|
|
|||
|
|||
|
|
The New York Times on 'Open-Source Spying' Lev Navrozov In September 1978, the "Commentary" magazine published my article about the CIA, which was reprinted or outlined by more than 500 periodicals in the West. I was a member of the advisory board of the East Side Conservative Club, and Tom Bolan (its charming chairman) introduced me and my "Commentary" article in glowing terms to William Safire, invited to speak at the Club's dinner. From Safire's reaction, I concluded that either The New York Times would join those periodicals that had printed the article or that he would discuss it in his column. Neither happened, and here the online New York Times Magazine (www.nytimes.com/pages/magazine) posted 28 years later (on Dec. 3, 2006) an article entitled "Open-Source Spying," authored by Clive Thompson, with 17 pages in a 14-point type printout. The success of my "Commentary" article was based on laughter. I argued that the CIA simply did not exist. There was a building in Langley, Va., in which officials copied Soviet periodicals, and their copy work was passed as espionage data to Congress, government, and whomever wished to see the CIA's testimony in Congress. I studied these "espionage data" and ridiculed the CIA. What was so tragicomic about the CIA?
Story Continues Below
Sun Tsu, an ancient Chinese strategist, said that strategy is based on deception. After 1949, when the Soviet nuclear bomb was ready, Stalin realized that only post-nuclear super weapons would enable him to defeat the West (just as U.S. bombs made Japan surrender unconditionally in 1945). Stalin needed time to develop post-nuclear super weapons. Hence the Soviet propaganda, which had originally been based on the "world class war," suddenly burst into roulades of peace, with Stalin called "the world's foremost peace standard-bearer." The CIA was to find out what super weapons were being developed in Soviet Russia and how far their development had advanced. Instead, the CIA refused to recognize the fact of Soviet development of super weapons even after President Reagan met with me and announced publicly my "input" about this development. This is why the Soviet peace propaganda, passed by the CIA for its intelligence data, was especially laughable — and dangerous! In the United States, espionage is as feasible as it was a hundred years ago in any constitutional country. A spy comes into the United States as one of 12 or 20 million illegal aliens. He rents his domicile where he can meet (in a local pub, for example) those engaged in secret work nearby. The rest follows.
In Soviet Russia, an illegal alien was by definition a spy to be shot. Even alive, he would not be able to rent or buy any dwelling, since to do so, he had to obtain the "residential permit" from the police, who would ask him for his "internal passport," a copy of which, complete with the stamp, showing his "place of residence" and "his place of work," was kept by the police. Right from its establishment, Soviet Russia was surrounded — no, not by a fence or a wall, but by a military line of fortifications. The CIA sent over that line of fortifications an aircraft that dropped as a spy a former Russian who had deserted to the Nazis during World War II. But the Soviet KGB set up its checkpoints on the ground all along the route of the aircraft, and the "illegal alien" was caught and shot. At that time, I was right there in Moldavia, on my way to Moscow. I was also arrested as a possible spy dropped from that aircraft. The KGB called Moscow, but all my data about myself (including my father being a member of the Union of Soviet Writers, my mother a professor of neurology, and myself being a graduate of the Moscow Institute of Foreign Languages) proved to be correct, whereupon I was released to go to Moscow. The New York Times Dec. 3, 2006 article "Open-Source Spying" means by "spying" not the attempts to expose in a foreign country deceptions as part of its geostrategy, but the discussions of officials whom The New York Times article calls "spies" even if they have never left their armchairs during their lifelong "espionage." Dale Meyerrose, a retired Air Force official, told the author of the New York Times article (Page 4): "The 16 intelligence organizations of the U.S. are without peer. They are the best in the world." Why then was the war in Iraq, a small Third-World country, launched under the false pretext supplied by the world's best 16 "intelligence organizations," with the help of (the world's second best?) British Intelligence Service, and why is this war being lost after almost four years of fighting? But forget that small Third-World country! Geostrategically: Why did the world's best 16 "intelligence organizations" ignore the advent of the epoch of post-nuclear super weapons until 1992, when Yeltsin opened their Soviet development for international inspection? According to The New York Times article, the trouble is that though the world's best, the 16 U.S. "intelligence organizations" are not sufficiently interlinked to have "open-source spying"; that is, joint armchair discussions of, for example, "how the Iraqi insurgency will evolve" (Page 11). True (Page 12), "the Chinese" [this is the only case when the reference to China is made in the article] may "listen in." Says Meyerrose: "And sure they could. But we weren't going to be discussing state secrets. And the benefits of openness [openness without state secrets] outweigh the risks [let us risk the Chinese interception of the discussion!]." The article describes two prototypes for this wonderful armchair "open-source spying": those blogs and Wikipedia to which everyone can contribute opinions publicly. The "spying" must be a blog or a "Wiki." Says "an open-source spying" theorist (Page 13): "The time is past for analysts to act like monastic scholars in a cave someplace laboring for weeks or months in isolation to produce a report." In my 1978 article, I ridiculed the CIA. In The New York Times article, the CIA looks even more ridiculous. But The New York Times and Clive Thompson are dead serious about the "open-source spying." Well, in the 1920s and the 1930s Walter Duranty, the Moscow correspondent of The New York Times, glorified Stalin and his "socialism." Can a newspaper be more serious than that?
* * *
You can e-mail me at navlev@cloud9.net.
Editor's note:
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
Print Page 
Forward Page 
|
| All Rights Reserved © 2008 NewsMax.Com |