sources and methods
The u.$. intelligence people pretty systematically refuse to talk about sources and methods; so the exposure of that famous operative by King George the Second was pretty ratty, the sort of backstab which is why MIMers rightly shy away from spooks and other things that bump in the knight.
Since I'm not u.$. intel I guess I'm not bound by those little niceties, huh.
However, because I like it when people don't die I think I will be respectful of the sources rule and judicious about the meth odds rule.
When MIM hopes for decency from the CIA that's just naive. They're rockefeller internationalists, they play hardball for keeps. They don't like it when people die either but, eggs and omlets.
I did ask for some clear paramaters and got them, thank you. Let's just go with the presumption that I in fact due know lots of nifty methods at the CS level and let me develop my network without any interference and an open source attitude toward surveillance. My own life is an open book and I'm fine with that, nothing to hide here, sorry for wasting anyone's time on that score.
Basically the U.$. sucks at "nation building": it sucks at building stable foreign institutions. And the reason is, well, golly, gotta explain some methods.
When the CIA thinks "win-win" they don't think like state department, a scenario where all parties to negotiation walk away satisfied. That's not the skull and bones way. Instead they think "no matter what happens, we win, it's just a question whether the payout is bigger or smaller". They generate chips-fall-where-they-may outcomes but so what, they Are the house.
So for example, Lebanon. Frankly, the CIA doesn't care if the i$raelis massacre and kill a lot of Lebanese, even christian Lebanese, hell, even if they have a french passport, that's how much they just don't care. A war scenario is still a win, just a lesser win. It's not their Preference: but it's still a win for the CIA/U$A.
But they would Prefer a peaceful resolution, because that's an even bigger win for the company. That doesn't mean they have the technical competence to attain the attainable outcome, which is why they wind up looking to MIM for protips. It's kind of sick, but it's symbiosis. Your analysts suck. Your operatives might be good at tactics but good tactics with no strategy is still fail.
Given the facts, let's agree on the sources rule in exchange for the bigger win. I$rael doesn't invade, and no sources are revealed. Ever? Ever. It's a black box you know? Information goes in, information goes out, but the inner working while carefully scrutinized by Alice, Bob and oh god Charley are pretty opaque. After all, those sources have Family, and are people, too. And a dead resource is pretty much useless.
The green light on position papers is great. The question is though how are stable institutions to be built?
Because the U.$. Was the only game in town the CIA could bank on their win-big-or-win-not-so-big tactics. That's no longer the case and will be increasingly evidently no longer the case.
Building rockefeller internationalist institutions is in the imperialists long term interests. Governing by mafia worked, but will no longer work. That's the take home message.
So: while the rockefeller internationalists get their shit together they will get no source betrayals in exchange for a working peace between i$rael and lebanon. They will also get position papers outlining workable scenarios, and diplomatic hints about building institutions so as to transition out of unipolar government by mafia and into multipolar bourgeois internationalism. We're just that much against death.
A final note: just like I've been asked to be diplomatic about institution building I also ask that the issue of institution building be moved from "are you joking? fuck them. just get the oil" to "we want them to have stable institutions which we helped them to shape". You actually can worry less about them being offended by your imposing institutions on them which actually function. People don't mind being hand led by those whom they like or admire. This is why shitting all over your wonderful human rights record cost you, well, the house.
Since I'm not u.$. intel I guess I'm not bound by those little niceties, huh.
However, because I like it when people don't die I think I will be respectful of the sources rule and judicious about the meth odds rule.
When MIM hopes for decency from the CIA that's just naive. They're rockefeller internationalists, they play hardball for keeps. They don't like it when people die either but, eggs and omlets.
I did ask for some clear paramaters and got them, thank you. Let's just go with the presumption that I in fact due know lots of nifty methods at the CS level and let me develop my network without any interference and an open source attitude toward surveillance. My own life is an open book and I'm fine with that, nothing to hide here, sorry for wasting anyone's time on that score.
Basically the U.$. sucks at "nation building": it sucks at building stable foreign institutions. And the reason is, well, golly, gotta explain some methods.
When the CIA thinks "win-win" they don't think like state department, a scenario where all parties to negotiation walk away satisfied. That's not the skull and bones way. Instead they think "no matter what happens, we win, it's just a question whether the payout is bigger or smaller". They generate chips-fall-where-they-may outcomes but so what, they Are the house.
So for example, Lebanon. Frankly, the CIA doesn't care if the i$raelis massacre and kill a lot of Lebanese, even christian Lebanese, hell, even if they have a french passport, that's how much they just don't care. A war scenario is still a win, just a lesser win. It's not their Preference: but it's still a win for the CIA/U$A.
But they would Prefer a peaceful resolution, because that's an even bigger win for the company. That doesn't mean they have the technical competence to attain the attainable outcome, which is why they wind up looking to MIM for protips. It's kind of sick, but it's symbiosis. Your analysts suck. Your operatives might be good at tactics but good tactics with no strategy is still fail.
Given the facts, let's agree on the sources rule in exchange for the bigger win. I$rael doesn't invade, and no sources are revealed. Ever? Ever. It's a black box you know? Information goes in, information goes out, but the inner working while carefully scrutinized by Alice, Bob and oh god Charley are pretty opaque. After all, those sources have Family, and are people, too. And a dead resource is pretty much useless.
The green light on position papers is great. The question is though how are stable institutions to be built?
Because the U.$. Was the only game in town the CIA could bank on their win-big-or-win-not-so-big tactics. That's no longer the case and will be increasingly evidently no longer the case.
Building rockefeller internationalist institutions is in the imperialists long term interests. Governing by mafia worked, but will no longer work. That's the take home message.
So: while the rockefeller internationalists get their shit together they will get no source betrayals in exchange for a working peace between i$rael and lebanon. They will also get position papers outlining workable scenarios, and diplomatic hints about building institutions so as to transition out of unipolar government by mafia and into multipolar bourgeois internationalism. We're just that much against death.
A final note: just like I've been asked to be diplomatic about institution building I also ask that the issue of institution building be moved from "are you joking? fuck them. just get the oil" to "we want them to have stable institutions which we helped them to shape". You actually can worry less about them being offended by your imposing institutions on them which actually function. People don't mind being hand led by those whom they like or admire. This is why shitting all over your wonderful human rights record cost you, well, the house.
posted by Maoist Internationalist Movement at 12:36 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home