Willard Hardman asks how I know if intelligence agencies have achieved their goals. The original question, of course, was how the agencies did in achieving national goals, and then the matter becomes one of who defines national goals. Histories, Biographies, Government Reports, Memoirs, Documents, Congressional Testimony, Interviews for television documentaries and other media, etc. I assume that if CIA keeps its promises in its Historical Review Program, we will have even more opportunities to test the validity of our evaluations. Of course, more information may alter THAT judgement, too, just as it may alter more negative ones.
Secrecy cuts both ways.
Focusing more on quality intelligence, not allowing evaluations to be distorted by covert action priorities, would benefit from much stricter limits on covert actions. Based on international law, it is more likely a criminal act. Are there that many people who honestly believe that it was a good thing for Chile's historic democracy, whoever it elected, to be replaced by the brutal Pinochet dictatorship. And no, not the Cuban people who collaborated with a foreign government to fight their own people. I would say the primary mission of a good intelligence agency is to provide decision-makers with the best possible information, allowing them as many policy options as the situation permits.