Customer Reviews

Cloak and Dollar: The History of American Secret Intelligence

5 star:		(0)
4 star:		(0)
3 star:		(0)
2 star:		(6)
1 star:		(1)

 

 

As I've mentioned in other books, the secret services history is far from simple. The author manages to make it unnerving to read. Not because of facts presented but because there's no sequence, no effort to write the book adequately. He goes un using exaggerted words, which come out of context with the book.
It is as if a highschool student wanted to make a display of his extense vocabulary, grabbed words out of a dictionary and made a great example of not knowing how to use them. The book is also too opinionated. It is leading you to the author's opinion, he leads on a battle without backing, to direct you to think that secret services are over funded, still filled with a seemingly patriotic belief in their good intentions.
On the whole, the author set on an ambitious idea of writing a book, tried to fit anectotic facts with hard history and set his opinions, and managed to make a hideous menage. There are better books on the subject, and I wouldn't recommend it.

I consulted this book to see what this British author had to say about Allan Pinkerton, founder of the Pinkerton Detective Agency and the forerunner of the Secret Service during the U.S. Civil War. The author's brief account of Pinkerton's "Molly Maguires" investigation was shockingly inaccurate and misleading. This book is an embarrassment for Yale University Press.

I was pleasantly surprised to find that all the other reviews agree with my estimation, which is that this is a superficially researched, ahistoric polemic. There are a few nuggets of interest here, and the overall thesis -- beware of entrepreneurial confidence men -- is not a bad one, even though it is drowned out by modern bureaucracy, applies in all walks of life and applies just as well to Julian Assange as to the Iraq WMD's "Curveball." But really, not up to the standards of Yale University Press.

The other customer reviews capture the weaknesses of the book. I would only add that a review laying out these weaknesses at greater length and with more precision was published by Piero Gleijeses in the Journal of Interdisciplinary History, vol. 34, #3. A brief extract:
"Cloak and Dollar adds virtually nothing to our previous knowledge of the CIA, and, worse,
it is riddled with old chestnuts and misleading statements. It is, almost invariably, shallow."
As he indicates, the problem does not lie with the central theses of the book, which are quite reasonable. But the research is uneven at best, and the presentation surprisingly weak on a number of levels. Gleijeses recommends Evan Thomas' The Very Best Men, which I have not read myself.

I agree with the first three reviews -- very poorly written.

But a bigger problem is the amazing spin he puts on every event. He is incapable of any charity toward those he dislikes (mostly modern conservatives). For example, he makes no effort to mask his utter disgust for Bill Casey and the Reagan administration. This is fine, but it probably explains his unfounded conclusions about them. Casey started talking back in the early 1980s about American intelligence needing to target groups besides the Soviets, as new enemies were emerging. Instead of crediting Casey for being a visionary, Jeffrey-Jones dismisses this as a cynical attempt at job security, knowing that the Soviet Empire was near collapse. Never mind that virtually no one expected the Soviet downfall even when it happened 6 or 8 years later.

Similarly, Jeffrey-Jones makes general statements without supporting evidence -- the US supposedly pumped huge amounts of money buying up the French news media to counter the rise of the French Left, supported Corsican gangsters, etc. In the end, J-J claims, the French Left failed, not because of such sinister American tactics, though, but the conservativism of the French people. (see p. 156). No evidence for this is presented, no figures or footnotes for the wild claims made etc.

J-J is anecdotal, sensational, imbalanced. And yet, there are some great stories imbedded in all the propoganda and hyperbole. The stuff on George Washington (whom J-J admires) is wonderful.

If you read this book for the stories, just do it with alot of salt.

Actually, I couldn't finish the book. I started several chapters, but finally put it down in disgust. Where was the editor at Yale Press? The writing is terrible, more acceptable from a high school freshman than from a professor of history. My ex-wife is an instructor in English and composition, and I'm sure she would appreciate this book as a gift for its collection of bad examples. My advice - browse before you buy.

The British have a perculiar way of writing, that, coupled with the passive tense, makes this book a nuisance to read. Puruse the on-line exerpts provided by Amazon for a preview.

Other than that it's a good book, not that I've read it, but from what I've heard.