would know the scale of what he authorized and seemingly designed.
KInzer poses a theory that Gottlieb could have been a patriot, inspired by the trauma of WWII and the spread of communism. Sometimes little things betray. Advising Eric Olson that he might try therapy to deal with his father’s suicide, when he had to know his father was murdered (and Gottlieb may have authorized the murder) reeks of cynicism. There is one domestic scene from a childhood friend of one of Gottlieb’s children, suggesting that the guilt of his work spilled into his home and that his 4 children were conditioned at an early age not to speak about their father. In one part of the book, Kinzer says Gottleb’s 4 kids do not speak to him; but later on they are portrayed as a happy family.
There are two items mentioned that beg follow up. These are not central to Gottlieb, but are worthy of exploration beyond and including the mind control programs.
On p. 71 Allen Dulles confessed to CIA agent James Kronthal that he was caught on tape in an act of pedophilia and that this “personal compulsion” had been known by both the Nazis and Soviets who then used him as a double agent. Kronthal died at home that night where a vial of poison (presumably made by Gottlieb) was found.
There are several references to Eisenhower’s approval of the CIA’s assassination programs. The original plan for the murder of Patrice Lumumba was to use one of Gottlieb’s poisons. Kennedy, suspicious of the CIA, who fired Dulles, presumably would have done something about it if he knew and if he could. Lyndon Johnson is said to end the CIA assassination programs, noting that “we have been operating a goddam Murder Inc. in the Caribbean”. What, if anything, did these presidents know about the “mind control” programs and how they were administered?
This is probably the only assemblage of this material to date. It demonstrates Kinzer’s research skills. At times it reads like a reference book. Unlike the 2 other Kinzer books I've read, the info is incomplete and the portrait of Gottlieb is hazy. This may not be the fault of the author. The portrait of Sydney Gottlieb and his research may be all that can be gleaned for now....more
This book is a salute to Dmitry Polyakov, a Russian general who spied for the US for over 20 years. He never took any cash or other benefit. He was a This book is a salute to Dmitry Polyakov, a Russian general who spied for the US for over 20 years. He never took any cash or other benefit. He was a true patriot: he did it for Russia and the Russian people whom he felt were badly treated by their government. He could have been kept safe in the US for the asking, but chose to live in Russia despite the risk.
Author Eva Dillon gives an inside look at the CIA during the Cold War. Her father was a CIA handler for General Polyakov. The family perspective (always moving, surprise dad spoke Russian, learning dad’s work, life at Camp Peary) is balanced by her research and reporting on the CIA in the Cold War era.
There are descriptions of Mexico City as a hub for international spying. You learn more about the technology of Cold War tradecraft (cipher tables, listening gear, disappearing ink, classified ads, cameras, the ultra-modern UNIQUE transmitter/receiver) and the means by which both sides recruited and tailed targets. You see how the organizational dynamic spawned by the paranoia of James Angleton led to dysfunction and missed opportunities. From the facts, it is hard to see how the mole Aldrich Ames, whose need for money eventually exposed General, went undetected for so long.
There are portraits of individual defectors (i.e. Kaarlo Toumi, Viktor Belenko) and the chill in both Russia and the US that resulted from unmaskings. There is something on the rivalry of the KGB and the GRU. You see the lives of Polyakov’s children and how they were tied to the success and the vilification of their father. The b & w photos of the Polyakov family in Russia enhance the text.
This is a very meaty book. While short, the author covers a lot of ground. ...more
Whenever it is said that the “CIA” or “the mafia and the CIA” killed JFK, no name is ever associated with it. It is as though some leaderless operatorWhenever it is said that the “CIA” or “the mafia and the CIA” killed JFK, no name is ever associated with it. It is as though some leaderless operators managed to carry off this major crime and cover up all on their own. This biography shows how Allen Dulles had the motive and the means, the attitude (a law unto himself) and the experience (he successfully toppled governments and destroyed critics). You see this as a culmination of everything he had engineered to date.
David Talbot begins by showing how Allen Dulles ran the OSS office in Bern, Switzerland as though it was an extension of his Sullivan and Cromwell firm whose clients included the financial and industrial institutions of Nazi Germany. You read how he had no reservations about protecting former Nazis from the Nuremberg trials and hiring some of the highest level Nazis in the CIA. In contravention of US policy he tried to negotiate a separate peace with a representative of Himmler, a peace that would send the Jews in camps to Africa. He could set up friends and children of friends as unwitting decoys knowing that they would wind up in Soviet gulags. It didn’t bother him to have experimental drugs tested on vulnerable populations or have his own son suffer an experimental brain manipulation.
You see how he built power throughout the Washington and financial establishments. You see how be built a loyal staff and how he socialized to make alliances and create a benign image.
Talbot shows the Bay of Pigs as the defining event when the new President Kennedy became aware of the danger of Dulles and the “shadow government” he had developed with little oversight by President Eisenhower. It is unclear how Dulles was let go from his post since there appeared to be a lot of face saving, but it is clear that he never really left. His staff continued to defer to him and he was able to spend the night in CIA quarters as he did just after the JFK assassination.
This volume is not a “conspiracy” book, it is a biography. The JFK assassination was part of Allen Dulles’s life and has the appropriate amount of space. It does not show that Dulles led the operation, but you see where he was and what he did and how the circumstantial evidence points to him. His lobbying to get on the Warren Commission and then his work on that commission, certainly point to active participation in the cover up. The book concludes with the death of Bobby Kennedy (13 shots when Sirhan’s gun had only an 8 bullet capacity), which may also be part of the Dulles life story, and shows how lax the press and opinion makers continue to be to this day.
A good complement to this volume is The Brothers: John Foster Dulles, Allen Dulles & Their Secret World War which has more on his childhood and family history. The Dulles grandfather, Robert Lansing, was Secretary of State under Woodrow Wilson who similarly had no problem with helping his corporate clients through his public office. Author Stephen Kinzer ties Lansing to the overthrow of Queen Liliokalani of Hawaii which was a boon to US agricultural interests. His grandsons followed his path, in using their public office for client services and in the overthrow of the elected governments in Iran the Congo and Guatemala where business interests were at stake.
This book makes me sad all over again for Kennedy family and the US, but more particularly for the Iranians and the Congolese who today still suffer without freedom or economic mobility due to what unelected operatives tied to Dulles, did to their elected leaders decades ago.
This book breaks new ground. I don ‘t see it on the "Best Books" or "Prize" lists for 2015 which says to me that to the media establishment, this subject is still taboo....more
Authors Girard and Kuklick digest the sad story of Patrice Lumumba who within two years of being the first democratically elected prime minister of thAuthors Girard and Kuklick digest the sad story of Patrice Lumumba who within two years of being the first democratically elected prime minister of the Congo was removed from office and murdered.
It appears that Belgium never expected to truly liberate the Congo or, maybe they didn’t know what liberty entailed. There were many financial interests in the southern province of Katanga, where with installation of Lumumba, a secession movement began. The story takes a lot of twists and turns. At a few points there is marginal hope for Lumumba and his democracy.
It is hard to tell why so much western hostility was poured onto Lumumba. On pages 140-1 Richard Helms is quoted as saying “I’m relatively certain that he represented something that the US government didn’t like, but I can’t remember anymore what it was.” This is exactly what I felt as I was reading the book. It seemed to be an idea that fit the needs of Belgium, the anti-communists in the US (although there is no evidence that Lumumba was a communist) and competing politicians and politicians on the take in the Congo. The UN’s objections to him are the hardest to glean.
While the locals did the deed, they responded to other masters. The CIA had developed a culture of doing dirty work and used a coded vocabulary for it: “a good high level”, “plausible deniability”, “eliminate”, and “subvention” meant bribery. Later US Senate hearings cut through the nuance and divulged (later confirmed in declassified CIA documents) that the order came from President Eisenhower.
The capture, torture and the disposal of Lumumba’s body were sordid affairs and paved the way for Joseph Mobutu.
While this is a dramatic story the prose is bland and reportorial. Hypocrisies are noted as are the strange episodes (i.e. brutal events and the delicacies of protocol) but in general, events are left to speak for themselves. If you want the facts, this book is for you. ...more
Beware the old boy network, not just the spies and crooks who connive themselves into top positions, but their unwitting enablers who accept them for Beware the old boy network, not just the spies and crooks who connive themselves into top positions, but their unwitting enablers who accept them for merely being, on the exterior “like” them. Author Ben MacIntyre shows how this network’s values of trust and loyalty made it incapable of policing itself.
Kim Philby may be the most successful counter-agent ever. He fooled the top spies in Britain and the US. He believed in communism as a youth and through Stalin's purges (inclusive of his handlers) and the growing dysfunction in the Soviet Union he never wavered. He never discussed politics and no one thought that he wouldn't think as they did since he had the right family background, accent, education and manners. He was exceptionally charming and “good” at parties.
MacIntyre shows how Philby’s instincts were spot on. He knew when to “hold them” “fold them” “walk away” and “run”.
Nicholas Elliot of MI6 and James Angleton of the CIA and the others who enabled him paid no consequences for their bad judgment. Those who paid were patriots who died in the undercover operations he betrayed, the agents who informed the west whose names he sent to the Soviets and the many living under the Stalinist rulers he strengthened. He shattered the life of his second wife and the consequences for their 5 children and his third wife are unknown. The impact his treachery had on Angleton did further damage to the CIA.
As a further note on the theme of the old boy network, Nicholas Elliot may be the consummate example. When another spy operation (done against the Prime Minister’s directive) goes sour Elliot says the only problem with it was the way PM Anthony Eden handled it. There is no post mortem, no consideration that Philby, guilty or not, who was by this time circumstantially linked to a mountain of disasters, could have been at fault. The “Afterword” is an interview of Elliot by John LeClarre which reeks of the attitude that enabled Philby.
This is an incredible story. There is a lot on the lifestyle of the British intelligence service of this era and the internal politics. There are photos of just about everyone you want to see. The few times I used the index it worked. While I cheated and went to Wikipedia to know the end of the story, as a testament to the author’s skill, I still stayed up last night to finish it....more
Stephen Kinzer shows how instrumental these brothers were in the design of US foreign policy in the post war years. He shows how their attitudes and pStephen Kinzer shows how instrumental these brothers were in the design of US foreign policy in the post war years. He shows how their attitudes and personalities were formed, developed, and grew to influence the course of history.
The brothers’ learned statecraft at their grandfather’s side. John W. Foster, US ambassador to three countries, later served as President Harrison’s trouble shooter and Secretary of State. He helped in the overthrow of Queen Liliuokalani in Hawaii and later used his State Department connections to engineer government policy to benefit his corporate clients. Kinzer shows how the brothers benefited from their grandfather’s access and came to dual pinnacles of power in shaping US foreign policy: one heading the CIA, the other the Department of State.
The 1950’s operations weren’t as hidden as I expected. Allen Dulles, in the Saturday Evening Post, beamed with pride for removing Mohammad Mossadegh in Iran and Jacobo Arbenz in Guatemala. He even has copies made of Diego Rivera’s critical mural where he is depicted taking money while his brother shakes hands with a local puppet and Eisenhower is pictured on a bomb. Many willingly joined in dirty tricks, for instance Cardinal Spellman wrote a pastoral letter to Guatemalan Catholics calling their President a dangerous communist.
I was surprised that President Eisenhower, whose administration is commonly thought to be one of tranquility, approved toppling governments and assassinating leaders. In some ways, he was the front man, for instance urging Congress to approve funds for “maintenance of national independence” but it was really for fomenting a coup in Syria and installing a king in Saudi Arabia to get US friendly governments to oppose Gamal Nasser (p. 225).
With today’s internet and 24 hour news cycle, can large covert operations such as those against the President Sukarno (the first president of Indonesia who naively looked to the US for help in developing his nation’s fledgling democracy) go under the radar? I presume the CIA budget can still hide items such as the $6 million a year paid to the Nazi General Reinhard Gehlen (who should have been tried at Nuremberg (p. 185)).
Kinzer presents the events that show that by preventing compromise when compromise was possible, the brothers and President Eisenhower, prolonged the Cold War into the Khruschev era and sowed the seeds of the Vietnam War. The lack of reflection or personal responsibility is clear in the quote on p. 283 when years later Allen Dulles coolly tells Eric Sevareid regarding the torture and murder of Patrice Lumumba, that “… we may have overrated the danger..” How would the Congo be today if the US had left its fledgling democracy alone, and not have installed Mobutu in a leadership position?
The last coup attempt in the book is the Bay of Pigs. It was an Eisenhower approved intervention and there seemed that to be no turning back for Kennedy. Its fiasco signaled the end of Allen Dulles, but not the Cold War since its relic, Vietnam as a domino, was an image deeply ingrained in policy DNA.
In a side story, it is shown how little the brothers consider their sister, who had to push to have a career. She marginally benefited from the family name. They do not see that they have been born on third base and she on first. In fact, when it is convenient for them, they try to fire her, yet still go to her house for holiday dinners.
Kinzer concludes with recent work in psychology and personality profiling (“… blind ourself to contrary positions… prepared to pay a high price to preserve our most cherished ideas… declarations of high confidence mainly tell you an individual has constructed a coherent story in his mind… beliefs become how you prove your identity..” p. 322) that not only characterize the brothers, but a lot of the thinking in the Cold War.
These paradigms are with us today. Too many politicians and their appointees still see their jobs as responding to lobbyists, not just for big business, but for foreign countries with interests contrary to those of the US. Similarly there are those who force their economic ideology on small and helpless countries.
The book tells a sobering and troubling story. It is greatly at odds with what is taught in high schools. This book has been out for a year now, and it seems the story told is just more noise in the political system. Unfortunately it will take a large event for insiders in Washington to reflect on what we now call "muscular" foreign policy and its results. ...more
This is a readable reference book documenting the untimely deaths of people with knowledge, or peripheral knowledge, of the JFK assignation. InvolvemeThis is a readable reference book documenting the untimely deaths of people with knowledge, or peripheral knowledge, of the JFK assignation. Involvement can be as thick as Lee Harvey Oswald’s or as tentative as the only two reporters to have visited Ruby’s apartment on the day of Oswald’s shooting who were dead within a year. (One was killed in the Long Beach Police Station by an officer playing with his gun and the other by a burglar.)
The authors note the already high proportionate number of witness deaths rises before an upcoming trial or committee hearing. Jack Ruby, himself died as his trial venue changed from Dallas to where he would be able to talk more freely. There is a whole chapter devoted to the 6 top FBI officials who died within a 6 month period prior to their scheduled testimony. Not even Sam Giancana, or his hit man, Chuck Nocoletti, both murdered before their scheduled to testimony before the House Committee on Assassinations, escaped.
There are other profiles of suspicious deaths of members of anti-Castro groups and cold warriors that may have bearing. The strangest of these was singer Jim Reeves, and the most peripheral Dr. Mary Sherman. The high profile “suicides” of Dorothy Kilgallen and the daughter of Irv Kupcinet served to put a chill on the press. Mary Pinchot Meyer had to be taken out for many reasons, and if we believe. E. Howard Hunt’s deathbed testimony, one reason could be that she had intuitive knowledge of her ex-husband’s deep involvement of the Dallas operation.
There is information on Lyndon Johnson’s decisions on security in Dallas, the secret cancer lab in New Orleans, and quite a bit of documentation that Oswald and Ruby were long time associates. 14 bullets were fired at Bobby Kennedy and Sirhan’s gun had only 8. J. Edgar Hoover was not immune from the cover up dragnet.
It’s about time someone has put this together and for this I give the book 5 stars. Technically, though, it is a 3 star book. The text does not flow. There are repeated sentences. Not all pronouns have clear antecedents and some people are referenced before they are introduced. The bullet layout is helpful, but the black print on the gray squares is murder on the eyes.
I note that 1) both authors live outside the US 2) the book is published by a small press and 3) it has not been widely reviewed This says to me that, after all these years, this is still a dangerous subject.
It is now time for a book like this on the members of the Warren Commission....more
Through this personal memoir, you get an insider's view on how intelligence and diplomatic communities work with and against each other and how they i Through this personal memoir, you get an insider's view on how intelligence and diplomatic communities work with and against each other and how they influence and are influenced by elected officials. It's a delicate dance of meetings, hierarchies, secrets and logistics.
I like that Lilley first introduces himself to us through his childhood in China. Unlike other reviewers, I felt that the discussion of his brother was appropriate and just enough (not too much) for us to understand him and the significance his work had had for him.
We follow Lilley through his covert operations to being, through wide experience (and I presume great competence), exactly the man for various important jobs when decisions are made to re-establish relations with China. Lilley, refreshingly, loves his work, and tells us what he is proud of and unabashedly, about his mistakes.
I was surprised to see some aspects of the CIA work in print. While it is a moot point that Lilley flaunted British law in his CIA work in Hong Kong and Chinese law/protocol in China, I wondered about the propriety of these open admissions. Even more surprising to see in print was the founding of communist groups in the Middle East to create fellow travelers who could travel to China. I presume these things, since they appear publically here, along with the CIA'S 1960's work in Laos are now common knowledge. Lilley writes some of them in sketches, some in facts, some in passing. He gives no analysis or discussion of ramifications or controversies of these activities. His straightforward approach to these assignments was probably essential to doing this kind of work.
Also of interest to those like me who often wonder how things "work", were the two "outings" he had, and how he overcame them to continue a useful career, a career he sees not as something for him, but something important for his country.
Lilley is clearly loyal to family, friends and country. His career flourishes with Republicans and he is loyal to them too. The problems caused by balancing Taiwan and China, and conflicts within and across administrations are presented with criticism of the Carter administration, but the framing of similar problems posed by Reagan/Bush (who do not agree on the China-Taiwan balance) are framed as "challenging". He minimizes Fitzwater's exposure of the dissident Lilley was harboring in the embassy which results in over a year of domestic logistics and unneeded complications in relationships. (This dissident did not prove to share Lilley's quality of loyalty.)
Lilley and his various teams were skillful in managing Chinese relations in turbulent times, and the world owes him for this. If you are interested in the Asia and the daily grind of the people who make it all happen, this book is for you. ...more
This book was written with a lot of passion by a boyhood friend of Mary Pinchot Meyer's middle son. The author remembers her warmth as they both grievThis book was written with a lot of passion by a boyhood friend of Mary Pinchot Meyer's middle son. The author remembers her warmth as they both grieved for that boy when he was killed by a car and the coldness of his own father who, he later learns, had a small, but necessary role in the cover up of this former neighbor's assassination.
I've been waiting for this book for 20+ years, or whenever it was that I learned of this death and its ramifications. While it is a year old, I just saw it in our public library. It apparently had no fanfare, made no best lists for 2012, nor found its way to any Goodreads lists. Skyhorse is not a major publisher. This says to me, after all this time, information on this dark episode must still be a target of suppression. In the end, Janney alludes to over 100 mysterious deaths of journalists (two specifically working on MPM) and others, like Mary Pinchot Meyer herself, likely to have knowledge of what happened in Dallas.
As presented by Peter Janney, the Meyer Assassination is the Rosetta Stone for Kennedy's. Nowhere have I seen the motive so keenly drawn. Nowhere have I seen such good portraits of the CIA leadership. Janney shows how the CIA was operating independently and unaccountably. Mary Pinchot Meyer's husband ran Operation Mockingbird which had 3000 propagandists whose job was to present the CIA point of view and plant it in media outlets as news. The agency, de facto, set foreign policy by toppling governments around the globe. When it did not like the direction JFK was taking the country, it had no qualms about a US regime change.
Janney has a episode that links Lyndon Johnson to foreknowledge of the JFK assassination, but I'm not sold. I see Johnson as a beneficiary of the assassination, but not part of it. I agree that his Vietnam escalation was due listening to the wrong people, but not why he listened. My take is that Johnson knew so little on foreign policy he deferred to those whom he considered experts.
Mary knew, through her ex-husband, the inner workings of CIA and its key personnel. She knew the Warren Commission Report was a cover up. She had contacts, standing and nothing to lose but her life in pursuing the truth, which she had started to do. She was dangerous to have around.
There are a number of surprises, the first being the involvement of Ben Bradlee of the "Washington Post" and Watergate fame and the last being the final days of James Angleton. Bradlee is particularly surprising because his paper broke the Watergate scandal. I've always felt the burglars were looking for evidence of CIA (and their own personal) involvement in the JFK assassination which they believed the Democratic Committee had in its possession.
The portions on Bobby Kennedy suggest more work is needed on his assassination. You can see how dangerous he would have been to the prime movers at the CIA.
The author was a bit wordy, but the work was thorough. The last two chapters, on "How it Went Down" were page turners.
This book should have more media attention and should be more widely read....more
Who would have thought that a tiny, poor tropical, island nation would have a top notch espionage organization? CIA didn't in the 1950's and 60's and Who would have thought that a tiny, poor tropical, island nation would have a top notch espionage organization? CIA didn't in the 1950's and 60's and as a result its major Cuban operations were compromised. From interviews with key defectors and from now declassified the CIA and FBI files, the author describes DGI, the spy organization that Fidel Castro and his brother carefully built and continue to run.
The atrocities of the regime and the megalomaniac actions of its leader inspired defectors who arrived at embassies. From them, the CIA learned about Cuba's sophisticated spy network and its reach. They learned about agents, double agents and "dangles" who were sent by the DGI as "bait" for the CIA to work with and trust. The defectors' stories lead up to the most provocative parts of the book: the potential Cuban role in the JFK assassination.
Through the evidence of a potential Castro involvement in the assassination, you see the inner workings of both the CIA and the DGI. You see how critical defector information is to the agency and how dangerous dangles can be. While Castro might have known in advance, there is no evidence linking Castro to the JFK assassination. The circumstantial elements are interesting, but not convincing. Also not convincing is the premise of Castro's motive: that President Kennedy, personally pursued regime change in Cuba after the Bay of Pigs up to and including a Castro assassination. Latell used a lot of "could haves" in the discussion of Desmond FitzGerald the liaison of the Kennedy's to the CIA Cuba staff. While Latell, does not seem to support the Castro involvement theory, he seems convinced that Kennedy actively pursued a regime change for Cuba until his death.
Latell avoids discussion of the various CIA involvement theories. There were no comments on the CIA - Cuba connections such as those of the Watergate burglars and the presence of some of them in Dallas on the day of the assassination. These anti-Castro operatives would be persons of interest to Castro. It would be stunning if they were involved and the DGI had ordered Florentino Aspillaga to listen in only on Texas on November 22, 1963 due to something picked up from eavesdropping on them.
This book is a big bold project. Covering the history of this agency in this way might not be feasible for 550 pages.
The author discusses the shiftingThis book is a big bold project. Covering the history of this agency in this way might not be feasible for 550 pages.
The author discusses the shifting mission of the agency and the ongoing debate of spies vs. gadgets. He shows how the agency was not (always) rogue, since both Democratic and Republican presidents authorized some of its most controversial actions and lied about them.
Weiner shows how the CIA was founded to provide intelligence and analysis. Intelligence operations grew from dropping dissidents of unfriendly governments inside their borders (not at all successful) to actually toppling distrusted leaders (quite successful in the short term). Through its operations it effectively set major pieces of US foreign policy. Some of these operations were dictated by whims and biases of its leadership. Weiner portrays some of these leaders as high living alcoholics.
This agency has been costly in money and human life. Thousands have been lost in the wars the CIA started and in its intelligence failures. What would Iran be like without the CIA involvement, first in toppling Mossadeq and later strengthening the hard liners by selling them advanced weapons? The miscalculation on Russia is exemplary, had they read Hedrick Smith's The Russians, a best seller of the time, they could have predicted the USSR's ultimate implosion and saved billions in weaponry and the failed spy operations it was running. If the Fire Chief of your city made 1% of these mistakes, the Chief would be long gone.
The book has a number of shortcomings. It's a National Book Award winner, so I expected more. The story is told in a stream of vignettes. They aren't well tied together. Almost every episode (there may be 100 or so) deserves a book of its own. With so much to cover, everything is once over lightly. This is OK with high profile and well known events like the Bay of Pigs and Iran-Contra, but the less prominent episodes need more description and discussion.
Is it in the interest of space that rumors of CIA involvement in the Kennedy assassination(s) and in Iran's release of the hostages are not addressed, or does the author conclude there is nothing there? Similarly, Iraq's WMD mistake is shown as fully a CIA problem. There is no discussion of the intelligence being "fixed" around the policy by the administration.
While the book sprawls, the author does make his point. He sees the CIA as an agency that in the early days carved out a role beyond its assigned mission and has failed in both the mission and its enhanced mission. I'd be interested in a more cohesive history that includes the debate on the possibility of the success of such an agency in a democratic and open society. ...more
In movies spies have a debonair confidence that belies the risk. In real life, as told by the person called Reza, it is nerve wracking, grinding, compIn movies spies have a debonair confidence that belies the risk. In real life, as told by the person called Reza, it is nerve wracking, grinding, compromising, difficult work.
Through Reza's life we can get a picture of pre and post revolutionary Iran. Reza and his childhood friend Naser were "haves". Besides having free time and access to cars, Reza was able to study computer science in the US. Reza and Naser led primarily secular lives and their other friend, Kazem, was from a poor family, influenced by Islamic fundamentalism, and had to work while the other boys played. Naser was among the first to be tortured and killed. Kazem became a willing, and very naïve soldier for the revolution.
Reza shows the huge "bait and switch" of the Ayatollah Khomeini's early rhetoric and his rule. Iranian students in the US were inspired by his calls for freedom and for using oil revenues for electricity and basic services. As the revolutionary government became lethal, Kazem, a true believer, rose and with him his western educated computer knowledgeable childhood friend.
Reza tells how he sought out access to the CIA and how he obtained and communicated significant information. Almost as soon as the Khomeini's regime banned women's hair from public viewing, it began supporting terrorism around the world. (So much for spending the oil revenues for the public good.)
Over many years Reza, at great risk to his family and himself, worked with the CIA. He reported links to the Beirut Marine Barracks bombing along with names, weapons and troop movements, and terrorism plans. What did the US do with this information? It was hard to tell other than one instance of checking for weapons on flights to Saudi Arabia such that a major incident was avoided. I cannot imagine how Reza felt, after all he had risked, to learn that President Reagan sent envoys to Iran not to avenge the Beirut bombing, but to sell arms to the mullahs in order to arm the Contras in Nicaragua.
You see how the revolutionary government drained its opposition. Its initial round ups were for any of those who spotted the disconnect between the rhetoric and the action. Later, anyone who might stray from their strict interpretation of Islam could be shot. One of Reza's most emotional stories involved attending a stoning, which his "mentor" Kazem made a point of attending in order to see "justice" done.
Not only is this an important story to be told. It is a page turner. I read in 2 sittings because I was so involved and wanted to see the author get out of his dangerous situation. ...more
He earned medals in WWI and was in and around most of the hot spots of WWII. He met and dined with many of the leaders of his time. He was a ladies maHe earned medals in WWI and was in and around most of the hot spots of WWII. He met and dined with many of the leaders of his time. He was a ladies man who flew almost anywhere at the drop of a hat and littlerally ran into and through enemy fire. As a lawyer he represented Mae West and negotiated with Benito Mussilini. He founded and headed an agency that broke into embassies, ran brothels, printed counterfeit money, had an agent in Burma who beheaded those who crossed him and spied on Churchill. As Douglas Waller presents him, he clearly lived up to his nick name "Wild Bill".
Bill Donovan admired the operations of Britain's spy agency and on the cusp of WWII, Donovan felt the US needed one too. As a lawyer with international clients he had contacts that would be valuable to such an agency. A one time opponent of FDR, he convinced the President to set up a US spy agency on his own terms, and the result was the OSS, which Donovan ran according to his own judgment and whim.
Waller introduces the Donovan family, but they are appear most in the beginning and end of the book, much as they do in Donovan's life. More than half of the book recounts Donovan's 5 eventful years founding and heading the OSS and reads more like a history of the agency than an actual bio of Donovan.
Most government agencies have a chain of checks and balances be they the requirements of their funding or staffing. Not so for the agency set up according to Donovan's vision. The autonomous structure with Donovan at its head was almost a guarantee that the OSS would be rogue. Dononan could and did hire crooks and prostitutes, wiretap at will, wine and dine whomever he chose and plot assassinations and coups. The biggest constraint his new agency faced was continuous turf war. J. Edgar Hoover, just about any military general and even his own staff would and could send their grievances to the President or the press. None of this slowed Donovan down until the war's end and the new president when Donovan was not tapped to continue the OSS tradition.
Donovan considered himself a conservative, as did others around him. Perhaps this label means only anti-communist because there is little conservative about his life nor the (big) government agency he founded.
I did not know of Donovan's role in the Nuremburg trials (a highlight of the book) or of his ambassadorship to Thailand.
This book covering all the above and more is for those with an interest in espionage, WWII or Donovan, himself. If you are not already interested in any of these areas, the book will not be for you. ...more
This is not just a story of an unusual career choice, it's a portrait of a marriage. Bina Kiyonaga doesn't hold back, she relates her life and marriagThis is not just a story of an unusual career choice, it's a portrait of a marriage. Bina Kiyonaga doesn't hold back, she relates her life and marriage, warts and all.
As she notes, her husband Joe's life is a mystery, so he was perfect for this line of work. Supposedly he had a Japanese mother and father, but being over 6 feet tall, with a Eurasian aura, his actual parentage was an issue for him. Joe has more mysteries than Bina suggests. The poverty of his childhood on Molokai and Maui that she describes is belied by Joe's inheritance of three rental properties on Oahu (which his mother's tactic in re-assuming them was something to behold).
As Bina describes it, being a CIA wife is not easy. Husbands disappear for days or weeks without a word and can't be called. Wives must trust no one and keep all conversations guarded. They have to drop friendships that might threaten their husband's cover. Wives never see their husband's office. People can appear in their homes, which are often swept for bugs, without notice.
On top of the contraints that come with the career, Joe is not easy to live with. He can leave for days/weeks and neglect to leave any money (he controls all finances). They argue. He will not drive his pregnant cook to the hospital to have her baby. Joe's soft spot - who his father is - is never far away. He wants to control his children's growth through hormones so they will look more Japanese!
Joe is lucky to have Bina. She is a traditional wife, dedicated to the marriage and family. She is so traditional that she follows the Catholic Church's ban on birth control. She supports Joe's career all she can, although she is mostly in the dark as to what he is doing. She has a great sense of humor and adventure.
While the material is old (Joe died in 1977), it spans very active years for the CIA. While in this time the Agency did many things most Americans would never support, it seems like the people who did them, if they are like the Kiyonagas, wouldn't have either. This book is a fast, quick read and will hold your interest....more
Loading...
