Cold War Covertness
When a foreign policy objective needs to be accomplished and diplomatic pressure is inadequate due to a country’s unwillingness to cooperate, and a military approach may generate unwanted attention or retaliation covert action may be the best choice.
An example of this primary consideration is during the Cold War when the United States government would frequently turn to covert action when diplomacy with a hostile government, such as the Soviet Union was too weak. Conversely, military action also could not be used as the Soviets, had substantial forces in Europe, and after 1949, they also possessed nuclear weaponry. The risk of retaliation given these odds was too substantial as it may have resulted in too high a loss of resources to the …show more content…
Would the knowledge of a government's participation change the desired outcome or outright negatively affect the policy objective? For example, if voters in Italy knew that CIA funded the Christian Democratic Party in 1948, the Communists would have labelled the Christian Democrats as U.S. puppets, and the CIA support would have failed. Also, sometimes this feasibility refers to getting other governments to assist in your policy objective who do not desire direct confrontation with another government. In this scenario covertness can help convince them to support your efforts as they desire a similar conclusion but want to have plausible deniability of involvement. For example, when the United States supported the Afghan mujahedeen in the 1980s if this had not been done covertly the Soviet leadership could have attacked U.S. allies. This is due to the fact they facilitated the actions of the United States by providing a foundation for covert action in the case of Pakistan. Other allies such as Egypt and Saudi Arabia provided arms and materials. However, these allies could be considered to be “soft targets” in comparison to attacking the United States
An example of this primary consideration is during the Cold War when the United States government would frequently turn to covert action when diplomacy with a hostile government, such as the Soviet Union was too weak. Conversely, military action also could not be used as the Soviets, had substantial forces in Europe, and after 1949, they also possessed nuclear weaponry. The risk of retaliation given these odds was too substantial as it may have resulted in too high a loss of resources to the …show more content…
Would the knowledge of a government's participation change the desired outcome or outright negatively affect the policy objective? For example, if voters in Italy knew that CIA funded the Christian Democratic Party in 1948, the Communists would have labelled the Christian Democrats as U.S. puppets, and the CIA support would have failed. Also, sometimes this feasibility refers to getting other governments to assist in your policy objective who do not desire direct confrontation with another government. In this scenario covertness can help convince them to support your efforts as they desire a similar conclusion but want to have plausible deniability of involvement. For example, when the United States supported the Afghan mujahedeen in the 1980s if this had not been done covertly the Soviet leadership could have attacked U.S. allies. This is due to the fact they facilitated the actions of the United States by providing a foundation for covert action in the case of Pakistan. Other allies such as Egypt and Saudi Arabia provided arms and materials. However, these allies could be considered to be “soft targets” in comparison to attacking the United States