
The Mission by Tim Weiner review
In The Mission, Tim Weiner, whose reporting on the CIA in the New York Times was always essential reading, and whose subsequent books on the US intelligence community have a place on the shelves of anyone interested in international affairs, provides a variety of answers to this essential question. As he showed nearly 20 years ago in Legacy of Ashes, his history of the CIA from its founding in 1947 to the end of the 20th century, the agency's position by the end of the 90s was pretty desperate. It was starved of cash and bleeding talent. A high-flyer who had been station chief in Bucharest was revealed to be working for the Russians, handing them the names of large numbers of agents and employees. But the new US administration that came in at the start of 2001 wasn't too worried. In March that year, Donald Rumsfeld, the defence secretary, told the joint chiefs of staff: 'For the first time in decades, the country faces no strategic challenge.' Six months later came 9/11. The CIA had tried to convince the feckless George W Bush about the looming threat of Islamic ultra-fundamentalism, but no one in the administration listened. The agency was regarded as broken.
People in British intelligence are often snarky about the CIA, as poor relations tend to be. Nevertheless, some of the private criticisms made by SIS – better known as MI6 – are well observed. (Weiner's sources inside and around the CIA are impressive and absolutely impeccable, yet he seems to have no great interest in other western intelligence agencies; apart from a few scattered references to SIS and GCHQ in The Mission, only Dutch intelligence gets much of a mention.) SIS has tended to believe that a fault line of naivety runs through the CIA: witness the way that Pakistan's Inter-Services Intelligence led the agency by the nose in Afghanistan, persuading it to lavish funds on anti-western warlords whom the ISI supported for its own political purposes. The CIA's eyes were only finally opened when, by good old-fashioned detective work, its agents discovered that Osama bin Laden was living alongside Pakistani top military brass in Abbottabad.
But there's a more fundamental criticism that SIS and other intelligence aficionados level at the CIA: that it has never been allowed to be just an intelligence-gathering agency. US presidents from Truman onwards also wanted it to be a secret army, a point Weiner makes again and again.
Long before the shameful Iran-Contra affair in the 1980s, when Reagan's officials sold weapons to Iran then funded the CIA's illegal guerrilla war in Nicaragua with the proceeds, presidents used the agency for their shady schemes despite any ethical qualms its operatives, and sometimes its topmost officers, might have had. The CIA accepted Bush's edict, based on the highly questionable advice he received from the relatively junior White House lawyer John Yoo, that waterboarding, lengthy sleep deprivation and hanging prisoners by their arms for hours on end did not constitute torture. Perhaps, as a government agency, it had no real alternative, but its employees certainly obeyed, sometimes enthusiastically and even sadistically. Weiner is clear in his condemnation of this, but inclined to give the CIA the benefit of the doubt: 'The CIA, with rare exceptions, was not a rogue elephant. When people were trampled, it wasn't the elephant's fault. It was the fault of the mahout – the elephant driver. And the mahout was the president of the United States.'
Well, perhaps. But it's hard to find excuses for Gina Haspel, for instance, who attended and oversaw one of the agency's black-site prisons before rising to become the first female director of the CIA.
Weiner's sources, which are excellent, seem not to have included Haspel herself. But they do encompass several senior CIA figures from the period under discussion. These people opened up to him, and as a result the book contains many essential new details. Weiner's account of Donald Trump's links to Vladimir Putin in 2016 is clearly based on information from inside the agency, and it leads him to assert openly that Trump was Putin's polezny idiot – his useful idiot. There are all sorts of other important and fascinating revelations in The Mission, but it's the book of a journalist at the top of his game, not an academic. Some of it is written in white-hot anger at the thought of what Trump is doing to the US, and to the CIA in particular. Weiner is clearly channelling CIA opinion when he writes scathingly about the ludicrous John L Ratcliffe, who was given the job of director by Trump. Ratcliffe unhesitatingly complied with Trump's extraordinary demand that the CIA should send the White House the first names and initials of every recent CIA recruit by non-secure email.
There is little doubt that Trump has damaged the CIA, but he may not have helped Putin as much as seemed likely when Weiner was writing his book. Whatever the Russian president thought he might get from a second Trump term, he has in fact been damaged quite badly so far. He has lost his puppet and his bases in Syria, partly through the CIA's efforts, and his ally Iran, after a shocking onslaught from Israel, now looks increasingly like a paper tiger. Ukraine – and Weiner is particularly good about the CIA's involvement in trying to stop the invasion in 2022 – hasn't, as many people expected, folded in the face of Putin's assault, and it's become harder for Trump simply to brush that war aside. Whether or not Putin indeed won the presidency for Trump in 2016 (Weiner quotes Russian government cybercriminals who he says swung the election as shouting 'We made America great again!') he is no longer pulling the strings to such good effect.
As I say, this is a journalist's book, and bears the marks of it. But no one has opened up the CIA to us like Weiner has, and The Mission deserves to win Weiner a second Pulitzer. Given the intense unpopularity of Trump in the upper echelons of American journalism, he may well get it.
John Simpson is the BBC's world affairs editor. The Mission by Tim Weiner is published by William Collins (£25). To support the Guardian, order your copy at guardianbookshop.com. Delivery charges may apply
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


Daily Mail
31 minutes ago
- Daily Mail
They're the superrich elite living in the best city in the world. Now they're flocking south... as terrifying new threat hones in on their millions
After Zohran Mamdani won the Democratic primary for mayor of New York City in June, the local real estate market . Luxury buyers started pulling the plug on purchasing apartments due to Mamdani's proposed policies, and wealthy New Yorkers who strongly disagree with his progressive politics are looking to leave the city altogether.


The Independent
36 minutes ago
- The Independent
Democrats once again push bill to get Epstein files released, but Republicans block it
Republicans in the House of Representatives blocked an attempt by Democrats to release files related to Jeffrey Epstein Tuesday afternoon in a chaotic vote. On Tuesday, Rep. Ro Khanna (D-CA) tried to get a vote on the House floor for his legislation that would have released files about the late disgraced financier who died by suicide in prison after being arrested on charges of sex trafficking underage girls. That came after Khanna's amendment failed in the House Rules Committee on Monday. Through some House rules maneuvers, Khanna was able to get a vote on including his proposal as an amendment to other non-related bills. The House floor soon ground to a halt. The vote remained open for more than half an hour, a handful of Republicans abstaining. In the end, he lost the chance to add his proposal as an amendment by a single vote, 211-210. 'We will keep fighting to get this thing released,' Khanna told The Independent. Nine Republicans abstained from voting while two Democrats did not vote on the legislation. The chaos and confusion on the floor reflected the larger conundrum Republicans face on Epstein. For the past few years, Republicans in Congress have frequently called for the release of the files related to his charges and his trafficking of young women. That fell apart last week when the Department of Justice and the FBI determined that no proof existed that Epstein engaged in a vast blackmail conspiracy, and no "client list" existed and that Epstein likely killed himself when he was in prison. That caused many in the larger MAGA-sphere to accuse Attorney General Pam Bondi of engaging in a cover-up. But Trump defended Bondi on Truth Social, saying to "LET PAM BONDI DO HER JOB — SHE'S GREAT." Trump and Epstein also enjoyed a friendship for many years, though no evidence has come to light that Trump engaged in sexual misconduct with the young women and girls that Epstein trafficked. "It's noteworthy that everybody, including the president on the Republican side, was so determined and adamant about releasing the Epstein files, and then somehow, all of a sudden, they decide that they don't want transparency," Rep. Dan Goldman (D-NY) told The Independent. "And with all of the various connections between Donald Trump and Jeffrey Epstein, and the fact that Pam Bondi has demonstrated herself to be essentially an arm of Donald Trump's personal interests, it is quite clear that Donald Trump intervened to conceal and hide the Epstein files." Democrats for their part seemed to take pleasure in the chaos. Rep. Robert Garcia (D-CA), who recently became the top Democrat on the House Oversight Committee, said that Republicans were being hypocrites. 'Clearly, they're hiding something, clearly Donald Trump is hiding something,' he told The Independent. 'This was never our issue. We've been focused on other things, but they've been obsessed about it and now that they're clearly hiding something, I think it's in the public interest we should release them.' Garcia took over the Oversight Committee last month after the death of Rep. Gerry Connolly (D-VA). He recently defeated Jasmine Crockett of Texas for the spot. Both Crockett and Garcia are more combative than their older Democratic predecessors and see it as their job to take the fight to Republicans after Trump's victory. Garcia said that if Democrats retake the majority, they would 'ask the right questions' and issue subpoenas to properly declassify information from the Epstein case. Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) put it bluntly: 'They're complicit.'


Telegraph
36 minutes ago
- Telegraph
Trump promised to end ‘forever wars'. Five months in, he has matched Biden's bombing record
Donald Trump has overseen nearly as many air strikes in the first five months of his second term as Joe Biden launched in his entire presidency. The US president's onslaughts on Houthi militants in Yemen and jihadists in Somalia have been more ferocious than Mr Biden's, and he has ordered strikes on Iraq, Syria and most recently, Iran. After campaigning on a pledge to end American involvement in military conflicts, he has sharply escalated the country's air campaigns, according to the data from Acled (Armed Conflict Location and Event Data), which maps conflicts. Mr Trump has overseen 529 air strikes since his inauguration, compared with 555 over the entire four years of the previous administration. Syria, Iraq, Yemen and Somalia were already being targeted by the previous administration, but Mr Trump opened up a new front with strikes on Iran's nuclear programme. 'The US military is moving faster, hitting harder, and doing so with fewer constraints,' said Prof Clionadh Raleigh, chief executive of Acled, highlighting the intensity of the bombing campaigns. Mr Trump insists that his intense approach ensures 'peace through strength', an expression often attributed to Ronald Reagan. 'We will measure our success not only by the battles we win, but also by the wars we end and perhaps most importantly, the wars we never get into. It's called peace through strength,' Mr Trump said in a speech during his inaugural ball. He has not struck Libya or Afghanistan, and air strikes are often seen as a more clinical alternative to putting US boots on the ground as Barack Obama did. But the new data have been published amid tensions within Mr Trump's Make America Great Again (MAGA) base over whether he should be pursuing foreign military interventions at all. Prominent MAGA figures including Tucker Carlson last month complained that striking Iran ran against Mr Trump's 'America First' isolationist promises. Marjorie Taylor Greene, a high profile MAGA loyalist and critic of intervention, said there was a 'very big divide' in Mr Trump's base over the issue and that she was 'sick of' foreign entanglements. She said last month: 'I got elected on the exact same campaign promises that President Trump got elected on. We promised no more foreign wars, no more regime change.' Yet polling at the time of the strikes showed Mr Trump's base in fact strongly backed him, with 84 per cent of MAGA supporters agreeing with the strikes, including 70 per cent who strongly supported them. That compared with 72 per cent of traditional Republicans supporting the strikes, with 49 per cent strongly supporting them. Prof Raleigh said the new data showed that America was not 'stepping back' under Mr Trump. She said: 'Trump's preference for engagement begs the question: does this contradict his promise to end America's wars – or are the foreign strikes how he wishes to keep that promise? 'The recent airstrikes on Iran's nuclear sites have been framed as a major turning point in US foreign policy. But if you take a step back, they don't stand out – they fit. 'In just five months, Trump has overseen nearly as many US air strikes as were recorded across the entire four years of the previous administration. 'The US military is moving faster, hitting harder, and doing so with fewer constraints. Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan, Yemen, Somalia, and now Iran are all familiar terrain, but this isn't about geography – it's about frequency.' The great majority of Mr Trump's strikes have been in Yemen, where in March he dramatically escalated the US air campaign against Iran-backed Houthi militants menacing Red Sea shipping. The militants have proven stubbornly resilient to US firepower and last week sank two ships, despite having been hit by 470 strikes since January, according to the Acled data. This came at a cost of more than $1 billion to the US military. Mr Trump has also ramped up strikes in Somalia, where US forces have been hitting the local Islamic State group and also Al-Shabaab. In March, the White House announced that it had killed an Isis attack planner in Somalia. Mr Trump said jubilantly: 'Our Military has targeted this Isis attack planner for years, but Biden and his cronies wouldn't act quickly enough to get the job done. 'I did! The message to Isis and all others who would attack Americans is that 'we will find you, and we will kill you'.' Prof Raleigh said: 'While Trump has repeatedly promised to end America's 'forever wars', he has rarely elaborated on how [this will take]. 'These early months suggest the plan may be to use overwhelming firepower to end fights before they begin, or before they drag on.' The White House insisted Mr Trump was projecting 'peace through strength'. A post on the White House Website read: 'President Donald J Trump will always put the American people first – and through restoring the US military's mission of lethality and leading with peace through strength in his foreign policy, President Trump is making good on his commitment to restore safety and security around the world.' But that strategy comes at a cost, said Prof Raleigh. 'For civilians, it's a renewed danger with little warning. For US allies, it raises concerns about co-ordination and unpredictability. And, for lawmakers, it deepens concerns about executive power and accountability. 'So, is Trump aiming to end wars by escalating quickly and decisively, or is this a return to high-risk, low-accountability foreign policy? Is air power being used to avoid deeper conflict, or just manage from above? 'What is clear: the US isn't stepping back. It's moving faster, striking first, and saving the conversations for later.' Mr Trump's strikes have mainly been focused on the Middle East and the Horn of Africa, and culminated in an extraordinary assault on Iran. Iran The June strikes on Tehran's nuclear programme marked a major shift in the United States' Middle East policy. After days of Israeli strikes on Iran, Mr Trump ordered raids on three nuclear facilities. The key strike was on Iran's secretive 'nuclear mountain', the Fordow fuel enrichment plant buried deep underground where more than 2,000 centrifuges enrich uranium to 60 per cent. A sortie of B2 stealth bombers dropped the latest GBU-57 A/B Massive Ordnance Penetrator 'bunker buster' bombs, specifically designed to attack deeply buried and hardened tunnels. US intelligence agencies are thought to be compiling a final audit of the damage caused by the roughly 30,000lb bombs after contradictory early assessments. Mr Trump said Iran's nuclear programme had been obliterated in 'one of the most successful military strikes in history', but an early Pentagon assessment suggested limited damage. Iraq On March 13, the US Central Command (Centcom) reported it had killed one of the Islamic State group's leaders in an air strike in Al Anbar Province. Abdallah Makki Muslih al-Rifai, also known by the alias 'Abu Khadijah', was described as the group's number two. As chief of global operations and emir of its most senior decision-making body, he was responsible for logistics and planning, as well as a significant portion of the group's finances. Gen Michael Kurilla, Centcom commander, said at the time: 'Abu Khadijah was one of the most important Isis members in the entire global Isis organisation. 'We will continue to kill terrorists and dismantle their organisations that threaten our homeland and US, allied and partner personnel in the region and beyond.' He died alongside an associate, and both men were wearing suicide vests at the time of their deaths, the US military said. His death was confirmed by a DNA match. Syria On June 10, the US military said it had killed an Islamic State group commander in an air strike in north-west Syria on June 10. The commander, who was named as Rakhim Boev, was said to have been involved in planning attacks on the US and its allies outside Syria. A photograph accompanying the announcement showed a mangled Kia vehicle with its windscreen smashed and damage similar to previous strikes using the specialist R9X 'Ninja bomb'. The missile is designed to reduce the chances of civilian casualties by using its weight and a ring of blades to kill rather than exploding. The missile, which was developed from the more common Hellfire armament, has in recent years been used on targets in Libya, Syria, Iraq, Yemen and Somalia. Mr Trump's Syrian strikes have come as his administration has begun reducing the number of American troops in the country from more than 2,000 to around 500. The drawdown has taken place as the Trump administration has recognised Ahmed al-Sharaa as the president of Syria. Under the nom de guerre Abu Mohammad al-Jolani, Al Sharaa previously headed Al Qaeda in Syria, deposing long-time dictator Bashar al Assad. Somalia On Feb 1, the US military said it had conducted 'multiple' air strikes against the Islamic State group in Somalia. The strikes against cave complexes in the Cal Miskaad area of the Golis mountains killed at least 14 militants including an Omani called Ahmed Maeleninine. American commanders described him as a 'recruiter, financier, and external operations leader responsible for the deployment of jihadists into the United States and across Europe'. Abdifitah Mohamed Abdinur, the Puntland state minister for the presidency, said at the time of the strike that Somalia and its allies had been watching Maeleninine's movements in the region. He said: 'He was an Omani-born man in his 40s who was wanted for international crimes and his movements and activities have been followed at least for the last two years, as he was hiding in the mountainous area of Puntland. 'He was a thorn removed from the flesh of Somalis and the world population, and he eventually tasted what he deserved.' Yemen Strikes on Yemen account for the great majority of US missions overseen by Mr Trump, after he sharply escalated the campaign against Iran-backed Houthi militants in mid-March. While the US military has given few specific details of individual strikes, Acled has recorded 470 inside the country since January. In early April, Mr Trump posted video footage of what he said were Houthi rebels gathering before they were struck. The 25-second clip showed a group starting to gather, before an explosion left only two trucks visible and a deep crater in the ground, as smoke cleared. 'These Houthis gathered for instructions on an attack,' Mr Trump wrote alongside the black-and-white aerial footage. 'Oops, there will be no attack by these Houthis. They will never sink our ships again,' he wrote. Yahya Saree, a Houthi spokesman, denied the gathering was linked to the rebels. He said: 'Does the US take pride in such an act? This was a tribal gathering that had nothing to do with your ships.'