By John Q. Hosedrinker 
Tim Weiner, author of a critical history of the CIA, now finds himself defending the organization due to former President Trump’s hostility toward the intelligence community. Weiner’s new book details the CIA’s failures, including its unpreparedness for Russia’s interference in the 2016 election, which he considers an act of political warfare that aided in electing Trump. He criticizes the appointments of “incompetent” Trump loyalists and the purge of experienced officers, resulting in ideological alignment with the president’s false views. Weiner fears that Trump’s actions, including undermining diversity and alienating allies, will leave the U.S. vulnerable to attack, highlighting the potential consequences of the administration’s approach to national security.
Read the original article here
CIA historian Tim Weiner’s assessment of the situation is stark, painting a picture of profound concern regarding the leadership choices during Trump’s tenure. The core issue, as Weiner sees it, is the elevation of “crackpots and fools” to positions of national security importance. This isn’t just a matter of differing opinions or policy disagreements; it’s a fundamental threat to the nation’s safety, in Weiner’s view. The implication is that these individuals, by their very nature, lack the competence, experience, or judgment necessary to effectively safeguard the country. The consequences of this are potentially devastating, leading to miscalculations, strategic blunders, and a general erosion of the institutions designed to protect the nation.
The problem, as it’s described, isn’t limited to a few isolated incidents. It’s systemic. The narrative suggests that the very fabric of national security is being undermined by the personnel choices being made. The criticism extends to the CIA, where Weiner points to the purging of experienced officers and the imposition of ideological purity tests, making the agency less effective. This isn’t just about replacing one set of people with another; it’s about fundamentally altering the character and capabilities of the intelligence community.
Weiner’s critique extends beyond mere incompetence, as it hints at potential conflicts of interest and a willingness to prioritize personal gain over national security. The implication is that the decisions are not necessarily driven by what is best for the country but by other considerations. This lack of objectivity and the prioritizing of personal or political loyalty over expertise creates a dangerous environment where critical decisions are made based on flawed information or misguided motivations.
Diversity within the CIA, which used to be a strength, is now being undermined. As Weiner points out, the removal of efforts to diversify the workforce is a “self-inflicted wound,” a deliberate act that weakens the agency’s ability to gather intelligence and understand the complexities of the world. This is not just a matter of political correctness, but a practical necessity. A diverse workforce is better equipped to operate in diverse environments, speak different languages, and understand different cultures. The consequences of disregarding these realities could lead to significant miscalculations and failures.
It’s easy to see the situation is a direct result of voters putting a man in the White House who promised to tear down the system. According to the data, he didn’t keep his promises. What should we expect? The constant demand for loyalty over competence seems to be a defining characteristic. The consequences are felt across the board. It creates a dangerous environment where critical decisions are made based on flawed information or misguided motivations. This is exacerbated by the fact that those in charge are often aligned with a leader whose worldview is based on falsehoods.
The broader implications of these decisions are concerning. The suggestion that these personnel are “in service to his Russian master” raises the specter of foreign interference and compromised national security. It paints a picture of a government riddled with disloyal individuals who are more concerned with serving the interests of a foreign power than the interests of their own country. This would mean a deliberate undermining of American institutions, with devastating consequences.
The responses to these issues have not been uniformly concerned. Some people have simply stated, “No shit, Sherlock.” Some believe this is precisely what the electorate wanted. Still others, looking past the consequences, seem to be looking for the downfall of the US government. And the reason for all this is that the electorate, the American people did it by voting for these people. The failure is ours.
Looking at the big picture, we can see how the framework of a “democracy” has been used to allow corruption. The idea is that the framework needs to be fixed to stop this. The constant rhetoric from the other side should be looked at in this light. A more cynical view of the world suggests that those in power are willing to allow some level of corruption, at the cost of the public, to preserve their power. In any case, the problem is not just that national security is at risk; it’s that the very foundation of American democracy is being eroded.