Well, yes and no (and if you can churn all that out when pushed for time, then I say well done ;)
But the problem is not that secret tomfoolery goes on or not. It does. I never have any doubt there's wheels within wheels turning and trying to work every situation for some advantage, or (perhaps more importantly) perceived advantage. But Russia, half the Middle East, most of South America, slabs of Africa and a few choice places in Asia virtually run on a semi informed myth that the reason their country isn't doing as well as it should is because of US/CIA meddling. This has been the platform for power of many a dictatorship and totalitarian regime. That's their 'narrative'. By your standards this is a more sophisticated narrative than that of the average Westerner. In most cases it's based somewhat in fact too, if only solidly confirmed decades later. It doesn't make it any less of an ironic sort of comforting myth. Something that forgives all kinds of bad behaviour and poor management as well as a strong persecution complex that serves the aforementioned just as well. But the CIA is a human institution, staffed by people, which does human things to other humans. In many systems where people are trying to actively oppose these actions too (including the government that gives it its money). And then it tries to do them without anyone knowing about it. Those facts alone mean we know its effectiveness is diffuse and limited most of the time.
That's what my knowledge and experience of people, especially organised into institutions, tells me.
So to me, even a base assumption that "the CIA is involved", as reasonable as that might be given the record, with no detail as to how or what they actually did or are doing, is of little practical use and at worst merely fosters that sort of paranoid mysticism about secret services and geopolitics. Something which I think has genuinely negative consequences. I expect it is unwitting, but without hard information that's what happens. As a fallback assumption, even at its most reasonable, it renders knowledge itself on any situation effectively unknowable (yet often posits this as the intellectually superior option. I'm pretty sure this is not your intent but I'm sure we've all met enough people whose startling clarity of not knowing what's really going on is somehow knowing what's really going on).
Personally I think that's at least one reason simpler narratives hold sway; not because people are too dumb or who never heard of this stuff (although those things play a part). But because an almost predictive history based set of assumptions like that leaves you with very little besides great lurking behind the scenes forces of unknowable influence and motivation. Some people love that stuff and can't get enough, of course. But I think by and large our culture prefers to stick to stuff that is pinned down, or at least seems pinned down (The grandest secret histories and conspiracy theories are enourmously detailed. None of it, or very little, has any factual basis. It's the detail that sells it). So where outright lies and excessive vagaries will still potentially get you into trouble, we have a press and public that likes a good solid angle. And if Hersh wants to tell us it was all the CIAs doing five years later, well that's fine too.
Edited by Muzman - 7/13/15 at 4:18am