The CIA’s “Simple Sabotage Field Manual” and Its Parallels to Modern U.S. Leadership
In 1944, the Office of Strategic Services (OSS)—the precursor to the CIA—published the Simple Sabotage Field Manual. This declassified document outlines subtle acts of sabotage that ordinary citizens could use to disrupt enemy operations during World War II. While written for a specific wartime context, its guidance resonates in unexpected ways today. Remarkably, I first learned about this manual from a former CIA officer, who suggested it offers a unique lens for understanding inefficiency and dysfunction in modern systems—including the U.S. government.
In examining the manual, many of its recommended tactics seem eerily familiar in the context of today’s political landscape, particularly when analyzing the actions of the current presidency. Whether intentional or a byproduct of broader systemic decay, the parallels to these sabotage tactics are striking—and unsettling.
Key Sabotage Tactics and Their Presidential Parallels
1. Bureaucratic Gridlock: The Art of Doing Nothing
The manual advises saboteurs to "insist on doing everything through 'channels,'" bogging processes down with unnecessary formalities. Under the current presidency, this dynamic is reflected in the persistent delays in appointing agency leaders, leaving critical government departments underfunded or understaffed. For example, unfilled roles in federal agencies have stymied progress on public health, environmental protections, and economic recovery.
By leaving agencies in limbo or focusing on symbolic actions rather than practical governance, the administration mirrors the very inefficiency described in the manual. The result is a government that feels paralyzed, even when facing crises requiring swift action.
2. Mismanagement of Decision-Making: The Power of Chaos
The Simple Sabotage Field Manual recommends creating confusion by "haggling over precise wordings" and prioritizing irrelevant debates. This tactic parallels what some observers have described as the administration’s inconsistent messaging and conflicting priorities. For example, contradictory statements from leadership on issues like foreign policy, economic strategy, or public health during the pandemic have not only slowed progress but also created confusion and mistrust among citizens and allies alike.
This approach—whether by design or default—often shifts focus away from substantive action. Instead, energy is diverted to managing the fallout from missteps, internal contradictions, or high-profile distractions.
3. Obstructionist Behavior: Endless Meetings Without Resolution
The manual advises sabotaging progress by turning meetings into exercises in futility, raising irrelevant points, or prolonging discussions unnecessarily. A similar dynamic can be observed in legislative negotiations, where the presidency's lack of clear direction has often led to protracted debates over issues like government shutdowns, infrastructure bills, and debt ceilings.
Instead of fostering efficient decision-making, the administration's approach often emphasizes confrontation over collaboration. Publicly undermining opponents or even members of their own party in these negotiations has resulted in gridlock that feels orchestrated to stall rather than solve.
4. Overloading Systems: Creating Crises
The manual suggests overloading systems as a means of disruption—flooding communications or causing procedural bottlenecks. The modern equivalent might be the administration’s use of executive orders and policy reversals, which critics argue create instability. Policies introduced without sufficient consultation or strategic planning, followed by abrupt reversals, overload both administrative systems and public trust.
For example, controversial decisions on immigration policy, international agreements, or economic sanctions often appear rushed, sparking legal challenges and creating a cycle of uncertainty. This dynamic mirrors the manual’s advice to overwhelm systems to undermine their effectiveness.
5. Eroding Trust: Division as Sabotage
Finally, the manual highlights spreading distrust and discord among colleagues as a form of sabotage. In today’s context, this could be likened to the administration’s frequent attacks on public institutions, the media, and even members of its own government. Publicly undermining the legitimacy of elections, judicial rulings, or scientific expertise has fueled polarization and weakened institutional trust.
This erosion of trust is perhaps the most significant parallel. The manual’s goal was to destabilize the enemy’s cohesion—and similar effects are evident when divisive rhetoric creates fractures in society, eroding confidence in democratic processes.
Sabotage or Strategy?
While the Simple Sabotage Field Manual was designed for wartime subversion, its tactics can arise unintentionally when poor leadership and systemic dysfunction combine. However, the parallels to the manual’s advice raise uncomfortable questions: Are these behaviors accidental, or do they reflect a deliberate strategy to sow chaos for political advantage?
Hearing about this manual from a former CIA officer underscores how relevant its principles remain. As the officer suggested, understanding these tactics offers a framework for identifying and addressing systemic dysfunction, whether it arises from incompetence, mismanagement, or more nefarious motives.
What Can Be Done?
The solution lies in countering these dynamics with transparency, efficiency, and collaboration. Citizens must demand accountability from leaders, ensuring they prioritize functionality over spectacle. Similarly, rebuilding trust in institutions through consistent, clear communication is essential for long-term stability.
The Simple Sabotage Field Manual serves as both a historical artifact and a cautionary tale. By recognizing its tactics in today’s leadership, Americans can better understand the forces undermining progress—and work to restore a sense of unity and purpose.