Joan Mellen talk at COPA 2013 on Garrison, CIA et al.

[Peter Lemkin]

Hi Peter... hope you are well...



Joan writes:
The working group recommends thecreation of another office within the DD/P called "Paramilitary and Air SupportOperations." This would develop CIA's capability for covert military and airsupport operations. Its chief would be located away from the CIA's headquartersbuilding.
Thehead of this component would be drawn from the military service and be a"Senior Colonel or a Brigadier General with wartime paramilitary experience." St[B]udying the politics of CIA, it is all too apparent that in the chain ofpower, the military takes its orders from the Agency, and not the other wayaround.[/B]


I'm sorry here Peter but that is absurd. The CIA may have manipulated the chain of power in their best interest by placing "Senior Military Officials" in key roles (after these officials spent time in their civilian capacities as consultants to the Defense Industry) and backing the DoD into making advantageous decisions for the CIA... but the DoD taking order from Dulles? McCone? Helms? the "CIA"... sorry, no way.

I find this conclusion completely at odds with how the Military used the CIA... the first DCI's? Military.. Dulles? Military OSS background.
It's as if Joan completely forgets the Intelligence organizations that existed prior to the CIA were military. Does Joan actually think the ONI took orders from the CIA?

As I read this thru it appears she is writing with a bit too much foreknowledge and is looking back instead of taking us thru this crucial paper in its contextual time.
She also concludes that after the assassination it is the CIA who is firmly in charge

So I wonder Peter... who does Joan think Allen Dulles got his marching orders from... the "CIA"?

How is it that McGeorge Bundy is at exactly the right spots to
1) stop the bombing of the last three Cuban plans
2) change NSAM 263 to 273
3) inform AF-1 about Oswald on the flight home

I find it unbelieveabley naive to push the notion that "CIA" (whatever she means by that) was at the top of the political power food chain... they were the guard dogs of the MICC - and as guard dogs they were to remain propped up and aggressive at all times - they would be given the illusion of power while those with much bigger concerns than than the CIA made the decisions ...of course they wanted to KNOW everything... that way the SPONSOR level (which OWNS the MICC) remains fully informed and can pull the levers as needed.

Do they make foriegn policy? Of course, via their actions... some rogue, some not but all within an accepted agenda... an agenda that benefits the SPONSORS to the tune of trillions and maintains the "same as it ever was" environment - that it LOOKS like it changes is the trick....

Have you ever traced the organizational changes of the top Financial institutions from their inception? Makes the CIA reorg look like a child's building blocks, let alone the DoD reorgs...

While I'm a friend of Joan's, I'm not here to speak for her nor to necessarily support everything she says or believes. I take [for the moment] something midway between what I think is her position and what I think is yours. I'm very much thinking of what I was told, in person and by reading his books, by Fletcher Prouty about how the CIA and Military interacted. That was his job - as liaison between the two. It is a highly complex topic, as CIA people often have their cover as 'Military' - and there may be some vice-versa. Other CIA have their cover in State and other branches of 'Government'. Personally, I see elements of both CIA and Military in the JFK Assassination. As to who had the lead role, I'm not sure...nor am I sure it matters that much at this moment. Both were clearly involved [not as whole entities - but some within each organization and their sub-units]. Prouty was pretty clear that when the CIA needed planes, weapons, sometimes even assassins they often turned to the Military - although they had some capacity in all of those areas, themselves. The Military rarely said no, nor do I know of a case when I heard they ran to the Executive to 'get permission' (but they might have, at times). [As all of this is highly secret and little has been declassified, it is murky as to 1963 or now - when the CIA certainly has a greater military capacity on their own]. I'd say elements and persons within both - along with others - all participated. CIA may or may not have done the clever planning. I do think Joan's statement a bit too strong on the CIA telling/requesting the Military what to do [or give them support on], but they have at times done just that. I wish Prouty was here to speak to this. As far as Bundy is concerned, IMHO, he was CIA who's cover was National Security Adviser to the President.