Maybe (much) spy work isn't quite the serious business the national security apparatus would have us believe?

I mean, it's obviously serious business to the people taking risks and doing the work on the ground, I'm talking about it actually being useful to the nation.

Totally agree. While they do get a few wins, I wonder what's the ROI when you take all the failures and waste of resources into account. My guesstimate is not much but like other useless government programs, it hires a lot of people so nobody dares questioning it.

> Totally agree. While they do get a few wins, I wonder what's the ROI when you take all the failures and waste of resources into account.

Very far into positive territory, I'd imagine. Most day-to-day intelligence work probably doesn't have much effect, but every once in awhile they probably get a big win that's so massive that it justifies all the effort.

I have an working theory that as an organization the CIA thinks it can 'win' via various cunning skulduggery. But the world doesn't really work that way.

Like this, France in 1700 wasn't powerful because it's king and ministers were geniuses, it's military competent. It was powerful because it's agriculture could support 20 million peasants.

>Maybe (much) spy work isn't quite the serious business the national security apparatus would have us believe?

Well,... the saying is "Allen Dulles was much of a clown first, politician second, and serviceman the third."

Regarding US foreign intel service: when something the size and budget of CIA does recon, something useful will come out of it regardless of how lame is their tradecraft.

Very similar stories happen with Russians too, like 300 spies outed recently because of cars registered to gru headquarters.

My experience in the military was: Momentum, or as we called it in the Army “violence of action”. We may make a mess of everything we (the government) touch but we’re big and we still move really fast (comparatively). I saw first hand how many nations militaries (I assume their intelligence services are similar) are way more fucked up and incapable of moving to action. It’s not that we’re so good, it’s just that we have a, relative, bias for action. In battle at least, momentum makes up for a lot, including terrible plans.

“Go down that road until you get blown up, then report back” I’ve read that attributed to Patton, but haven’t found a source.

That sounds like my entire command in Iraq.

Like in warmaking, success goes to whoever fails to make a dramatic mistake at a crucial moment.

The answer’s pretty simple. For the most part, no matter what their field, most people aren’t outstanding at their jobs. They do enough to get by but they’re not exceptional.

This is true throughout the world. America has average spies and Russia has average people trying to catch them.

what do you thinks harder? Getting a job as a CIA analyst or senior FAANG Developer?

Did you mean to reply to someone else?

My comment was that no matter the job, most people are average at the work they do, not exceptional. Not anything about difficulty in getting those jobs.

I valued your comment so wanted your input on an orthogonal question

What do you think is harder, being a senior engineer or breathing underwater?

Whoops, guess you're not as good as a fish.

I agree that each position may require different attitudes but I think it’s interesting to think how this situation might have been avoided if more people who were digitally Inclinded (fang applicants ) equally were applying to these positions

I think senior FAANG Developer.

Me too, but I think the public perception is that a cia analyst is a much more difficult job

I look at it more if you're smart enough to do either, which one pays way more, has better perks, doesn't require full lifestyle polygraph with a 10 year background investigation, or drug testing?

There wasn't too much technology that allowed you to blow off your entire CIA agency leg that long ago. Someone's inevitably going to screw up if you put this much valuable intel into a single system where the users and even the operators don't fully understand it. Technology can definitely amplify the damage from incompetence.