Page added on November 30, 2014
Years ago, at an international conference on peak oil, I met Michael Ruppert, who later became known for his investigations of the 9/11 attacks. He told me that in the audience, that day, there were a few CIA agents whom he personally knew.
I had no way to check Ruppert’s statement, but, on the whole, it made sense to me. The CIA, after all, is an “intelligence” agency and their main purpose is to collect data. So, the fact that some CIA people were attending a meeting on peak oil didn’t mean that it was because they thought we were dangerous subversives. They were simply doing their job: collecting data about peak oil; a dangerous economic and political problem (or maybe both things….. Who knows?)
Over the years, I have occasionally wondered about what the Central Intelligence Agency may know about peak oil. They surely have lots of data on the world of oil, including data that for us – common citizens – are not available. In principle, they could do a much better job than the ragtag group of geologists and physicists forming the Association for the Study of Peak Oil (ASPO). The same is true for climate change; another dangerous worldwide problem. And they don’t just have knowledge, they have power. So, could they be acting in some way on these problems?
Alas, every time I asked myself this question, I came to the conclusion that – no – there is no such a thing as a hidden force understanding and acting on the global problems of oil depletion and climate change. No matter what mysterious powers we attribute to the CIA – or to any other of the many shady government agencies charged with “intelligence” collection – my impression is that we deal with an oxymoron. There is no trace of intelligence in their actions – at least in the sense of tackling global serious and long term problems.
My impression is that the problem is that we simply don’t know how to manage very large organizations, and that all large organizations tend to flounder in a mess of bureaucracy, individual interests, compartimentalization, power games, infighting and more. In the case of the CIA, these problems are compounded by the fact that everything is shrouded in secrecy. Recently, I stumbled on an article which describes the CIA mode of operation; seemingly from first hand experience. I have no way to check whether the person who uses the nickname of “Shellback” is reliable. However, on the whole, his interpretation fits well with my recent experience with the European Parliament, another huge, bureaucratic, and fragmented organization which seems to be unable to process information in any rational way. And that spells big trouble when we deal with global problems such as peak oil and climate change.
Below, you can find Shellback’s article from “The Russian Insider” – Let me repeat that I have no way to tell how reliable Shellback’s statements are and the fact that I am reproducing this article doesn’t mean that I agree with what Shellback says. I am just passing it to readers as as something that may be interesting to understand how large organizations function.
__________________________________________________________________
The politics people were completely obsessed with personalities. I will never forget the leader of their delegation in one of our meetings proudly handing out a piece of paper with the people around the Boss divided into several groups, each with a neat name: his Tribe, Security organisations, the previous Boss’s relicts I think they were. Imagine what that had cost the American taxpayer, the hours of discussion as to whether the Minister of Whatever was more of a Tribe than a Relict. I asked the CIA guy what was the point? What had we learned? How did this help us understand or predict? Of course it was all rubbish, the truth was that the Boss had put together a team; it was what that team did that was important, not from where he’d plucked its members. In another case we were all invited to make predictions about the future of a country. The CIA’s entry was a point series – if this guy becomes Boss, then this; if that guy gets in, then that; if somebody else, then something else. As it turned out, the new Boss wasn’t even one of the people on their list. But note their assumption that everything depended on who the new Boss would be. This obsession with personalities seems to be a built-in characteristic of American thinking for some reason and you see it in the political leadership, the media and intelligence all the time. Milosevic is the problem, Saddam Hussein is the problem, Ahmadinejad, Qaddafi, Assad, bin Laden, Putin. If we can only get this guy out, all will be well. No it won’t, all the objective local conditions that carried him to the top will elevate somebody similar. It’s not a person, it’s a whole country. But the Americans never learn, they force the Bad Guy out and they get either total chaos or a new Bad Guy who turns out to be rather like the old Bad Guy.
A third characteristic was illustrated by a presentation from the Defense Intelligence Agency. The author proudly presented a chart of combat missions by a certain country’s air force. The air force was said to be decaying with poorly maintained aircraft and untrained pilots. And yet his data showed numerous sorties in mountains in bad weather and no crashes. The obvious deduction was that the air force was in much better shape than we thought it was. But the author was so impressed with the data itself that this escaped him. And an impressive collection effort it would have been too, one that few intelligence structures could have carried out: that little chart had cost a great deal of money and involved some impressive and expensive technology. But I suspect that they are so often impressed by the collection technology that they forget why they are collecting it.
I mentioned these characteristics to a neighbour who had also had a lot of dealings with US intelligence and security structures. She agreed with my three and added a fourth: you never meet the same people twice. Indeed, I don’t recall ever meeting the same person twice either (and at her level and the nature of what she was doing – common security issues – the constant changing of the team would have had a much greater consequence). I don’t know how many people work in the US intelligence and security megalopolis but it surely is in the hundreds of thousands if not a million or two. A lot of turnover, cross-postings, promotions and so on. So maybe it’s not surprising that the teams do change quite a bit from year to year. Which raises the question, of course, of how much time on the job the average analyst has.
I passed this to a former colleague who has had much more experience with the CIA than I and he added yet another problem: It’s known in the military as SOPO – senior officer present’s opinion. He told me that in numerous private conversations CIA analysts had complained to him that their assessments were frequently sent back to them to be re-written to fit the conclusions the higher-ups had already come to. And that, of course, is fatal because it creates a closed loop in which you only hear what you already believe and worse, think it’s confirmed by the intelligence. I am always amused how much people are impressed by that phrase “confirmed by the intelligence”. If they only knew.
The purpose of intelligence is to minimise surprise and you can’t expect to do that if you compartmentalise things, obsess about personalities, get carried away by the collection mechanics, change your personnel all the time and confirm what you want to believe.
I’m not going to say, by the way, that my group got it all right: in this business 50% is a pretty good score and too many analyses fall back on the “maybe this, maybe that, time will tell” school of waffle. But we did try to look at the whole picture, regarded individuals as important but embedded in a context, didn’t have a lot of collection technology and therefore went more for what is now pompously called OSINT (open source intelligence) and didn’t do operations at all. And, thanks to one former boss who was still setting the style in my time, we were encouraged to stick our necks out. But we – and all other intelligence organisations – do suffer to some degree from SOPO.
Even without the bosses demanding the “correct” answer, getting it right is very difficult – imagine trying to solve a jigsaw puzzle when you don’t know how big it is, what the actual picture is and have a random selection of pieces some of which may be from another puzzle altogether. I used to amuse myself by asking old intelligence guys when in peacetime in the Twentieth Century had the intelligence guys got it right and convinced the politicians (not much point in the first if you can’t do the second). Personally, I can only think of Richard Sorge. Intelligence is much easier in wartime, by the way, because then you have a very good idea of what the picture is and how big the puzzle is.
Which, come to think of it, seems to be another defect of American intelligence – if you convinced that Russia is a permanent enemy, then everything it does will be interpreted either as an openly hostile act or hostile in some cunning, sneaky, back-handed, barely detectable way.
So, in my experience, the US intelligence structure has made a difficult job almost impossible with these self-imposed handicaps.
6 Comments on "Peak Oil: does the CIA know?"
theedrich on Mon, 1st Dec 2014 4:36 am
Given the way our gov has been careening around from one crisis to the next under a POTUS focussed mainly on diverting the masses with the race card, it is difficult to imagine the CIA accomplishing anything of value, no matter the competence of its members.
marko on Mon, 1st Dec 2014 5:34 am
True. Excellent article
Dredd on Mon, 1st Dec 2014 8:12 am
The structure of government this fellow writes around is primarily a construct of imagination:
“THE conscious and intelligent manipulation of the organized habits and opinions of the masses is an important element in democratic society. Those who manipulate this unseen mechanism of society constitute an invisible government which is the true ruling power of our country. We are governed, our minds are molded, our tastes formed, our ideas suggested, largely by men we have never heard of. This is a logical result of the way in which our democratic society is organized. Vast numbers of human beings must cooperate in this manner if they are to live together as a smoothly functioning society.
Our invisible governors are, in many cases, unaware of the identity of their fellow members in the inner cabinet.
They govern us by their qualities of natural leadership, their ability to supply needed ideas and by their key position in the social structure. Whatever attitude one chooses to take toward this condition, it remains a fact that in almost every act of our daily lives, whether in the sphere of politics or business, in our social conduct or our ethical thinking, we are dominated by the relatively small number of persons — a trifling fraction of our hundred and twenty [now 320] million — who understand the mental processes and social patterns of the masses. It is they who pull the wires which control the public mind, who harness old social forces and contrive new ways to bind and guide the world.
…
It is the purpose of this book to explain the structure of the mechanism which controls the public mind, and to tell how it is manipulated by the special pleader who seeks to create public acceptance for a particular idea or commodity. It will attempt at the same time to find the due place in the modern democratic scheme for this new propaganda and to suggest its gradually evolving code of ethics and practice.”
(from “Propaganda”, by Edward L. Bernays).
It has oft been said of Bernays that if you do not know about him, you cannot understand U.S. history.
Northwest Resident on Mon, 1st Dec 2014 12:18 pm
Anybody who believes that the U.S. Military, CIA, NSA and top level federal officials are not aware of Peak Oil and are not planning for the inevitable fallout of Peak Oil and economically related issues needs to take a step back and have another long look.
Just because they appear to be in disarray to some observers doesn’t mean anything. During World War II many nations and industries pulled together under central command to combat a perceived common enemy. Economic collapse is today’s perceived common enemy and it is deadly and imminent enough to force cooperation between all those who feel threatened by it.
They ARE preparing:
Directive No. 3025.18, “Defense Support of Civil Authorities,” on Dec. 29, 2010
http://dtic.mil/whs/directives/corres/pdf/302518p.pdf
There is NO DOUBT but that the U.S. Military is preparing for massive civil unrest (riot, mayhem, etc…) on U.S. soil.
As far back as 2010, in the U.S. Military Joint Operational Environment, where top military strategists describe future security threats, there is discussion on the coming oil crises and discussion related to the anticipated domestic security threats.
http://www.fas.org/man/eprint/joe2010.pdf
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/201 … /?page=all
Northwest Resident on Mon, 1st Dec 2014 1:11 pm
Civilian authorities don’t have a clue about Peak Oil or the dire straights that BAU finds itself in. Sure….
Obama Planning To Increase Funding For The Militarization Of America’s Police Force
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2014-12-01/obama-planning-increase-funding-militarization-americas-police-force
Apneaman on Mon, 1st Dec 2014 1:26 pm
They all know, just like they know about unstoppable climate change. They have known for a long time. Information is one of the privileges of power. What are they going to do? Shut it all down and hope the other guy does the same. It’s last man standing. The deniers and conspiracy freaks are useful tools to help distract an pacify the sheep.
Complete English translation of German military analysis of peak oil now available
http://www.resilience.org/stories/2011-08-30/complete-english-translation-german-military-analysis-peak-oil-now-available