Prior to 1975 CIA field operatives were permitted to pretend to be journalists for obscure magazines. It was useful, it got access, it was a tool. Like pretending to be a salesman or field engineer. This is an SOP of EVERY other iintelligence service in the WORLD, except for our "pure as the snow by law" CIA.
Now, our talking heads condemn the CIA, which must spy with a hand tied. For pete's sake, they are not allowed to associate with nasty people any more! Then the media says "why didn't the CIA know what was going on in the terrorist groups?"
And they see no irony.
As far as the journalists who may have info on OBL but will not pass it on to the CIA, can you imagine a reporter stiffing the FBI about Japanese troop movements in 1942?
"IT'S A WAR!! GET USED TO IT!!"
Ollie North. On "Hannity & Colmes". Last night.
As far as the journalists who may have info on OBL but will not pass it on to the CIA, can you imagine a reporter stiffing the FBI about Japanese troop movements in 1942?
No I can't. I also can't imagine a friendly reporter in 1942 either in Japanese territory or expecting to be under Japanese jurisdiction any time soon. Our 1942 man was in a position to help both himself and his country without putting himself or any friendlies -- military or civilian -- at risk.
I understand and applaud your focus on victory, but surely you can appreciate the ethic that strives to protect legitimately non-combattant civilians as much as possible -- including by executing out-of-uniform guerillas and spies. On a per capita basis, Vietnam was surely a far dirtier war than WWII, largely because the Viet Cong were hiding among the peasants. I'm told American soldiers sometimes found themselves doing some mighty unpleasant things, convinced that they had no choice. Do we really want to encourage more of the same now?