I think this article shows a poor understanding of how the CIA works, or how this business works in general. The narrative presented in the piece seems to assert that the CIA has some duty and responsibility to provide for its informants and their families. This is a misunderstanding of the situation and therefore the premise of this entire article is very tenuous and not worth much, in my estimation.
The truth is that CIA agents' job is to turn individuals who can provide something of value to the CIA. They use various methods to turn these resources, primarily relying on human weakness that can be exploited. That resource is then cultivated for the value it provides. That's it. The handler's job is to gain access, whether that be to information or other resources, through the resource. The handler's job is not to provide for the well-being of the resource or their family afterwards, that simply isn't how it works. That isn't how the US government works anywhere, based on my experience. [[ETA, except the VA, we do this for veterans]]
These people have a job to do, a mission, and that's what they're doing. That mission may not be palatable to you, but that is exactly what is going on here. This article, suggesting there is some duty to provide for resources after they've helped the CIA isn't how it works, at all. Any assertions or conjecture to the contrary displays a rather large lack of understanding about how work is prosecuted at the federal level, whether that be in the CIA or not.
A correction on terminology might prove enlightening. The US citizens working for the CIA are “spies”, handlers, or agents. Anyone who works for them, eg provides information, is an asset. They're not an employee, advisor, or “spy.” Theyre an asset to be used to the benefit of the United States as long as theyre useful.
That said your point on trust and incentive doesnt hold up to history. Being an asset and providing information to another country almost always ends in prison, or death, or best case exile. The material rewards are laughably small, thousands of dollars typically. And yet agents, of all nations, are good at their job and consistently succeed in recruiting new assets.
That's a good point, but if one were thinking with the mindset you describe then one probably wouldn't be susceptible to the entreaties from their handler in the first place. I think you're not giving credit to how that relationship actually works and the personalities involved, especially the flipped resource.
Your argument is flawed on so many levels. We are talking about people with emotions not machines to be exploited. Many spies are spying for ideological reasons not in return for any money. They place themselves in enormous danger in order to help the US. To not have the basic decency to even keep their identity secret is frankly reprehensible and irresponsible.
That's your perspective and it's perfectly valid to me, believe it or not. But it's just one perspective. The evidence I've seen has shown that their mission and the way it's prosecuted don't align with your perspective; that's reality and one should be cognizant of that.
It seems to be the modus operandi of the Cia. Approach an asset, cultivate him, exploit him and then dump him with zero regard to his personal safety. On top of that, they are very poor at keeping their spies identities secrets. Or perhaps they don't care.
The attitude you are trying to defend is incredibly arrogant and selfish. I don't believe other countries spy agencies treat their assets with such contempt.
>I don't believe other countries spy agencies treat their assets with such contempt
They absolutely do. Why do you think otherwise? It's not like anyone really has sympathy for spy agencies assets, they are usually active traitors after all. If they weren't betraying someone or something they wouldn't be useful assets, so again it's very hard to drum up sympathy not only in the agencies but from general public too.
I wonder how much overlap there is between people who accept the justifications you describe, and people who claim that it's perfectly fine to persecute and torture Julian Assange because "he endangered US informants".
I think in the Venn diagram you're proposing, there's a lot of overlap.
However, I think it's useful to look at this with a more objective lens in that these CIA employees are doing a job and that they also report to somebody and what that bog-standard relationship looks like. I think understanding how that fairly boring dynamic works in every federal agency may possibly help explain the behavior you're observing more than anything. There's really no great mystery to it.
You could make this argument about any relationship. After all, look at everyone who just got burned by Google Stadia.
Everything is a negotiation. Every relationship has the potential for Pareto efficiency. Most aren't Pareto efficient because of information asymmetry, desperation, lack of competence or experience, etc.
You are correct, but at the same time your response shows a poor understanding of politics.
A "rather large lack of understanding" of the CIA on the part of the American public is exactly why the CIA is allowed to do what they do. For that reason, this lack of understanding is cultivated by the media and government.
The truth is that CIA agents' job is to turn individuals who can provide something of value to the CIA. They use various methods to turn these resources, primarily relying on human weakness that can be exploited. That resource is then cultivated for the value it provides. That's it. The handler's job is to gain access, whether that be to information or other resources, through the resource. The handler's job is not to provide for the well-being of the resource or their family afterwards, that simply isn't how it works. That isn't how the US government works anywhere, based on my experience. [[ETA, except the VA, we do this for veterans]]
These people have a job to do, a mission, and that's what they're doing. That mission may not be palatable to you, but that is exactly what is going on here. This article, suggesting there is some duty to provide for resources after they've helped the CIA isn't how it works, at all. Any assertions or conjecture to the contrary displays a rather large lack of understanding about how work is prosecuted at the federal level, whether that be in the CIA or not.