The Orion Team. discussion

Recently, a very nice article has popped up and it got me thinking.
This group focuses primarily on contemporary spy fiction, but we haven't really delved deep.
http://www.politico.com/magazine/stor...

Okay. Spying, is basically the gathering of useful information that can be utilized by either a state, individual or organization of some sort.

It's timeless, a great tool in geopolitics and for those who have qualms and say "that's not fair or wrong", the intelligence community will say, "deal with it", and drop the proverbial microphone on your head if you're unlucky.

In the espionage business, there's two sides, like a yin and yang.

The first side is the intelligence gathering/analysis side, what spying is usually supposed to be. Lying, sweet talking and bullying some poor shumck in say, St Petersburg to give you the operating details to the current "Dead Hand" nuclear system.

The second side, is the Paramilitary side. This is the kiss kiss, bang bang area of the business and is the primary fodder for most spy thrillers. Units like the Special Activities Division, the DGSE Action Service, the SVR Zaslon team or the Mossad Kidon killers, going around, shooting and poisoning enemies of the state in a variety of locations, whether they be godforsaken valleys in Afghanistan or the finest Sushi Bar in London.

Over the course of the past decade, it is safe to say, the paramilitary side of the spying game has gained dominance. It was only natural considering one needs an asymmetric solution to deal with the asymmetric threat of psychotic Islamofacists who like Mao Zedong's fish in the sea, can't be wiped out with a conventional military.

As Vince Flynn said in the dedication of his third book, "a third option" is sometimes necessary for the honorable men to do their duty of defending their countries. And Paramilitary officers/assassins are the third option, that hidden blade you ram through a hydra's throat.

However, with the rise of great power issues, one needs to strike a balance. One needs the HUMINT capability to get scraps of intelligence while at the same time, possessing a Tier One Baseball bat to swat extremists and their ilk.

Too much emphasis on one side, and you'll have an intelligence service that could see and not fight back, or fight back and be short sighted.

Which brings me to something I was discussing with a group member recently.

America's intelligence apparatus. Half the time it's portrayed as the Sergeant Schultz brigade, a bunch of buffoons who wouldn't be able to sweet talk the schedule of a Saudi terrorist sponsor out of his wife. The other time, they're portrayed as the ultra competent men in black who could make you "disappear" with the snap of fingers and a suppressed gunshot.

The truth, as usual is somewhere in between.

Strengths and weaknesses. The fact Langley is still standing means the "Company Men" did at least do some things right......

But, since the last decade, a debate seems to have broken out as the war on terror went on, about the American Intelligence Community and its flaws and advantages. I'll divide things into three schools of thought.

1) First one is the Dewey Clarridge school. US intelligence is too top heavy on the management side and risk adverse. One needs more paramilitary operations and proactive intelligence gathering with all the rules and regulations doused in gasoline and set on fire with napalm.

I refer to Mr Duane Clarridge, one of old guard of the CIA who came around to this view. Clarridge who was widely admired visionary and was the founder of the CIA counter - terrorism center , eventually came to despise what he saw as a bunch of knee knocking cowards crucifying the company and preventing it from doing its job.

Hence, he soon created one of the first modern Private Intelligence Services, designated Eclipse, to do the things the CIA wouldn't do. Brad Thor's Carlton Group and Reed Carlton are basically Duane Clarridge and his firm as spy thriller characters. Mr Thor was very influenced by Clarridge.

2) The second argument. Everything is fine, the CIA doesn't need changing and those who believe in the Clarridge argument are a bunch of cowboys who need to either kicked out of Langley or exiled to a torturous desk job to drive them insane and to an early retirement.

This would be wholeheartedly believed by the administrative side of Langley. Some of it would be motivated by caution while others would believe it due to protect themselves from being rendered irrelevant by any sudden changes.

3) Argument 3, the Harmony School. These people would say the CIA has its strengths contrary to its critics, but also its weaknesses and there's the possibility one can make gradual improvements within the system and enhance its effectiveness over time. School 3 would also not mind working with the private intelligence firms when it counts unlike school 2 which would consider them damaged goods.

Okay, Reason why I'm rambling like this.

I find that morality in spy fiction along with tone goes in cycles. It starts at black and white morality and an optimistic "save the day" tone. Then it gradually gets darker, more cynical and reality sets in.

For a simple example, Vince Flynn and Brad Thor took spy fiction by storm and influenced the direction much of the genre took (before the advent of indie fiction).

Over the course of their stories, they started at one point and then gradually, diverged from that point of origin.

Samuel wrote: "











I find that morality in ..."

And I've found that the view of intelligence services is cyclical constantly in fiction. Either they're obstructive organizations that need to be done away with for the chosen few to hold the barbarians away from the gates.




They're perfect and infallible and anyone who thinks something is wrong with them should be laughed out of the room


Or, they're flawed, but ultimately have enough strengths to allow them to function to a satisfactory degree while said flaws can be ironed out.

I guess, over a particular generation of writers, views mature over time on things and issues.

Reason why I wrote this rambling assessment/post, is because I had mentioned it to someone in this group. They may or may not make use of it in something that might come out this year.

About the CIA, I would say that, at first (1947 to 1970s), it behaved like the Dewey Clarridge School, while priding itself (wrongly) about its power and reach. Tjhen, in the 1980s, reality set in and it started to turn to the Harmony School, in order to correct its worse defects. Following the traumatic events of 9/11, the CIA then turned back to the Dewey Clarridge School, opening black prison sites worldwide and using routinely torture, all with the benediction of President Bush and his minions (especially VP Cheney). Next, starting in 2008 under President Obama, the political brakes were applied to the CIA and it started returning to the Harmony School. Now, with President Trump dissing and demeaning constantly the various American intelligence and security services, the CIA is adopting a defensive stance towards its political masters, with its cadres apparently becoming divided about what school of thought/action to adopt. In that, the wild and unpredictable behavior of President Trump is not making things easier for the CIA.

Michel wrote: "About the CIA, I would say that, at first (1947 to 1970s), it behaved like the Dewey Clarridge School, while priding itself (wrongly) about its power and reach. Tjhen, in the 1980s, reality set in ..."

Agreed.

Michel wrote: "About the CIA, I would say that, at first (1947 to 1970s), it behaved like the Dewey Clarridge School, while priding itself (wrongly) about its power and reach. Tjhen, in the 1980s, reality set in ..."

So perhaps as of now, they're in the 2nd approach. Nothing is wrong and the political masters are barking up the wrong tree with their threats.....