Such a Great article! I think the benefits of overt are we don’t need to hide or cover up anything as we are being open and above board. While overtly wanting and supporting one outcome might not be as “sure” compared to a covert action, it gives our nation credibility in the foreign relations domain as compared to say, Russia, for example, where all nations know (or should know) Russia’s patterns of behavior always tricky deceptive corrupt. I think in an instance where the danger to our nation is significantly higher than the Italy post war example, it’s ok for us to do both. Overt and covert but not to change votes. That’s a bridge too far. But information campaigns designed to sway voters without it visibly by us. I remember as a teenager at the dinner table my father recounting the Soviet Union’s working in Italy, and Greece. He would have enjoyed your course. Regrettably he passed away at 98 yrs old.
Timely and informative content as always. While we are more aware, Social media disinformation operations are still not widely understood by the general public and the voters. We are constantly bombarded from both sides and it is extremely easy to be influenced, even for the skeptic.
2. Given the Soviets' dealings with the Weimar Republic, Nazi Germany, the Eastern Bloc's support for neo-Nazis, and the Soviets' clearly stated willingness to collaborate with the capitalists in the short term to destroy them in the long term, I'm not sure ideological inflexibility was the major problem, especially considering the Soviets' goal of breaking up NATO and driving wedges between the U.S. and Europe.
On the other hand, the limitations of the times seem to have played a major role. The fact the U.S. recognized the Soviets as the Main Enemy would have naturally limited the latter's ability to operate in a manner that would allow them to reach enough average Americans consistently, which would greatly limit their ability to influence their behavior. Additionally, partly due to technological and practical limitations, the Soviets appear to have focused heavily on universities, the press, and entertainment media, all of which tend to lean Left. While these efforts clearly achieved some results, it'd be a stretch to say they successfully subverted the American political establishment. They also failed to bring about Communist revolution in the U.S.
Now, advances in technology allow the Russians to target every day Americans, most notably voters, far more effectively and more frequently. It also allows for greater targeting of both sides of the political spectrum. If you can't bring about Communist revolution, why not target both sides to create greater polarization, which leads to greater dysfunction and more people willing to parrot Russian B.S.? Of course, betting on multiple horses also increases the odds of hitting pay dirt, which, despite the presence of Putinites on the Left and the Right, appears to be the Right.
Putin also benefitted from the fact he and his cronies had a period of time to work in where Russia was not considered an enemy, much less the Main Enemy.
3. A greater focus on instilling democratic values and reversing hyperpolarization, not to mention the growing narcissism in American society, would be a good start in combating Russian efforts to win voters' hearts and minds. Needless to say, I'd argue reversing hyperpolarization does not include accepting or embracing Trump. He's a polarizing authoritarian who tried to subvert democratic norms. He's also a shitbird.
It was a problem this year on Easter in Romania: why are we celebrating Easter with the Russians? Orthodox Easter we are celebrating with them too. Their influence in my country is everywhere. And yes. Is like that in music, elections, language, attitude, values, infrastructure, corruption and when we are talking about politicians and how they are protecting their citizens.
I pay too little money for the great information you put here. I am living in Romania. And here people were even more influenced by the Russian current when it came to the elections, music, etc. Our country music is (almost) like the russian song from the 60s that you put here in a course. This is serious. I understand now why it bothers Americans that Romania is corrupt: not because it is a crime, but because it gives up values so easily, it gives up democracy, something that is a core. Democracy makes people valuable; without that, we have poor people, we have a war a few miles away, we have a weak currency and so on. Thank you for this post. $6 is too little for what I heard from you. Can’t wait to see you tomorrow to thank you for the guest that you will have because I asked you.
1. U.S. electoral interference in the 1948 Italian election was largely overt — to the point where, Shimer notes, “Italy’s Communist leaders swiftly denounced the letter writing as foreign interference.” What are the costs/benefits of covert vs. overt interference? Does transparency make a difference in its acceptability as a foreign policy tactic? Why or why not? (see also Class 2 for more on this the overt/covert distinction)
The differences, from a risk versus reward perspective, between possible outcomes of covert and overt operations are very, very simple:
With a covert operation, the assumption is made, if the operation becomes exposed, that a nation or a group has been forced to operate in secret due to the nefarious nature of the operation, and if and when exposed, the nation or group that operated secretly is only trying to victimize the target.
With an overt operation, because a nation or a group operates openly, that nation or group is, from the get go, taking credit for what it has done, and if what it has done is rejected by some, the ability remains to engender further trust from others because that nation or group can say, “I did this out of my sense of right and wrong, and I have so declared this openly to give you my word.”
The overt operation in the Italian election in 1948, however, was [probably] in part covert [“LARGELY overt”] in that the American government [almost] definitely dissuaded, planning accordingly, most people in Italy from knowing that the Italian American community had been instructed to write back to relatives and associates in Italy by the United States’ intelligence community – and if this had leaked in places, it was to be reinforced that the writing only took place willingly due to a love of the free nation in which the Italian immigrants had settled, and a desire for similar freedom for other Italians. The Italian immigrants who wrote back home certainly knew less about what they were doing and why than the American intelligence community, which had strategic goals and operated, surely, based on organizational psychology and accurate, targeted dissemination of information and instructions to subordinates who participated in the operation (the Italian immigrants). The Italian Communist Party could have used, for certain, the American government’s role in the scenario as a tangible “twisting of the arm” of a “brainwashed” Italian American community (in an attempt to force relative American culture on the people of Italy and deprive the Italian people of something that was supposedly in their best interests).
Great article Asha - thank you. I was talking to a friend recently who claimed that the reason Mao Zedong was able to gain power in China was because the US funded his operations to prevent the Soviet Union gaining control over the Chinese communists. It’s an interesting theory. Do you know how feasible/accurate it is?
I agree with Jeff about the overt & covert benefits. For 2, isn't this the idea that those without moral constraints can be "more effective" in doing harm? For 3, education, education, education.
It's about time more attention was paid to Manafort's transmission of polling data to his Kremlin-affiliated business partner!
Such a Great article! I think the benefits of overt are we don’t need to hide or cover up anything as we are being open and above board. While overtly wanting and supporting one outcome might not be as “sure” compared to a covert action, it gives our nation credibility in the foreign relations domain as compared to say, Russia, for example, where all nations know (or should know) Russia’s patterns of behavior always tricky deceptive corrupt. I think in an instance where the danger to our nation is significantly higher than the Italy post war example, it’s ok for us to do both. Overt and covert but not to change votes. That’s a bridge too far. But information campaigns designed to sway voters without it visibly by us. I remember as a teenager at the dinner table my father recounting the Soviet Union’s working in Italy, and Greece. He would have enjoyed your course. Regrettably he passed away at 98 yrs old.
Timely and informative content as always. While we are more aware, Social media disinformation operations are still not widely understood by the general public and the voters. We are constantly bombarded from both sides and it is extremely easy to be influenced, even for the skeptic.
2. Given the Soviets' dealings with the Weimar Republic, Nazi Germany, the Eastern Bloc's support for neo-Nazis, and the Soviets' clearly stated willingness to collaborate with the capitalists in the short term to destroy them in the long term, I'm not sure ideological inflexibility was the major problem, especially considering the Soviets' goal of breaking up NATO and driving wedges between the U.S. and Europe.
On the other hand, the limitations of the times seem to have played a major role. The fact the U.S. recognized the Soviets as the Main Enemy would have naturally limited the latter's ability to operate in a manner that would allow them to reach enough average Americans consistently, which would greatly limit their ability to influence their behavior. Additionally, partly due to technological and practical limitations, the Soviets appear to have focused heavily on universities, the press, and entertainment media, all of which tend to lean Left. While these efforts clearly achieved some results, it'd be a stretch to say they successfully subverted the American political establishment. They also failed to bring about Communist revolution in the U.S.
Now, advances in technology allow the Russians to target every day Americans, most notably voters, far more effectively and more frequently. It also allows for greater targeting of both sides of the political spectrum. If you can't bring about Communist revolution, why not target both sides to create greater polarization, which leads to greater dysfunction and more people willing to parrot Russian B.S.? Of course, betting on multiple horses also increases the odds of hitting pay dirt, which, despite the presence of Putinites on the Left and the Right, appears to be the Right.
Putin also benefitted from the fact he and his cronies had a period of time to work in where Russia was not considered an enemy, much less the Main Enemy.
3. A greater focus on instilling democratic values and reversing hyperpolarization, not to mention the growing narcissism in American society, would be a good start in combating Russian efforts to win voters' hearts and minds. Needless to say, I'd argue reversing hyperpolarization does not include accepting or embracing Trump. He's a polarizing authoritarian who tried to subvert democratic norms. He's also a shitbird.
It was a problem this year on Easter in Romania: why are we celebrating Easter with the Russians? Orthodox Easter we are celebrating with them too. Their influence in my country is everywhere. And yes. Is like that in music, elections, language, attitude, values, infrastructure, corruption and when we are talking about politicians and how they are protecting their citizens.
I pay too little money for the great information you put here. I am living in Romania. And here people were even more influenced by the Russian current when it came to the elections, music, etc. Our country music is (almost) like the russian song from the 60s that you put here in a course. This is serious. I understand now why it bothers Americans that Romania is corrupt: not because it is a crime, but because it gives up values so easily, it gives up democracy, something that is a core. Democracy makes people valuable; without that, we have poor people, we have a war a few miles away, we have a weak currency and so on. Thank you for this post. $6 is too little for what I heard from you. Can’t wait to see you tomorrow to thank you for the guest that you will have because I asked you.
1. U.S. electoral interference in the 1948 Italian election was largely overt — to the point where, Shimer notes, “Italy’s Communist leaders swiftly denounced the letter writing as foreign interference.” What are the costs/benefits of covert vs. overt interference? Does transparency make a difference in its acceptability as a foreign policy tactic? Why or why not? (see also Class 2 for more on this the overt/covert distinction)
The differences, from a risk versus reward perspective, between possible outcomes of covert and overt operations are very, very simple:
With a covert operation, the assumption is made, if the operation becomes exposed, that a nation or a group has been forced to operate in secret due to the nefarious nature of the operation, and if and when exposed, the nation or group that operated secretly is only trying to victimize the target.
With an overt operation, because a nation or a group operates openly, that nation or group is, from the get go, taking credit for what it has done, and if what it has done is rejected by some, the ability remains to engender further trust from others because that nation or group can say, “I did this out of my sense of right and wrong, and I have so declared this openly to give you my word.”
The overt operation in the Italian election in 1948, however, was [probably] in part covert [“LARGELY overt”] in that the American government [almost] definitely dissuaded, planning accordingly, most people in Italy from knowing that the Italian American community had been instructed to write back to relatives and associates in Italy by the United States’ intelligence community – and if this had leaked in places, it was to be reinforced that the writing only took place willingly due to a love of the free nation in which the Italian immigrants had settled, and a desire for similar freedom for other Italians. The Italian immigrants who wrote back home certainly knew less about what they were doing and why than the American intelligence community, which had strategic goals and operated, surely, based on organizational psychology and accurate, targeted dissemination of information and instructions to subordinates who participated in the operation (the Italian immigrants). The Italian Communist Party could have used, for certain, the American government’s role in the scenario as a tangible “twisting of the arm” of a “brainwashed” Italian American community (in an attempt to force relative American culture on the people of Italy and deprive the Italian people of something that was supposedly in their best interests).
Great article Asha - thank you. I was talking to a friend recently who claimed that the reason Mao Zedong was able to gain power in China was because the US funded his operations to prevent the Soviet Union gaining control over the Chinese communists. It’s an interesting theory. Do you know how feasible/accurate it is?
I agree with Jeff about the overt & covert benefits. For 2, isn't this the idea that those without moral constraints can be "more effective" in doing harm? For 3, education, education, education.