The Sisterhood

Description

A New York Times Book Review Editors’ Choice • The acclaimed author of Code Girls returns with a “rip-roaring” (Steve Coll), “staggeringly well-researched” (The New York Times) history of three generations at the CIA, “electric with revelations” (Booklist) about the women who fought to become operatives, transformed spycraft, and tracked down Osama bin Laden.

“This masterful book cements Liza Mundy as one of our foremost historians.”—Kate Moore, bestselling author of The Radium Girls

A FOREIGN POLICY AND SMITHSONIAN BEST BOOK OF THE YEAR

Created in the aftermath of World War II, the Central Intelligence Agency relied on women even as it attempted to channel their talents and keep them down. Women sent cables, made dead drops, and maintained the agency’s secrets. Despite discrimination—even because of it—women who started as clerks, secretaries, or unpaid spouses rose to become some of the CIA’s shrewdest operatives.

They were unlikely spies—and that’s exactly what made them perfect for the role. Because women were seen as unimportant, pioneering female intelligence officers moved unnoticed around Bonn, Geneva, and Moscow, stealing secrets from under the noses of their KGB adversaries. Back at headquarters, women built the CIA’s critical archives—first by hand, then by computer. And they noticed things that the men at the top didn’t see. As the CIA faced an identity crisis after the Cold War, it was a close-knit network of female analysts who spotted the rising threat of al-Qaeda—though their warnings were repeatedly brushed aside.

After the 9/11 attacks, more women joined the agency as a new job, targeter, came to prominence. They showed that data analysis would be crucial to the post-9/11 national security landscape—an effort that culminated spectacularly in the CIA’s successful effort to track down bin Laden in his Pakistani compound.

Propelled by the same meticulous reporting and vivid storytelling that infused Code Girls, The Sisterhood offers a riveting new perspective on history, revealing how women at the CIA ushered in the modern intelligence age, and how their silencing made the world more dangerous.“[The Sisterhood] touched me in ways I did not expect. . . . [A] deeply researched and highly readable book . . . Compelling.”—Valerie Plame, Foreign Policy

“A rip-roaring read about spycraft and the CIA’s inner workings . . . an inspiring group portrait of extraordinary CIA women whose careers are multisided profiles in courage.”—Steve Coll, Pulitzer Prize–winning author of Ghost Wars

“An indispensable history, untold until now, The Sisterhood has stellar reporting, sparkling writing, and shocking revelations of power struggles inside the world’s most famous secret intelligence service.”—Tim Weiner, National Book Award–winning author of Legacy of Ashes

“A must-read for anyone interested in national security, secrets, and the CIA.”—Annie Jacobsen, bestselling author of Surprise, Kill, Vanish

“Liza Mundy is a prodigious reporter and a wonderful writer who has uncovered the stories of the female spies and analysts who helped make the CIA what it is today. The Sisterhood is the extraordinary, hitherto untold story of those women.”—Peter Bergen, bestselling author of The Rise and Fall of Osama bin Laden

“With painstaking research, an award-winning journalist reveals the crucial roles undertaken by women in the intelligence arena. . . . The result is a vivid, compelling, and important book. Another winner from Mundy, who tells a story that deserves to be told about women who deserve to be remembered.”—Kirkus Reviews (starred review)

“Galvanizing . . . Brimming with startling, intriguing, and infuriating facts and insights, this arresting and suspenseful exposé is rooted in extensive interviews and research as exacting as that conducted by the brilliant women analysts Mundy profiles. . . . Every page is electric with revelations as Mundy vividly and perceptively portrays the remarkable women who covertly elevated this complicated, controversial, yet essential government agency.”—Booklist (starred review)Liza Mundy is an award-winning journalist and the New York Times bestselling author of four books, including Code Girls. A former staff writer for The Washington Post, Mundy writes for The Atlantic, Politico, and Smithsonian Magazine, among other publications.1. The Sisterhood captures the experiences of three overlapping generations of women at the CIA. Which figures featured in The Sisterhood stood out most to you? What about their stories resonated?

2. How would you describe the attitudes and opportunities women experienced during each of these three generations? Put differently, what were the key differences in the experiences of Eloise Page, Lisa Harper, and Molly Chambers?

3. Mundy presents various examples of women conducting excellent spycraft, where being a woman is turned to the spy’s advantage. What instances do you remember from the book? What unique qualities or perspectives might women possess that might make them good spies?

4. Mundy also includes many examples of women in the CIA being treated with disrespect, held back from advancing in their career, or being dismissed altogether. What do we as a society lose when institutionalized sexism—or other forms of discrimination—prevents some people from getting a seat at the table? How might the CIA have been a different place?

5. A number of women in the book are shown to have made unique sacrifices—foregoing marriage and families, for example—in order to pursue their careers as operatives in the field. Do you feel that such sacrifices are “par for the course” in this unusual field, or could the CIA have done more to allow all their employees to work without making such sacrifices in their personal lives?

6. How did some of the male figures discussed in the book inform or influence the culture of the CIA? Which men in the book stood out to you as being particularly antagonistic or supportive in their relationships with women?

7. As Mundy shows, sex has always been present among CIA employees—instances of misconduct and consensual affairs alike, whether in the workplace or between agents and assets. Do you think the intelligence field differs from other industries in this regard?

8. The book gives a new perspective on 9/11, notably its provocative exploration of the experiences of the women analysts of Alec Station—specifically regarding their warnings about al-Qaeda not being taken seriously—in the years leading up to the terrorist attacks. What stood out to you most? Why do you think things played out as they did?

9. In your reading, did The Sisterhood celebrate or challenge your sense of patriotism? How so?

10. If you worked at the CIA, would you rather be an operative or an analyst? Why?Chapter 1

Station W

Washington, DC

Winter 1944

In the uncertain winter of late 1944, with the end of war close yet frustratingly distant, a stream of well-dressed men and women filed through the front door of a “drab brownstone building” in downtown Washington, DC. They arrived between eight-fifteen and eight-thirty every morning except Sunday. Before the war, the brownstone had been an ordinary home, but not any longer. The nation’s capital had exploded in population over the past two years, as American citizens, foreign officials, and soldiers arrived to serve the war effort. Every available piece of real estate had been snapped up. Barracks-like temporary buildings dotted the capital’s green spaces: there were Quonset huts near the Reflecting Pool, even a government office in an old roller-skating rink. Near the Mall, members of America’s diplomatic and military corps labored in hulking, drafty offices through which messenger boys rode on bicycles. On E Street, in Foggy Bottom, on an elevated patch of land near the Christian Heurich Brewing Company, another ragged cluster of buildings was shaping up as the heart of the country’s espionage establishment.

The brownstone was unmarked—anonymous by design. Bundled against the winter weather, each person entering the building arrived bearing a unique paper card. Inscribed on the small card was a false name, the letter W, and a number. Each day’s group consisted of about eighteen applicants, their arrival times staggered so they could be processed one by one. Most had no idea what lay in store, but they knew why they had come. They sought employment in a new wartime agency: the Office of Strategic Services. They were applying to be spies.

Depending on who—if anyone—had briefed them, applicants might have been told to expect a series of tests, during a day that would be “interesting and profitable as well as strenuous.” Upon arrival, they were told to present their cards to the “clerk on duty.” Yet even that simple instruction was itself a test. At desks inside the foyer sat two officials, neither of whom made any effort to greet newcomers warmly, or at all. They sat silent, waiting for the applicant to make the first move. “Here was a difficult situation,” as a report later noted. Some applicants were put off; some were flustered; some became “aggressive and sarcastic.” All reactions were noted. If a person asked a reasonable question, such as “Is this the right place?” the question would be “challenged immediately” to throw the asker off guard.

After the candidate managed to present the card, the intake officers introduced themselves. One was a psychiatrist, the other an assistant. They would be today’s examiners.

Male applicants were directed to the basement, to change into Army fatigues. The aim was to make each man appear equal before his peers, so nothing would be known of his job, his social class, his military rank, his role in what might be called real life. He would come before the group naked, as it were, shorn of insignia or “ego support.” He must try to prove his ability to work with others and his capacity for leadership, if he had any.

Women were taken to another room to remove coats and hats. Since the women were, well, women, no further equalization was thought to be needed.

Applicants received a purple-inked sheet of instructions, fragrant from the ditto machine, and learned they would be graded on comprehension. The instructions were intentionally vague: The psychiatrists wanted to see how recruits reacted to confusion. Some read quickly; others read, hesitated, reread.

The instructions told applicants they’d been called there to assess their assets and liabilities for confidential spy work. They had been instructed to develop a cover story—a fake identity they could sustain. They were to reveal nothing about their real lives, apart from what they wrote on a personal history form that would be seen only by the examiners.

The applicants moved on to room 41, which had been turned into a classroom. Here they found desks, pencils, and copies of a questionnaire. They were given one hour to complete it. Questions included their parents’ names and places of birth; their family’s politics and religion; whether they had siblings and what were their ages. Then the questions became more probing. Which parent did you feel closer to at various ages? Which parent wielded the discipline in the house? Do you often think of your father? If so, is it with affection or resentment?

Applicants answered questions about past marriages, illnesses, and foreign travel. Did they drink alcohol? Had they ever been sued? The questions invited self-reflection or even stoked potential emotional vulnerability.

If you came into a large fortune, what would you do with the money?

What embarrasses you?

What did you lack most as a child?

After one hour, a staff member called stop, explaining that “the rest of the morning would be tight and the tempo fast.” They moved on to a health form—Did they suffer dizziness? bad dreams? headaches?—then a “work conditions” survey in which they were asked how they felt about work that involved danger; lots of parties; a hot, humid climate; responsibility; initiative; monotony; “working in close relations with Negros”; “working in close relations with Orientals”; working “exclusively with women”; or “seeing only men for long periods of time.” Did they mind dirt? What if they were sent to a region with a lot of malaria, syphilis, alcoholism? Applicants were being considered for work in the global war theater, an array of overseas locations in which one fact held certain: something, probably many things, would go wrong.

After forty-five minutes, a staff member greeted the test takers. This was the security talk. At no time should they reveal their real name. If they recognized another person present, they should not let on.

In the afternoon, they would gather for a group discussion. The first task was to select a problem the United States was likely to face after the war, then arrive at a solution and plan of action. The point was to sort leaders from followers, listeners from talkers. Each part of the day was a test, including breaks.

“Lunch will be served in room 21 at about twelve forty-five p.m.,” the staffer told them. “It will probably be announced by the cook shouting, ‘Let’s go back!’ ” The official explained: “We have tried to get her to say something more intelligible, but we have better success if we simply tell each class of students what this strange phrase means and let it go at that.” They were observed, to see how they reacted to weird behavior.

“You’re going to be kept pretty busy today, but you will have occasional brief breaks,” the staff member continued. “During these periods we urge you to go to room 31, in which you will find a ping-pong table, some cards, a checkerboard, and some other small recreational equipment. This is your room and you are encouraged to go to it for visiting, rest, and relaxation.”

At lunch, the staff noted how people interacted. “Some were uncommunicative and ill at ease,” the report noted. “Others found it difficult to talk of anything other than their experiences of the morning. Some competed constantly for the staff members’ attention, snubbing or interrupting their fellows.”

During breaks—while playing ping-pong or darts—they were observed even more closely. Were they competitive? Friendly? Shy? Aggressive? How did they function in a group? Were they—as instructed—observing one another even as they were being observed?

The need for a formal US intelligence service had become clear even before America entered World War II. In May 1940, Germany swept through Belgium and marched into France, where more than three hundred thousand British and French troops found themselves stranded at the port of Dunkirk. England sent fishing boats, ferries, and every other manner of watercraft to rescue them, evacuating close to 340,000 troops—more than one-third of them French—but only after taking disastrous casualties. Heavy equipment, now under Hitler’s control, was left behind. Amid the ensuing months of blitzkrieg and occupation, England stood vulnerable and alone. President Franklin Roosevelt needed to know two things above all: Could Britain stand? And, if the United States entered the war, did America have what it needed to win? To the first question, US ambassador Joseph Kennedy, reporting from London, predicted England would be defeated by the Germans.US

Additional information

Dimensions	2.0000 × 6.4000 × 9.5000 in
Imprint	Crown
Format	General Trade
ISBN-13	09780593238172
ISBN-10	0593238176
Author	Liza Mundy
Audience	General / adult
BISAC	POL036000, HIS058000
Subjects	Al Qaeda, Cold War, feminist book, feminist gifts, us history, espionage books, kgb, Spymaster, feminist books, gifts for history buffs, government, cia books, data analyst, sister hood, sisterhood books, sisterhood book, the sisterhood, glass ceiling, intelligence agency, spy master, intelligence, womens history month, feminism, female empowerment, american history, HIS058000, discrimination, POL036000, spy, Sisters, sister, patriarchy, womens history, women's history, CIA, espionage, sisterhood, strong women, women in history, historical figures, 9/11