Tim Weiner’s Legacy of Ashes does portray the CIA as highly incompetent, often to a degree that many critics find exaggerated and biased. While the book uses extensive primary sources, Weiner’s interpretation tends to selectively emphasize failures and downplay or omit successes, resulting in a narrative that many scholars consider unbalanced and sometimes inaccurate.
The book’s central narrative claims a consistent pattern of CIA failures from its inception. For example, Weiner cites President Eisenhower’s alleged comment that he would leave “a legacy of ashes” to his successor. This dialogue is fabricated and frequently misrepresented. Eisenhower’s original remark related to frustrations with military intelligence rather than the CIA itself. Weiner’s choice to frame this as a CIA indictment sets a pervasive tone of failure throughout the work, but it lacks firm documentary support.
Evidence shows Weiner cherry-picks examples of CIA shortcomings while omitting or diminishing episodes of successful intelligence work. The portrayal of the U-2 spyplane program as a failure is one such case. Though Weiner critiques the U-2 as a stopgap for insufficient human intelligence (HUMINT), in reality, it gathered valuable high-altitude surveillance data that shaped US intelligence during the Cold War. Similarly, the book points to CIA forewarnings about the Rwandan genocide as proof of failure because “no one listened.” This framing ignores the operational context and complexities outside the CIA’s direct control.
The Congo crisis and the assassination plot against Patrice Lumumba illustrate the complexity Weiner simplifies. According to reliable sources, the CIA station chief Larry Devlin was informed of a plan to poison Lumumba, allegedly authorized by President Eisenhower. However, Devlin stalled the plan, and the assassination was ultimately carried out by Belgian-backed forces. Weiner presents this as a straightforward CIA failure but disregards the nuanced geopolitical factors and internal CIA dissent. This case underscores the difficulty of scoring intelligence “success” or “failure” strictly by outcomes without understanding conflicting agency motivations and international dynamics.
| Issue | Weiner’s Portrayal | Complex Reality |
|---|---|---|
| Eisenhower’s “Legacy of Ashes” comment | Directed at CIA, signifies agency-wide failure | Related to military intelligence, dialogue fictional |
| U-2 Spyplane program | Portrayed as a failure due to reliance on technical intelligence | Successful reconnaissance asset, filled critical gaps |
| Rwanda genocide warning | Presented as CIA failure (“no one listened”) | Complex operational environment beyond CIA control |
| Lumumba assassination plot | Sign of CIA incompetence and covert ruthlessness | Plan aborted internally; assassination by Belgian allies |
Scholars widely criticize Weiner’s approach for ignoring broader academic research on intelligence history. Rigorous reviews, such as by Johnson and Jeffreys-Jones (2008), point out the book’s lack of engagement with established scholarship and its reliance on selective primary evidence. This has led to a consensus that Legacy of Ashes is not a fully reliable academic source.
The book’s narrative also glosses over the complicated intelligence environment during the Cold War. Geopolitical situations, internal agency disagreements, and the limits of intelligence capabilities are often too briefly mentioned or oversimplified. This results in some misleading conclusions about agency competence and intent.
In sum, Tim Weiner’s Legacy of Ashes provides a readable and provocative critique of the CIA. However, its assertions do not consistently reflect a faithful or nuanced interpretation of the primary sources cited. The evident bias towards casting the agency in the least charitable light reduces the book’s reliability for an objective historical understanding.
- Weiner’s “legacy of ashes” passage is fabricated and misattributed to the CIA.
- The book selectively emphasizes CIA failures, downplaying critical successes.
- Complex geopolitical contexts are oversimplified or omitted.
- Primary sources are often interpreted with a strong negative bias.
- Academic historians generally do not endorse the book as authoritative.
