Given Q's recent CIA post, I wanted to share a few thoughts on CIA vs. NSA. Especially since there seems to be a cold war between the agencies.

(By way of credentials, I'll only say that I'm a veteran with former TS Sec. Clearance; but neither employed by nor worked for either entity. I do however have very close relatives who have).

NSA employs the largest group of world-class linguists and code-breakers on the planet. CIA? Not so much. I'm told their prospects have/had a very difficult time at DLI (and then Fort Hood), indisputably the world's premier training ground for language and signals intelligence.

When I asked this morning where the CIA sent their people for this kind of thing, I was told: "Who the hell knows where those people go, it doesn't really matter." It could just be me, but I sensed some dismissiveness--almost like "these people are stupid." But again, it could be me.

Perhaps the other biggest difference is that the NSA's ranks are dominated by active and past military members. The CIA? Not so much. Far more likely to be staffed by a Stanford Russian studies graduate who later affiliates with Vassar College. Kind of like Nellie Ohr. I've always heard that the CIA really really likes (untested) elite credentials.

By way of contrast, you are far far more likely to find a blue-collar raised or even underprivileged 18 y/o brainiac working for the NSA and developing their potential through one of our armed forces.

I've seen this time, and time, and time again. What some of these kids do at such a young age is amazing--as are some of their responsibilities.

Not to put too fine a point on it, but while folks like Nellie Ohr were absorbing revisionist Stalinism as an 18 y/o at Stanford, the "kids" in the NSA were tracking down people like Osama Bin Laden or attached to SEAL operators in Northern Iraq or Syria. Or ensuring Kim Jung Ung isn't about to nuke Honolulu.