Americans, well trained in ordinarynAmerican police techniques of detection,npursuit and fighting, feel at home.nThey prove to be more than a match fornSoviet agents, though the latter arenincomparably more numerous; Americannagents foil their Soviet counterpartsneffectively unless thfe president ornCongress, prompted by the New YorknTimes, ruins it all. On the other hand,nthe totalitarian Soviet regime is im-n”… the best book ow ilu- CIA ^.•^•• wriiuii.npenetrable to U.S. intelligence, whethernhuman or technical: it is terra incognitanto them. The latter phrase is both causenand effect: the Soviet regime is impenetrablenbecause it is terra incognita, andnit is terra incognita because it is impenetrable.nThe New York Times has turnednreality upside-down. According to thisncultural barony, or supermonopoly,nwhich modestly calls itself the “premiernnewspaper of the United States,” thenCIA’s covert operations are ineffective,nharmful to the United States, immoralnand criminal. It was at the insistence ofnthe New York Times that Congress,nprior to the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan,npractically destroyed the CIA’sncovert operations, microscopic as itsnforces were when compared with Sovietnglobal “special forces.” Inversely, duringnthe 70’s the New York Times nevernpublished a line which would have exposednthe CIA’s ineptitude in gatheringnintelligence on Russia. Such a line wouldnhave shown that SALT is unverifiable,nand the New York Times has alwaysnbeen for SALT. Surely the New YorknTimes cannot publish news “fit tonprint,” which shows that the NewnYork Times has been wrong.nI found this out by an experiment.nWhen my Commentary article “Whatnthe CIA Knows about Russia” had beennreprinted or outlined by more than 500nperiodicals, I was invited to discuss thenarticle publicly with Admiral Turner,nDirector of the CIA. He could not rebutna single point of the article. I thoughtnthis was fairly sensational, and the NewnYork Times correspondent was presentnat the meeting. To be on the safe side,nI sent the article to all the “top men”nof the newspaper, and gave a copy personallynto William Safire. Not a line innthe New York Times. Three monthsnafter the publication of my article,nRichard Nixon declared in Paris thatn— Hooks of the limesnSvu- Yiirk- Tinuwnthe CIA had, for 11 years, grossly mislednthe U.S. government in regard tonthe Soviet arms build-up and growthn(exactly what I had demonstrated in mynarticle). Sensational.’ The New YorknTimes published his speech, but neatlyndeleted just this statement. It was thennthat I realized that the New York Timesnrepresents a greater danger to the survivalnof the West than any other Westernninstitution, including any WesternnCommunist Party.n3o, Dogma No. 1 of the New YorknTimes that Powers elaborates in hisnbook is the ineptitude, immorality,ncriminal content and harmfulness ofnthe CIA’s covert operations. For example,nthe CIA helped Guatemalan rebelsnto overthrow procommunist PresidentnArbenz in 1954. Powers cannot denynthat the CIA’s operation was brilliant.nTherefore, he argues that it was immoral,ncriminal, damaging to the UnitednStates;n”Arbenz … was guilty of the cardinalnsins of legalizing the GuatemalannCommunist Party and inviting it tonjoin his government, and of expropriatingnnearly 400,000 acres of idlenbanana plantation owned by thenUnited Fruit Company.”nDo you see the picture? Prior to Arbenznthe general attitude in Guatemalanwas something worse than McCarthyism;nenter a tolerant democrat (some­nnnthing like John F. Kennedy) who stopsnthis witch hunt and redbaiting. Yet, unablento see communists treated as fullfledgedncitizens with all the humannrights to which they are entitled, thenCIA overthrows (by criminal means)nthis tolerant democrat, who was presumablynsupported and loved by thenmajority of the population.nActually, Arbenz never legalized thenCommunist Party. The latter had beennlegal long before he came to power, hadncompletely controlled the trade unions,nhad practically ruled the country, andnhad brought the left-wing Marxist Arbenznto power, “his road cleared by thenassassination of his chief rival.” Naturally,nthe communists took over all thenkey posts in all the official agencies. Norndid Arbenz just “expropriate” somen”idle banana plantation” of the UnitednFruit Company. He (that is, the communists)nexpropriated land belongingnto Guatemalan farmers “in excess of anspecified acreage,” which was then tonbecome the property of the State. Thenpredictable result was a “class war,”nthat is the liquidation of the “classnenemy,” which requires weapons —nduly sent “from Czechoslovakia” (evennStalin always sent “Czech,” not Sovietnweapons). Arbenz was overthrown bynGuatemalan rebels; whereupon he wentnto live in the Soviet empire—of course.nThe CIA prevented a “Cuba” innGuatemala—at hardly any cost to taxpayersnand without a single victim. Yetnwhat contradicts a dogma of the NewnYork Times cannot be true, so Powersninvents instead a morality fable to fitnthe dogma.nInversely, to collaborate Dogma No.n2 of the New York Times, viz., that thenCIA is good at the gathering of intelligencendata on Russia, Powers burstsninto similar fireworks of lies aimed notnat “exposing” the CIA, but at coveringnup its ineptitude and ignorance in thisnsphere. “On the whole,” Powers boldlyndeclares, “the CIA seems to have donenits job (intelligence gathering) well, especiallynwhere Soviet military capabilitiesnhave been concerned.” Did Richardn^mmmm^mk^nMarch April 1980n